Child Indicators Research (2020) 13:1085–1105

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-09660-4

Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions

of Fathers’ Job Support, Mothers’ Coparenting,
Fathers’ Authoritative Parenting and Child’s Theory
of Mind

Eva Yi Hung Lau 1 & Jian-Bin Li 1

Accepted: 30 June 2019 / Published online: 4 July 2019

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
This study analyzed how and to what degree fathers’ job support and mothers’
co-parenting affect the manifestation of physical aggression in children. It also
investigated the possible mediating roles of fathers’ authoritative parenting and
child’s theory of mind (ToM). The participants were 324 Hong Kong Chinese
children (168 girls; M = 70.39 months) and their parents. While the mothers
were asked to rate their child’s physical aggression, the fathers were asked to
complete questionnaires about how authoritative their parenting behaviors were,
their spouse’s co-parenting behaviors, as well as the support they felt they were
receiving from work. Research assistants also conducted individual interviews
with all children to assess their ToM. Our results showed that although the
direct influence of fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting did not have
a significant effect on child aggression, the chain mediation effects of “fathers’
job support (Model 1)/Mothers’ co-parenting (Model 2) → fathers’ authoritative
parenting → child ToM → child’s physical aggression” were significant. These
findings suggest that child’s aggression is sequentially shaped by contextual,
process, and individual factors.

Keywords Job support . Co-parenting . Authoritative parenting . Theory of mind .

Aggression

* Jian-Bin Li
lijianbin@eduhk.hk
Eva Yi Hung Lau
evalau@eduhk.hk

1
Department of Early Childhood Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10, Lo Ping
Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong
1086 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

1 Background

Aggressive behavior, such as deliberate harm or the threat of damage or pain, is one of
the most common types of behavioral problem in peer relationships during preschool
years (Furniss et al. 2006; Ladd and Burgess 2001). Aggressive children exhibit high
levels of psychological distress, low levels of prosocial behavior, and high levels of
peer rejection (Card et al. 2008). Longitudinal investigations have also demonstrated
that childhood aggression is a strong behavioral predictor and indicator of future
adjustment difficulties (Coie et al. 1990; Kokko and Pulkkinen 2005). The year before
primary school is particularly crucial to children’s long-term development (Heckman
2006; Kawabata et al. 2011; Raby et al. 2015). Children who adjust poorly in these
early years tend to have less successful developmental trajectories. They are more
likely to dislike school, have academic difficulties, and manifest antisocial behavior.
They may even drop out entirely (Gutman et al. 2003). As preschoolers are more open
to parental influence than older children (Nelson et al. 2013), we feel that more research
is needed into the antecedents of young children’s aggression. One of the major areas of
this research has been parenting. Parents of young children may experience consider-
able difficulties as they face repeated crises due to the expected and unexpected
demands of parenting and caring for children. This has serious implications for
children’s development and deserves further attention.
Although much has been learned from studies of mothers’ parenting and children’s
aggression, less is known about the precise role of fathers in the development of such
aggression, particularly in non-Western cultures. While the role of the father is gener-
ally perceived as secondary to that of the mother (Brown et al. 2011), a positive father-
child relationship is consistently associated with healthy cognitive, social and emotion-
al development of the child (Cabrera et al. 2007; McBride et al. 2005). In recent years,
researchers have increasingly realized the importance of the fathers’ role in children’s
lives. Accordingly, they have increasingly emphasized looking for ways to support
fathers in that role (Lamb 1987; Marsiglio et al. 2000; Pedro et al. 2012). As families in
China have undergone numerous changes in recent years, including an increase in
maternal employment as well as the movement away from extended families and
towards the nuclear family unit, fathers are becoming more involved in child rearing
(McHale et al. 2000b). These changes make investigation of the contextual influence
on fathers’ parenting in modern Chinese families essential. Moreover, neither the
underlying mechanism of the relation between fathers’ parenting and child aggression
nor the contextual factors that affect fathers’ parenting have been examined. This study
endeavors to investigate the influence of authoritative parenting by fathers on children’s
aggression using a Hong Kong Chinese sample, taking both contextual factors (i.e.,
support from fathers’ workplace and mothers’ co-parenting) and child’s individual
properties (i.e., theory of mind) into consideration.

2 Theoretical Frameworks

We used Bronfenbrenner’s work (Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1979, 2005; Bronfenbrenner

and Crouter 1983; Bronfenbrenner and Morris 1998) as the overall theoretical
frameworks.
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1087

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) ecological system theory of human development

posits that one’s development is shaped by multiple nested environmental systems.
Three systems are particularly relevant to this study. First, the microsystem, the
environmental system that is the inner circle of the theory, is defined as “the complex
of relations between the developing person and environment in an immediate setting
containing that person” (Bronfenbrenner 1977, p. 514), such as home and school. This
system has direct and proximal influence on the development of the child. Second, the
mesosystem, an outer system of the microsystem, consists of “the interrelations among
major settings containing the developing person at a particular point in his or her life”
(Bronfenbrenner 1977, p. 515), such as the interactions between and within family,
school, and peer groups. This system, as it contains the developing child within it, may
directly impact that development. It may also affect the child’s development by fueling
one of the microsystems that comprise the mesosystem. For instance, close home-
school collaboration may strengthen the home-related variables (e.g., positive parent-
ing) in the child’s development. Third, the exosystem, an outer system of the
mesosystem, refers to “an extension of the mesosystem embracing other specific social
structures, both formal and informal, that do not themselves contain the developing
person but impinge upon or encompass the immediate settings in which that person is
found, and thereby influence, delimit, or even determine what goes on there”
(Bronfenbrenner 1977, p. 515). This may include such factors as the parents’ work-
places. While this system does not directly affect the child’s development, it does
indirectly influence the immediate settings that contain the child, namely the
microsystem. These systems are not independent but nested within each other, in such
a way that the exosystem and the mesosystem may affect the child’s development via
influencing the microsystem.
Later, Bronfenbrenner renamed the ecological system theory the “bioecological
theory of human development” to highlight the importance of the role of the developing
person in the processes of development, an area that had been largely overlooked in the
years since the early version of the ecological system theory was published
(Bronfenbrenner 2001, 2005; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994). This updated theory
emphasizes the significant role that the physical and psychological properties of the
developing person play in his/her developmental course. It proposes a “context-pro-
cess-person-time” model to further encompass the idea that one’s developmental
outcomes are a function of individual properties, developmental process, and contex-
tual variations and time. For example, in research into adolescent adjustment outcomes,
scholars examine this issue by highlighting the joint contributions of the family’s
socioeconomic status (context), variation in parents’ rearing strategies such as rule-
setting (process), and children’s belief in parents’ legitimate authority to control their
lives (person) (for details, see Darling 2007). In another example, Bronfenbrenner and
Ceci (1994, p. 574) used a prior study to support their bioecological model, such that
children’s problem behaviors are jointly shaped by family SES (context), mother-infant
interaction (process), and age (time).
In sum, Bronfenbrenner’s early and later work suggests that the individual’s devel-
opmental outcomes depend on multiple ecological systems and the active role of the
developing person. Although Bronfenbrenner considers “context-process-person-time”
model in a moderation pattern (i.e., context * process * person * time), his early work
on the multiple ecological system somehow implies a mediation pattern (e.g.,
1088 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

exosystem → microsystem → child’s development). In the current study, we combined

elements of the two frameworks, investigating two mediation models to disclose how
contextual factors (i.e., fathers’ job support / mothers’ co-parenting) influence chil-
dren’s physical aggression through process (i.e., fathers’ authoritative parenting) and
person (i.e., child’s theory of mind) factors. Additionally, the co-parenting of mothers,
although it can be seen as a mesosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory
(Choi and Becher 2018; Dyer et al. 2017), is to us a contextual factor in the “context-
process-person-time” model, an external environment that supports fathers’ parenting
process at home. For this reason, we treat fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-
parenting as contextual factors in this study.

3 The Contribution of Authoritative Parenting and Theory of Mind

to child’s Aggression

Aggression in children is a typical externalizing problem (Achenbach 1991) and

a primary indicator of social-emotional incompetence (Denham et al. 2003). A
number of factors shape the development of such aggression, and, within the
home context, authoritative parenting style is one of those factors. Authoritative
parenting, a parenting style with high warmth and moderate discipline (Darling
and Steinberg 1993), may reduce a child’s aggression. Authoritative parents are
responsive to their children’s emotional needs but have clear standards for their
conduct. They nurture their children to be socially responsible and self-regulated
(Baumrind 1991). Good self-regulation has been shown to be a robust factor that
protects individuals from developing aggressive impulses and engaging in ag-
gressive behavior (Denson et al. 2012). Authoritative parents do not avoid their
children’s emotional and behavioral problems, emphasize empathic goals in the
processes of socialization, and often use problem solving strategies to teach
children to regulate negative emotion and undesirable tendencies that may result
in aggression (Coplan et al. 2002; Roberts 1999). A number of studies support
the idea that high levels of authoritative parenting by fathers are related to less
aggression in children (Chen et al. 1997; Coplan et al. 2002; Roberts 1999).
The influence of authoritative parenting on the child’s aggression may also
occur through its influence on the child’s theory of mind, one’s ability to
represent others’ thoughts, beliefs, intentions and knowledge (James and Blair,
2003). Parenting styles are crucial in shaping the child’s theory of mind.
Authoritative parents encourage children to voice and reflect their opinions,
and question different perspectives of the world, while negotiating family rules
together. This is helpful in helping children develop their own opinions and
understand the mental states of others (O’Reilly and Peterson, 2014). While
some studies have examined the relationship between authoritative parenting
and children’s theory of mind, the findings are highly inconsistent: some reveal
a significant association between these two concepts (O’Reilly and Peterson
2014) while others do not (Kuntoro et al. 2017; Vinden 2001). Worse still, the
existing literature focuses mainly on mothers’ authoritative parenting, and little
is known about the role of fathers’ authoritative parenting in children’s theory
of mind, especially in the Hong Kong context. A further examination of this
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1089

issue that associates fathers’ authoritative parenting and children’s theory of

mind is important.
Children’s theory of mind becomes more advanced as they grow (Wellman 1990)
and increases in the theory of mind help reduce aggressive behavior. First, Happé and
Frith (1996) considered that children with externalizing problems (e.g., aggression) are
likely to have experienced delays in acquiring theory of mind and tend to attribute
malicious intent to the minds of others. Second, the theory of mind refers to one’s
internal ability to process social information and understand others’ minds. In this
process, children with high levels of theory of mind tend to interpret others’ intention
correctly and behave accordingly (Martin 2010). Good social understanding is related
to positive peer interaction in young children (Watson et al. 1999) while disruptive
children show a delay in developing that theory of mind (Hughes and Ensor 2006). Past
studies have supported the idea that good theory of mind performance is negatively
related to physical aggression in preschool children (Olson et al. 2011; O'Toole et al.
2017; Renouf et al. 2010a; Sutton et al. 1999; Werner et al. 2006), with few exceptions
(Renouf et al. 2010b).
Taken together, these studies suggest that authoritative parenting is important in
shaping children’s aggressive behavior and that the child’s theory of mind seems to link
this association: authoritative parenting provides an optimal environment in which the
child’s theory of mind can develop, which helps the child better understand social
information (e.g., others’ mind states) and renders him or her less likely show aggres-
sive behavior. This reflects the roles of process (i.e., fathers’ authoritative parenting)
and person (i.e., child’s theory of mind) factors in affecting child’s aggressive behavior.

4 The Contribution of Co-Parenting Support and Job Support

to Authoritative Parenting

There is much research demonstrating the contribution of the co-parenting relationship to

parenting behavior and parent-child relationships (Caldera and Lindsey 2006;
Feinberget al. 2007; Margolin et al. 2001; McHale et al. 2000a; Zemp et al. 2018). In
speaking of co-parenting we are addressing the extent to which, and the ways in which,
mothers and fathers coordinate their parenting. This includes how effectively they resolve
conflicts regarding parenting styles and values (Feinberg 2003). In a positive co-parenting
relationship, partners do not undermine one another but support and value respect each
other’s contributions, decisions, and authority (Arendell 1996; McHale and Lindahl
2011). Co-parental support is believed to promote parents’ wellbeing and knowledge
about their child, which increases the likelihood of them engaging in higher quality
activities and being more responsive to their children in interactions. This in turn
facilitates the child’s positive development (McHale,1995). As with the effect of co-
parenting on mothers’ parenting, fathers in a more cooperative co-parenting relationship
spend more time interacting with their young children and have a higher number of
positive father-child interactions (Matta and Knudson-Martin 2006; McHale et al. 2004;
McBride and Rane 1998). Together, these studies suggest that the quality of co-parenting
may be especially important for fathers’ parenting behaviors.
Parental employment and child development are often linked. (e.g., Buehler, O'Brien
et al. 2014; Chang 2013; Cooklin et al. 2015). Work-related experience can create
1090 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

differences in parenting behavior. As women have long been perceived as responsible

for the domestic sphere and child raising, much of the research so far into whether
employment affects parenting practices has focused on mothers (Coley et al. 2007;
Drake et al. 2007; Dunifonet al. 2003). Although there is much less research on the
effect of the fathers’ workplace, some studies suggest a family-positive or supportive
workplace facilitates fathers’ authoritative parenting, characterized by high responsive-
ness and reasonable demands, which we believe to be a predictor for positive childhood
outcomes. Particularly, work-family enrichment theory (Barnett and Baruch 1985;
Barnett and Gareis 2006; Barnett and Hyde 2001) posits that working fathers are more
likely to engage in quality activities with their children, and be more responsive to
them, when their work-related experiences are positive (Cooklin et al. 2015; Culbertson
et al. 2012; Lawson et al 2014; Perry-Jenkins et al 2000). Employment also offers the
family more resources and a wider range of positive experiences. Apart from reducing
financial stress, it can enhance family members’ social capital and sense of satisfaction
with life. It can also help them to maintain a complex, differentiated view of the self
because of the different roles they maintain at work and improve their ability to solve
problems (Barnett and Hyde 2001; Cooklin et al. 2015; Perry-Jenkins et al. 2013).
The extant literature suggests that fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting are
important contextual influences on fathers’ authoritative parenting. The support that
fathers receive from work and from their co-parent facilitates their use of authoritative
parenting strategies. The findings reflect the importance of context factors, in addition
to process and person factors, in affecting child aggression.

5 The Present Study

The present study used a Hong Kong Chinese sample to examine: (1) the influence of
fathers’ job support (Model 1)/ mothers’ co-parenting support (Model 2) on fathers’
authoritative parenting (the first mediator), (2) the effect of fathers’ authoritative
parenting on child’s theory of mind (the second mediator), and (3) the influences of
fathers’ job support/ mothers’ co-parenting support as well as the two mediators,
namely fathers’ authoritative parenting and child’s theory of mind, on child’s physical
aggression. Based on the above literature, we assumed that the effect of fathers’ job
support/ mothers’ co-parenting on child’s physical aggression would be mediated by
fathers’ authoritative parenting and child’s theory of mind. This multi-informant study
will deepen the understanding of how fathers’ parenting affects child’s physical
aggression and inform policy about how to support fathers’ positive parenting.

6 Methods

6.1 Participants

We used stratified random sampling to recruit 10 kindergartens in each of three strata

(i.e., high, middle, and low income) based on the median monthly household income of
districts (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 2012). Teachers from a total of
24 upper kindergarten classes from 11 kindergartens (four from low-income stratum,
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1091

four from middle-income stratum, and three from high-income stratum) provided
informed consent for participation. Introductory letters were distributed to all families
in those classes. Consent was received from 324 families (out of 621).
The final sample included 324 children (168 girls; M = 70.41 months, SD =
3.93 months) and their parents (315 mothers, 307 fathers). The median age
range of the participating parents was 31 to 40 years old (70.2% of mothers,
49.7% of fathers). The parents’ median education was secondary education
(55.0% of mothers, 51.4% of fathers). The median range of monthly household
income was HK$20,001–30,000 (US$1 = HK$7.78), comparable to the median
monthly household income of Hong Kong families (HK$24,890) (Hong Kong
Census and Statistics Department 2016). As one of the models involved the
variable of paternal job support, only fathers (N = 304; 94.7% full-time) who
were enrolled in the labor force were included in the subsample for Model 1.

6.2 Procedure

The participating mothers reported on their family’s demographic characteristics and

rated their child’s physical aggression; the fathers were asked to complete question-
naires related to their own parenting behaviors, their spouse’s co-parenting behaviors,
and their perception of the support they received from work. Finally, research assistants
visited the kindergartens and conducted an interview with each participating child to
assess the child’s theory-of-mind. While each child received a sticker after completing
the task, each family received a supermarket coupon with a cash value of HK$100
(~USD12) as a token of appreciation for their participation.

6.3 Measures

The measures used in this study were translated and back-translated into Chinese
Questionnaires by two RAs who are biliterate in Chinese and English. We conducted
a pilot study to test all questionnaire items and the child interview procedure before
using them in this study.

Job Support Fathers’ social support in the workplace was assessed using the six-item
Job Support subscale of the short version Job Stress Scale (Alves et al 2004) (e.g., “The
others understand if I have a bad day.”). Each father provided a self-report rating on the
level of support received in his workplace using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree;
4 = strongly agree). The internal consistency was 0.86. All six items were averaged,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of social support received.

Spouse’s Cooperation Each father reported his spouse’s cooperation in their co-
parenting relationship using the five-item Cooperation subscale of the Co-parenting
Questionnaire (Margolin et al. 2001) (e.g., “My spouse tells me lots of things about this
child.”). The subscale was used to measure the degree of respect and support the
mothers exhibited or gave to the fathers’ parenting. Each item was rated on a 5-point
scale (1 = never; 5 = always). The internal consistency was 0.83. All five items were
averaged. Higher scores indicated higher levels of mothers’ cooperation as perceived
by fathers.
1092 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

Authoritative Parenting Fathers’ authoritative parenting was assessed using the 27-
item Authoritative Parenting subscale of the Primary Caregivers Practices Re-
port Scale (Robinson et al. 1995) (e.g., “I joke and play with my child.”). The
subscale was designed to measure the parents’ authoritative child-rearing pat-
tern, including encouragement of independence, rational guidance and expres-
sion of affection. Each father provided a self-report rating on each item using a
4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). The internal consisten-
cy was 0.95. The 27 items were averaged, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of paternal authoritative pattern.

Physical Aggression Mothers rated the children’s physical aggression using the 6-item
Physical Aggression subscale of Preschooler’s Social Behavior Scale (Cricket al 1997)
(e.g., “kicks or hits others.”). Each mother indicated the frequency to which each item
applied to her child on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 5 = always). The internal consistency
was 0.81. The six items were averaged. Higher scores indicated children were showing
higher levels of physically aggressive behaviors.

Theory of Mind Two theory of mind tasks were used in this study: false contents and
location change tasks (Wellman and Liu 2004). Children were told two short
vignettes about false contents and location change. After listening to each
vignette, the children were asked to respond to three questions, namely two
target questions and one memory question, to test their false belief competence.
Each target question carried one mark while the memory question carried zero
marks. In each task, children were required to answer the memory question
correctly to obtain the scores in the two previous target questions. They would
gain no score if they failed in the memory check even though they had
answered the two target questions correctly. There were four possible scores
for each task (0 = none passed, 4 = all passed). Higher scores indicated that the
child had a higher level of false belief competence. In the present study, the
score that children obtained ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 2.52; SD = 1.22).

False Contents Each individual child was told a vignette about a change of content
inside a crayon box. In the vignette, a crayon box was shown to the child. The child
was then told that while other children were playing outside, one child took all the
crayons out and placed some crackers in the empty crayon box. The two target
questions in this task were about contents false belief (“When the other children come
back in from playing outside, what will they think is in the crayon box?”) and own
belief (“What is really in the crayon box?”). A memory question was then asked to
check the child’s memory of the story (“Did the children who were playing outside see
the child put the crackers in the box?”).

Location Change The participating child was told a vignette involving a change in
location of the markers in the classroom. In the vignette, a child was using markers in
the classroom and placed them on a table before going to the washroom. While the
child was away, the teacher placed the markers in the cabinet. The two target questions
in this task were related to location false belief (“When the child comes back in from
the toilet, where will she look for the markers?”) and own belief (“Where are the
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1093

markers really located?”). A memory question was also asked (“Did the child see where
the teacher put the markers?”).

6.4 Data Analysis

Multiple data analyses were conducted in SPSS 18.0 in steps, with .05 as the level of
significance throughout analyses. First, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
of fathers’ job support, mothers’ co-parenting, fathers’ authoritative parenting, child’s
theory of mind, and child’s physical aggression were calculated to capture the centrality
and their relationships. Second, we conducted two mediation analyses with Hayes’
(2012) PROCESS macro (Model 6) to examine the two chain mediation Models. The
first was about “fathers’ job support → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s theory
of mind → child aggression” (Model 1) and the second was about “mothers’ co-
parenting → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s theory of mind → child
aggression” (Model 2). Fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting served as
independent variables in model 1 and 2, respectively. In both models, fathers’ author-
itative parenting and child’s theory of mind were the two sequential mediators, and
child’s physical aggression was the dependent variable. In the PROCESS macro, each
model was examined in three steps. First, the influence of the IV on the first mediator
(i.e., fathers’ authoritative parenting) was tested. Second, the effect of fathers’ author-
itative parenting on the second mediator (i.e., child’s theory of mind) was estimated.
Finally, the influences of the IV and the two mediators on the DV (i.e., child’s physical
aggression) were gauged. In each step, the child’s sex, age and family income were all
controlled as covariates. Apart from the chain mediation path mentioned above, the
results also contained two additional mediation paths, namely “fathers’ job support /
mothers’ co-parenting → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s physical aggres-
sion” and “fathers’ job support / mothers’ co-parenting → child’s theory of mind →
child aggression”. In the current study, our main interests were to examine the
sequential mediation model rather than these two additional mediation paths. Thus,
in the results we mainly discussed the path in which we were interested. Given the
advantages of bootstrapping over the traditional approach in examining mediation
models (Hayes 2009), we employed bootstrapping (N = 10,000) technique and used
its 95% confidence interval (CI) to determine whether the mediation effect was
significant. If the 95% CI does not include 0, then a significant mediation effect is
tenable.

7 Results

7.1 Descriptive and Bivariate Correlation

The means, standard deviation of fathers’ job support, mothers’ co-parenting, fathers’
authoritative parenting, the child’s theory of mind, and the child’s physical aggression
and their bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1. As shown in the table, the
child’s physical aggression was negatively related to mothers’ co-parenting (r = −.122,
p < .05) and child’s theory of mind (r = −.159, p < .01). In addition, both fathers’ job
1094 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

support (r = .375, p < .001) and mothers’ co-parenting (r = .438, p < .001) were posi-
tively related to fathers’ authoritative parenting. Moreover, the child’s theory of mind
was positively associated with both mothers’ co-parenting (r = .143, p < .05) and
fathers’ authoritative parenting (r = .137, p < .05).

7.2 The Influence of Fathers’ Job Support on child’s Physical Aggression

through Fathers’ Authoritative Parenting and child’s Theory of Mind

To examine the overall relationship between fathers’ job support, fathers’ authoritative
parenting, the child’s theory of mind and the child’s physical aggression, a chain
mediation model was conducted. The results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 and
Fig. 1.
First, we found, after controlling for demographic variables, that fathers’ job support
was positively related to fathers’ authoritative parenting, B = 0.274, p < .001. The
whole model explained the 14.61% variance in fathers’ authoritative parenting.
Second, we found that fathers’ authoritative parenting had a direct influence on the
child’s theory of mind even after controlling for demographic variables and fathers’ job
support, B = 0.532, p = .010. This model accounted for 5.79% variance in the child’s
theory of mind.
Third, when the IV and the two mediators were entered in the final model with the
child’s physical aggression as outcome, the whole model explained 3.66% variance of
the child’s physical aggression. In this model, the only significant predictor of the
child’s physical aggression was his or her theory of mind, B = −0.060, p = .006.
Finally, apart from the relationship of each pair of variables, the results further
showed that although the influence of fathers’ job support on the child’s aggression was
not significantly mediated by fathers’ authoritative parenting or by the child’s theory of
mind, the chain mediation effect “fathers’ job support → fathers’ authoritative parent-
ing → child’s theory of mind → child’s physical aggression” was significant, B =
−0.0087, 95% Bootstrapping CI = [−0.0278, −0.0012]. These findings suggest that
fathers’ job support might influence the child’s aggression indirectly and sequentially
through fathers’ authoritative parenting and the child’s theory of mind.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation (N = 292–315)

M SD α 1 2 3 4 5

1. Fathers’ job support a 3.06 0.49 .86 –

2. Mothers’ co-parenting 3.80 0.71 .83 .267*** –
3. Fathers’ authoritative parenting 3.28 0.37 .95 .375*** .438*** –
4. Child’s theory of mind 2.53 1.22 – .061 .143* .137* –
5. Child’s physical aggression 1.29 0.45 .81 −.023 −.122* −.045 −.159** –

a The statistics of fathers’ job support were based on the dataset excluding unemployed fathers and those who

working status was unknown

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1095

Table 2 The influence of fathers’ job support, fathers’ authoritative parenting, child’s theory of mind on
child’s physical aggression (N = 286)

Outcome Path B S.E. p

Fathers’ authoritative Child’s sex → Fathers’ authoritative parenting −0.009 0.041 .835
parenting
R2 = 14.61% Child’s age → Fathers’ authoritative parenting −0.003 0.005 .518
Family’s income → Fathers’ authoritative parenting 0.019 0.013 .151
Fathers’ job support → Fathers’ authoritative 0.274 0.042 < .001
parenting
Child’s theory of mind Child’s sex → Child’s theory of mind −0.405 0.142 0.005
R2 = 5.79% Child’s age → Child’s theory of mind 0.015 0.018 .402
Family’s income → Child’s theory of mind −0.008 0.045 .870
Fathers’ job support → Child’s theory of mind 0.048 0.156 .757
Fathers’ authoritative parenting → Child’s 0.532 0.204 .010
theory
of mind
Child’s physical Child’s sex → child’s physical aggression 0.052 0.052 .314
aggression
R2 = 3.66% Child’s age → child’s physical aggression 0.000 0.007 .997
Family’s income → child’s physical aggression −0.006 0.016 .697
Fathers’ job support → child’s physical aggression −0.007 0.056 .905
Fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s −0.008 0.074 .917
physical aggression
Child’s theory of mind → child’s physical −0.060 0.021 .006
aggression

Significant associations are in bold

7.3 The Influence of Mothers’ Co-Parenting on child’s Physical Aggression

through Fathers’ Authoritative Parenting and child’s Theory of Mind

To examine the overall relationship between mothers’ co-parenting, fathers’ authoritative

parenting, child’s theory of mind and the child’s physical aggression, a chain mediation
model was conducted. The results are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 and Fig. 2.

Table 3 Summary of the indirect effects in the link between fathers’ job support and child’s physical
aggression (N = 286)

Indirect path B 95% CI

Fathers’ job support → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s physical −0.0021 [−0.0367, 0.0354]
aggression
Fathers’ job support → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s −0.0087 [−0.0278,
theory of mind → child’s physical aggression −0.0012]
Fathers’ job support → child’s theory of mind → child’s physical aggression −0.0029 [−0.0296, 0.0130]

Significant indirect effect is in bold

1096 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

Fathers’ authoritative B = 0.532, Child’s theory of

parenting p = .005 mind

B = 0.274, p < .001 B = -0.060, p = 0.006

B = 0.048, p = .757 B = -0.008, p = .917

Child’s physical
Fathers’ job support B = -0.007, p = .905 aggression

Fig. 1 The indirect effect of fathers’ authoritative parenting and child’s theory of mind in the relationship
between fathers’ job support and child’s physical aggression. The effects of child’s sex, age, and family’s
income on each mediator and the outcome were controlled for but not presented in the figure for simplicity.
(N = 286)

First, we found that mothers’ co-parenting was positively related to fathers’ author-
itative parenting after controlling for demographic variables, B = 0.222, p < .001. The
whole model explained 19.98% variance in fathers’ authoritative parenting.
Second, we found that fathers’ authoritative parenting had a direct influence on the
child’s theory of mind even after controlling for demographic variables and mothers’
co-parenting, B = 0.417, p = .044. This model accounted for 6.85% variance in the
child’s theory of mind.

Table 4 The influence of mothers’ co-parenting, fathers’ authoritative parenting, child’s theory of mind on
child’s physical aggression (N = 293)

Outcome Path B S.E. p

Fathers’ authoritative Child’s sex → Fathers’ authoritative parenting 0.015 0.039 .709
parenting
R2 = 19.98% Child’s age → Fathers’ authoritative parenting −0.006 0.005 .233
Family’s income → Fathers’ authoritative parenting 0.023 0.012 .062
Mothers’ co-parenting → Fathers’ authoritative par- 0.222 0.027 < .001
enting
Child’s theory of mind Child’s sex → Child’s theory of mind −0.423 0.138 .002
R2 = 6.85% Child’s age → Child’s theory of mind 0.016 0.018 .371
Family’s income → Child’s theory of mind 0.001 0.044 .980
Mothers’ co-parenting → Child’s theory of mind 0.163 0.106 .128
Fathers’ authoritative parenting → Child’s theory of 0.417 0.206 .044
mind
Child’s physical Child’s sex → child’s physical aggression 0.049 0.050 .324
aggression
R2 = 4.66% Child’s age → child’s physical aggression 0.001 0.006 .884
Family’s income → child’s physical aggression −0.003 0.016 .856
Mothers’ co-parenting → child’s physical aggression −0.074 0.038 .054
Fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s physical 0.045 0.074 .544
aggression
Child’s theory of mind → child’s physical aggression −0.054 0.021 .011

Significant associations are in bold

Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1097

Table 5 Summary of the indirect effects in the link between mothers’ co-parenting and child’s physical
aggression (N = 293)

Indirect path B 95% CI

Mothers’ co-parenting → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s physical 0.0100 [−0.0185,

aggression 0.0446]
Mothers’ co-parenting → fathers’ authoritative parenting → child’s theory of −0.0050 [−0.0178,
mind → child’s physical aggression −0.0002]
Mothers’ co-parenting → child’s theory of mind → child’s physical aggression −0.0088 [−0.0345,
0.0004]

Significant indirect effect is in bold

Third, when the IV and the two mediators were entered in the final model with the
child’s physical aggression as outcome, the whole model explained 4.66% variance of
child physical aggression. In this model, the only significant predictor of child physical
aggression was child theory of mind, B = −0.054, p = .011.
Finally, besides the relationship of each pair of variables, the results further showed
that although the influence of mothers’ co-parenting on the child’s aggression was not
significantly mediated by fathers’ authoritative parenting or by the child’s theory of
mind, the chain mediation effect “mothers’ co-parenting → fathers’ authoritative
parenting → child’s theory of mind → child’s physical aggression” was significant,
B = −0.0050, 95% Bootstrapping CI = [−0.0178, −0.0002]. These findings suggest that
mothers’ co-parenting might influence the child’s aggression indirectly and sequentially
through fathers’ authoritative parenting and the child’s theory of mind.

8 Discussion

Child aggression has been found to be affected by multiple factors, including contex-
tual, familial, and individual factors (Chang et al 2003; Crick and Dodge 1996;
Cummings et al. 2004). The current study employed multiple informants to investigate
the role of fathers’ authoritative parenting on the child’s physical aggression taking
contextual factors (i.e., fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting) and individual

Fathers’ authoritative B = 0.417, Child’s theory of

parenting p = .044 mind

B = 0.222, p < .001 B = -0.054, p = 0.011

B = 0.163, p = .128 B = 0.045, p = .544

Child’s physical
Mothers’ co-parenting B = -0.074, p = .054 aggression

Fig. 2 The indirect effect of fathers’ authoritative parenting and child’s theory of mind in the relationship
between mothers’ co-parenting and child’s physical aggression. The effects of child’s sex, age, and family’s
income on each mediator and the outcome were controlled for but not presented in the figure for simplicity.
(N = 293)
1098 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

properties (i.e., child’s theory of mind) into consideration. To this end, two chain-
mediation models were examined, and several interesting findings were generated.
First, in both models, child’s theory of mind serves as the proximal predictor of their
aggressive behavior. Prior studies have found that high levels of theory of mind are
associated with less aggression in Western children, (Olson et al. 2011; O'Toole et al.
2017; Renouf et al. 2010a; Sutton et al. 1999; Werner et al. 2006). Consistent with
previous findings, the present results support that that theory of mind also serves as a
crucial protective factor against aggression in the Chinese context. In our opinion, this
result is unsurprising, given that Chinese culture emphasizes interpersonal harmony
and that Chinese children are trained to develop theory of mind at young age, such that
they are taught to think in others’ shoes and respect others (Liu et al. 2008).
Second, in both models, fathers’ authoritative parenting is not directly related to child’s
aggression but indirect through child’s theory of mind. Prior research has examined
fathers’ authoritative parenting style on aggressive behavior of children in different
cultural backgrounds (including China), but the results are mixed, with some revealing
a significant negative association while other research failing to do so (e.g., Chen et al.
1997; Lau 2019; Russell et al. 2003; Underwood et al. 2008). Our current findings reveal
an insignificant association between fathers’ authoritative parenting and child’s aggres-
sion. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize that this does not mean that fathers’
parenting plays no role in child aggression, but that Hong Kong fathers’ parenting plays a
subtle role in less aggression of children through their nurturing children’s theory of mind.
This speaks to the increasingly recognized role of father in child development as more
mothers enter the labor market, especially in the Hong Kong context where economic
increase has slowed, and economic pressure has increased in recent years (World Bank
2015). In addition, the inconsistent findings for the “father’s authoritative parenting –
child aggression” link suggests that there could be some moderators that intervene this
relationship and we encourage future study could reveal such moderators.
Third, findings of the two mediation models suggest that fathers’ authoritative
parenting was fueled by contextual factors: spouse’s co-parenting cooperation within
the family and job support from the workplace. Results of the association between
spouse’s co-parenting cooperation and fathers’ authoritative parenting are in consistency
with prior studies conducted in different cultural context (Matta and Knudson-Martin
2006; McHale et al. 2004; McBride and Rane 1998). In the cultural context like Hong
Kong, although more and more women are going into the labor market and fathers’ role
in child development is increasing, mothers are still the main caregiver while fathers are
in support with wives’ parenting. This suggests that compared with mothers, fathers in
the Hong Kong context may need sufficient support from their wives to understand their
child better and spend more quality time them. In addition, regarding the relationship
between job support and fathers’ authoritative parenting, to our best knowledge, it seems
that our study was the first one to directly examine this association. Nevertheless, the
influence of parents’ work on their parenting has been well documented. It has been
pointed out that parents’ work impose both opportunities and constraints on their
parenting through skill development, workplace policies and workplace relationships
(Crouter and McHale 2005). In this sense, it might be that fathers’ perceived support
from colleagues and workplace policy could benefit them in spending more time with
and getting more knowledge about how to nurture their children. This seems particularly
crucial, given the stressful and competitive working environment in Hong Kong.
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1099

8.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications

This research sheds light on the advancement of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model

(Bronfenbrenner 2001; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994). The “context–process–indi-
vidual–time” tenet proposed by the model has yielded numerous hypotheses for
researchers to test. For instance, according to the model, scholars may examine how
the child’s development outcomes are jointly shaped by any combination of the four
dimensions (i.e., context, process, individual, and time). A classic example is, as
mentioned above, that children’s problem behaviors are more pronounced when family
SES is low (vs. high, contextual factor), mother-infant interaction is weak (vs. strong,
process factor) for older (vs. younger, person factor) age (for a review, see
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994). Although the “context–process–individual–time” tenet
implies a moderating pattern, our findings, as expected, support that such a tenet can
also possibly show a mediating pattern. That is, context and process factors serve as
wiser antecedents of individual factor which has a direct impact on the outcome. Such
an advancement of the bioecological model not closely links back to Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological system theory, but it also allows scholars to consider choosing a moderating,
mediating pattern, or even the combination of the two patterns to explore the influences
of context, process, and individual factors on child development.
Our findings also have practical implications. As expected, the finding that working
fathers with higher levels of job support have higher levels of authoritative parenting
style support the work-family enrichment perspective (Barnett and Baruch 1985;
Barnett and Hyde 2001). For parents, a workplace that has a pleasant working
atmosphere and supportive colleagues can engender positive work-related emotions
that boost a sense of well-being. This facilitates authoritative parenting (Cooklin et al.
2015; Culbertson et al. 2012; Lawson et al. 2014). The above finding suggests that
more support for working fathers and family-friendly policies should be encouraged to
facilitate paternal authoritative parenting for positive child development. On the other
hand, complementing the findings of existing studies (Matta and Knudson-Martin
2006; McBride and Rane 1998), our study finds that the degree of spousal cooperation
in co-parenting has a particularly significant effect on fathers’ parenting behaviors in
the Chinese context. Fathers in such a cooperative relationship parent in a more
authoritative way. This may be because they are usually sen to have a secondary
childcare role in the family, so their parenting behaviors are more affected by the
support or otherwise of the partner (Cummings et al. 2010; England and Folbre 2002).
If mothers acknowledge, respect, and support the parenting efforts of fathers, those
fathers are more likely to adopt an authoritative parenting style. (Arendell 1996;
Latham et al. 2017). One important implication of this would be that mothers should
be encouraged to be more cooperative with their husbands in the co-parenting rela-
tionship to facilitate the fathers’ authoritative parenting for positive child outcomes.

8.2 Limitations

Overall, this study advanced the understanding of fathering and child aggression by
using multiple informants to investigate the role of fathers’ authoritative parenting on
the child’s physical aggression. It examined the mediating effect of the child’s theory of
mind and considered fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting as contextual
1100 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

factors. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the study has limitations. First, the cross-
sectional design of this study has limited our ability in establishing causal relations
between the variables assessed and in testing the likely bidirectional effect between
parent and child. For instance, it could be possible that child aggression is affecting
fathers’ parenting, such that parents respond to aggressive children with less authoritative
parenting. Future studies should employ a longitudinal research design to gain a more
thorough understanding of the longitudinal and bidirectional relations between and
among co-parenting, job support, fathering, theory of mind and child aggression. Second,
the present study is limited by its use of single informant reports for each construct. For
instance, due to self-report biases, fathers’ assessments of their own parenting behaviors
may not fully reveal their actual behaviors. Similarly, the present study only used the
reports of mothers on the child’s physical aggression. Such a report is limited, as parents
may be reluctant to report a child’s aggression. Future studies should consider using direct
observation of co-parenting and child aggression, as well as teacher reports of child
aggression, to reduce self-report biases. Third, the analysis of Model 1 includes fathers
who worked full-time and part-time, so comparison between the two different employ-
ment statuses was not possible. Future studies should use a larger sample size, with similar
numbers of parents grouped by employment status or work hours, for a more thorough
comparison. Finally, data related to the characteristics of fathers’ job were not obtained
and hence, cannot be used control variables in the analysis. It is possible that fathers’
working conditions, such as working hours and work autonomy, would influence their
authoritative parenting behaviors. Future studies should measure the characteristics of
fathers’ job in order to control them in the analysis for identifying the unique contribution
of fathers’ job support on paternal authoritative parenting.

9 Conclusion

Aggressive behavior is one of the most common behavioral problems manifested by

children in peer relationships in preschool years. This study examined, through two
chain-mediation models, the contributions made by fathers’ job support and mothers’
co-parenting to child physical aggression. It also investigated the extent to which
fathers’ authoritative parenting and the child’s theory of mind are mediators. The study
was based on a sample of Hong Kong Chinese families in an environment in which the
important role of fathering in the child’s development is increasingly recognized. The
study was strengthened by the use of the multiple informant approach. Our results
emphasize that authoritative parenting of fathers plays an important role in supporting
the development of the child’s theory of mind and reducing its tendency to aggressive
behavior. Our findings also suggest that fathers’ job support and mothers’ co-parenting
play a significant role in facilitating authoritative parenting for fathers. The findings
suggest that intervention strategies that focus on promoting job support for fathers and
supporting positive co-parenting relationships are valuable in facilitating an authorita-
tive parenting style in fathers. This will allow fathers to be more responsive to the
emotional needs of children, thus encouraging the development of their theory of mind
and reducing their aggression.

Funding This work was supported by the Research Grant Council [ECS 28401914].
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1101

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4–18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Department of
Psychiatry: University of Vermont.
Alves, M. G. D. M., Chor, D., Faerstein, E., Lopes, C. D. S., & Werneck, G. L. (2004). Short version of the"
job stress scale": A Portuguese-language adaptation. Revista de Saúde Pública, 38, 164–171. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S0034-89102004000200003.
Arendell, T. (1996). Co-parenting: A review of the literature. Philadelphia: National Center on Fathers and
Families.
Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women's involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.49.1.135.
Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2006). Role theory practices on work and family. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E.
Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook. Multidisciplinary perspectives, methods and
approaches (pp. 209–221). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.10.781.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist,
32, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). New
York: Elsevier.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The developing ecology of human development: Paradigm lost or paradigm
regained. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development (pp. 94–105). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A
bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295
X.101.4.568.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in developmental
research. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. History, theory, and methods (4th
ed., pp. 357–414). New York: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),
Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Brown, G. L., McBride, B. A., Bost, K. K., & Shin, N. (2011). Parental involvement, child temperament, and
parents' work hours: Differential relations for mothers and fathers. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32, 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.08.004.
Buehler, C., O'Brien, M., Swartout, K. M., & Zhou, N. (2014). Maternal employment and parenting through
middle childhood: Contextualizing factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 1025–1046. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jomf.12130.
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2007). Fathers' influence on their children's cognitive
and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 208–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762100.
Caldera, Y. M., & Lindsey, E. W. (2006). Coparenting, mother-infant interaction, and infant-parent attachment
relationships in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0893-3200.20.2.275.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during
childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations
to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.
Chang, Y. E. (2013). The relation between mothers’ attitudes toward maternal employment and social
competence of 36-month-olds: The roles of maternal psychological well-being and sensitivity. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 22, 987–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9660-7.
Chang, L. Y., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child
emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0893-3200.17.4.598.
1102 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and
school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855–873.
https://doi.org/10.1080/016502597384703.
Choi, J., & Becher, E. H. (2018). Supportive coparenting, parenting stress, harsh parenting, and child behavior
problems in nonmarital families. Family Process., 58, 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12373.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher &
J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coley, R. L., Lohman, B. J., Votruba-Drzal, E., Pittman, L. D., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2007). Maternal
functioning, time, and money: The world of work and welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 29,
721–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.12.003.
Cooklin, A. R., Westrupp, E., Strazdins, L., Giallo, R., Martin, A., & Nicholson, J. M. (2015). Mothers' work-
family conflict and enrichment: Associations with parenting quality and couple relationship. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 41, 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12137.
Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002). Authoritative and authoritarian
mothers’ parenting goals, attributions, and emotions across different childbearing contexts. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 2, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0201_1.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive
aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131875.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.4.579.
Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2005). The long arm of the job revisited: Parenting in dual earner families.
In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 275–296). Lawrence
Erlbaum: New Jersey.
Culbertson, S. S., Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work engagement and work-family facilitation:
Making homes happier through positive affective spillover. Human Relations, 65, 1155–1177. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726712440295.
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child
aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1023
/b:jacp.0000019770.13216.be.
Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., George, M. W., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Fathers, marriages, and families:
Revisiting and updating the framework for fathering in family context. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of
the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 154–176). Hoboken: Wiley.
Darling, N. (2007). Ecological system theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human
Development, 4, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600701663023.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,
113, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003).
Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00533.
Denson, T. F., DeWall, C. N., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Self-control and aggression. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21, 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429451.
Drake, E. E., Humenick, S. S., Amankwaa, L., Younger, J., & Roux, G. (2007). Predictors of maternal
responsiveness. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-
5069.2007.00156.x.
Dunifon, R., Kalil, A., & Danziger, S. K. (2003). Maternal work behavior under welfare reform: How does the
transition from welfare to work affect child development? Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 55–
82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-7409(02)00266-9.
Dyer, W. J., Fagan, J., Kaufman, R., Pearson, J., & Cabrera, N. (2017). Self-perceived Coparenting of
nonresident fathers: Scale development and validation. Family Process, 57, 927–946. https://doi.
org/10.1111/famp.12331.
England, P., & Folbre, N. (2002). Involving dads: Parental bargaining and family well-being. In C. S. Tamis-
LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 387–
408). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research
and intervention. Parenting, 3, 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0302_01.
Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict
on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00400.x.
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1103

Furniss, T., Beyer, T., & Guggenmos, J. (2006). Prevalence of behavioural and emotional problems among
six-years-old preschool children. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 394–399.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-006-0045-3.
Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th
grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology, 39,
777–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.777.
Happé, F., & Frith, U. (1996). Theory of mind and social impairment in children with conduct disorder. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1996.tb00713.x.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.
Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation,
and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.
com/public/process2012.pdf.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312,
1900–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898.
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (2012). 2011 population census: Summary results. Retrieved
from http://www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/summary-results.pdf.
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (2016). 2016 population by-census. Thematic report household
income distribution in Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.bycensus2016.gov.hk/data/16bc-
household-income.pdf.
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2006). Behavioural problems in 2-year olds: Links with individual differences in
theory of mind, executive function, and harsh parenting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47,
488–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01519.x.
James, R., & Blair, R. (2003). Did Cain fail to represent the thoughts of Abel before he killed him? In B.
Rapacholi & V. Slaughter (Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind: Implications for typical and
atypical development (pp. 143–170). New York: Psychology Press.
Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R., Tseng, W., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal
parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis
and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 31, 240–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001.
Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2005). Stability of aggressive behavior from childhood to middle age in women
and men. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20063.
Kuntoro, I. A., Peterson, C. C., & Slaughter, V. (2017). Culture, parenting, and children’s theory of mind
development in Indonesia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 1389–1409. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0022022117725404.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages
between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72,
1579–1601. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366.
Lamb, M. E. (1987). The father’s role: Applied perspectives. New York: Wiley.
Latham, R. M., Mark, K. M., & Oliver, B. R. (2017). A harsh parenting team? Maternal reports of coparenting
and coercive parenting interact in association with children's disruptive behaviour. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 603–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12665.
Lau, E. Y. H. (2019). Parenting and childhood aggression in the Chinese context: An examination of parental
responses, physical coercion and warmth. Early Years, 39, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09575146.2017.1344195.
Lawson, K. M., Davis, K. D., McHale, S. M., Hammer, L. B., & Buxton, O. M. (2014). Daily positive
spillover and crossover from mothers’ work to youth health. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 897–907.
https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000028.
Liu, D., Wellman, H. M., Tardif, T., & Sabbagh, M. A. (2008). Theory of mind development in Chinese
children: A meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.523.
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting
in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-
3200.15.1.3.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and
beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2000.01173.x.
Martin, S. (2010). Theory of mind, social information processing, and children’s social behavior. Doctoral
dissertation: Bowling Green State University.
1104 E. Y. H. Lau, J.-B. Li

Matta, D. S., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2006). Father responsivity: Couple processes and the coconstruction of
fatherhood. Family Process, 45, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00078.x.
McBride, B. A., & Rane, T. R. (1998). Parenting alliance as a predictor of father involvement: An exploratory
study. Family Relations, 47, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/584971.
McBride, B. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Ho, M. (2005). The mediating role of fathers' school involvement
on student achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 201–216. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.007.
McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and
child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.31.6.985.
McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family
systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., Lauretti, A., & Rasmussen, J. L. (2000a). Parental reports of coparenting
and observed coparenting behavior during the toddler period. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 220–
236. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.14.2.220.
McHale, J. P., Rao, N., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000b). Constructing family climates: Chinese mothers’ reports of
their co-parenting behaviour and preschoolers’ adaptation. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 24, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500383548.
McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research.
Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jade.0000035629.29960.ed.
Nelson, D. A., Yang, C., Coyne, S. M., Olsen, J. A., & Hart, C. H. (2013). Parental psychological control
dimensions: Connections with Russian preschoolers’ physical and relational aggression. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.07.003.
O’Reilly, J., & Peterson, C. C. (2014). Theory of mind at home: Linking authoritative and authoritarian
parenting styles to children’s social understanding. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 1934–1947.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.894034.
Olson, S. L., Lopez-Duran, N., Lunkenheimer, E. S., Chang, H., & Sameroff, A. J. (2011). Individual
differences in the development of early peer aggression: Integrating contributions of self-regulation,
theory of mind, and parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1017
/S0954579410000775.
O'Toole, S. E., Monks, C. P., & Tsermentseli, S. (2017). Executive function and theory of mind as predictors of
aggressive and prosocial behavior and peer acceptance in early childhood. Social Development, 26, 907–
920. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12231.
Pedro, M. F., Ribeiro, T., & Shelton, K. H. (2012). Marital satisfaction and partners' parenting practices: The
mediating role of coparenting behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 509–522. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029121.
Perry-Jenkins, M., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013). Work and family through time and space: Revisiting
old themes and charting new directions. Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 549–572. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3987-5_23.
Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 62, 981–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00981.x.
Raby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). The enduring predictive significance of
early maternal sensitivity: Social and academic competence through age 32 years. Child Development, 86,
695–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12325.
Renouf, A., Brendgen, M., Parent, S., Vitaro, F., David Zelazo, P., Boivin, M., Dionne, G., Tremblay, R. E.,
Pérusse, D., & Séguin, J. R. (2010a). Relations between theory of mind and indirect and physical
aggression in kindergarten: Evidence of the moderating role of prosocial behaviors. Social
Development, 19, 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00552.x.
Renouf, A., Brendgen, M., Seguin, J. R., Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., Dionne, G., et al. (2010b). Interactive links
between theory of mind, peer victimization, and reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 38, 1109–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9432-z.
Roberts, W. L. (1999). The socialization of emotional expression: Relations with prosocial behaviour and
competence in five samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 72–85. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0087075.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive
parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819–830. https://doi.
org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819.
Russell, A., Hart, C., Robinson, C., & Olsen, S. (2003). Children's sociable and aggressive behaviour with
peers: A comparison of the US and Australia, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles.
Child Physical Aggression: The Contributions of Fathers’ Job... 1105

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080

/01650250244000038.
Sutton, J., Smith, P., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Socialinadequacy or skilled
manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1348
/026151099165384.
Underwood, M. K., Beron, K. J., Gentsch, J. K., Galperin, M. B., & Risser, S. D. (2008). Family correlates of
children's social and physical aggression with peers: Negative interparental conflict strategies and
parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 549–562. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0165025408097134.
Vinden, P. G. (2001). Parenting attitudes and children’s understanding of mind: A comparison of Korean
American and Anglo-American families. Cognitive Development, 16, 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0885-2014(01)00059-4.
Watson, A. C., Nixon, C. L., Wilson, A., & Capage, L. (1999). Social interaction skills and theory of mind in
young children. Developmental Psychology, 35, 386–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.386.
Wellman, H. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75, 523–541.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x.
Werner, R. S., Cassidy, K. W., & Juliano, M. (2006). The role of social-cognitive abilities in preschoolers’
aggressive behaviour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 775–799. https://doi.org/10.1348
/026151005X78799.
World Bank. (2015). World Development Indicators. In World development indicators. Washington: World
Bank.
Zemp, M., Johnson, M. D., & Bodenmann, G. (2018). Within-family processes: Interparental and coparenting
conflict and child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1037
/fam0000368.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.