Fathers' Leave-Taking, Paternal Attachment, and Paternal Involvement

Background: Leave-taking by U.S. men at the time of a child’s birth has increased in prevalence but still lags behind leave-taking by women. Using nationally representative data, Nepomnyaschy et al. (2007) found that, while most fathers took some time off work upon their child’s birth, the duration of time varied substantially. Longer leaves were associated with greater involvement in caretaking nine months later. Similar results have been observed in other countries (Tanaka et al., 2007). In this study, we examine employment leave-taking and paternal attachment and involvement using data gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Between October 2020 and February 2021, we surveyed 338 employed men with infants 12 months or younger who live with their infant and infant’s mother from across the United States. The sample was 63.6% White non-Hispanic, 18.9% Black non-Hispanic, and 17.5% Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, or bi/multiracial. Household incomes were diverse, with 28.5% reporting annual household earnings of $50,000 or less; 37.6% reporting earnings between $50,001 and $100,000; and 34.0% reporting earnings above $100,000. Using multivariate regression analyses, we examined relationships between leave-taking, leave duration, paternal-child attachment (Paternal Postnatal Attachment Scale [PPAS]), and a series of caretaking indicators.

Results: Just over half of fathers (53.0%) reported having exclusively paid leave; 17% reported exclusively unpaid leave; 2% reported paid and unpaid leave; and 28% reported no leave time. Those who had paid leave reported significantly longer leave durations than those with either unpaid or combined leave types (p<.05). Overall, leave duration ranged from less than one week (11.5%) to six weeks or more (9.5%), with a modal category of between two and four weeks (36.0%).

Controlling for demographic and maternal employment factors, White non-Hispanic fathers were more likely than other fathers to have taken leave at the time of their child’s birth (p<.05). However, among fathers who took leave, White non-Hispanic fathers took significantly shorter leaves than did other fathers. Household income was positively associated with the likelihood of paid leave (p<.05) but not with leave-taking overall (p=.26) nor with leave duration (p=.24).

In multivariate models, leave-taking (paid, unpaid, both, none) was not associated with either the Patience/Tolerance or the Affection/Pride subscales of the PPAS. However, in separate models, both leave-taking overall (p<.01), and paid leave-taking in particular (p<.05), were associated with higher scores on the Pleasure in Interaction subscale. Leave duration was not associated with attachment but was consistently linked across multiple indicators to levels of father involvement in infant caregiving activities, including frequency of infant feeding, both day (p<.05) and night (p<.05).

Conclusions and Implications: Our study suggests that fathers’ ability to take time off after a child’s birth and the duration of that time off are linked to attachment and caregiving involvement. Yet both our sample data and national data indicate that many workers lack access to employment leave and particularly to paid leave. Public policies (e.g. the proposed FAMILY Act) have the potential to broaden access to paid leave and increase the feasibility of multi-week leave-taking, each of which may enhance parent-child relationships.