“Equally, but in our own way” : First-time parents’ prenatal expectations of coparenting

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ “Equally, but in our own way” : First-time parents’ prenatal expectations of coparenting © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Ranta, Minna; Böök, Marja Leena; Paloniemi, Susanna; Rönkä, Anna Ranta, M., Böök, M. L., Paloniemi, S., & Rönkä, A. (2023). “Equally, but in our own way” : Firsttime parents’ prenatal expectations of coparenting. Journal of Family Studies, 29(3), 1061-1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2021.2023609 2023 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjfs20 Journal of Family Studies ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfs20 “Equally, but in our own way”: First-time parents’ prenatal expectations of coparenting Minna Ranta, Marja Leena Böök, Susanna Paloniemi & Anna Rönkä To cite this article: Minna Ranta, Marja Leena Böök, Susanna Paloniemi & Anna Rönkä (2022): “Equally, but in our own way”: First-time parents’ prenatal expectations of coparenting, Journal of Family Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2021.2023609 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2021.2023609 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 20 Jan 2022. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data “Equally, but in our own way”: First-time parents’prenatal expectations of coparenting Minna Ranta , Marja Leena Böök , Susanna Paloniemi and Anna Rönkä Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT This study examined the expectations of expectant first-time parents on coparenting in a Finnish two-parent family. Thirty expectant couples were individually interviewed (N = 60) during the third trimester of pregnancy. The semi-structured interviews focused on participants’expectations and hopes on future coparenting. Thematic analysis revealed that the expectant firsttime mothers and fathers saw coparenting as multidimensional. They talked about coparenting in terms of 1) division of labour issues, 2) management of family dynamics, 3) childrearing agreement, 4) coparental support, and 5) learning and developing. Thus, the expectant couples hoped for a coparenting relationship in which both parents become experts in parenting. Ideally, coparenting involves mutual respect, equality, flexibility, and consideration for the other parent. Coparenting was also seen as an opportunity to grow and learn together in the parenting and coparenting process, e.g. finding one’s own way both as a parent and as a couple and giving space to the other parent. While the expectant first-time parents expressed optimistic hopes and ideals about coparenting, they also raised concerns and challenges regarding interparental collaboration. The findings are discussed from the viewpoint of further elaborating and developing Feinberg’s(2003) model of the internal structure of coparenting. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 23 June 2021 Accepted 22 December 2021 KEYWORDS Coparenting; first-time parent; pregnancy; expectations; transition to parenthood; qualitative research Introduction Coparenting describes the ways how parents relate to each other in the role of parent (Feinberg, 2003), and work together sharing their child-raising responsibilities (Feinberg, 2002; Hock & Mooradian, 2013). Research (Durtschi et al., 2017; Feinberg, 2003; McHale et al., 2004) has demonstrated that entering parenthood and combining parental and work roles gender equally is much easier if the parents work together as a team, sharing duties, supporting each other, agreeing about childrearing and planning family life together. However, the degree of equality in parenting roles is formed according to the participants influenced by their social and cultural context (Feinberg, 2003). Furthermore, families are not static, but change over time, owing partly to individuals’ © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. CONTACT Minna Ranta minna.s.ranta@jyu.fiDepartment of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2021.2023609 developmental processes and between-family differences (Feinberg, 2003; Kotila & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015). Some researchers (Kuersten-Hogan, 2017) suggest that a coparenting relationship starts already before childbirth in terms of early representations and expectations. Parents’beliefs, expectations, values, and wishes nevertheless influence the construction of coparenting (Feinberg, 2003). Utilizing interviews with 30 couples during the third trimester of pregnancy, this qualitative study investigated the meanings expectant first-time parents attribute to coparenting, including the elements comprising coparenting, and their expectations of the coparenting relationship. The study was conducted in the social and cultural context of Finland, a country with a relatively high level of gender equity where social policies influence individuals’orientation to work and family formation. (Miettinen et al., 2011). In Finland, age at first birth and unmarried cohabitation have both increased over the past decade (OSF, 2020). In 2020, the mean age of first-time mothers was 29.7 years and that of fathers 31.6 years (OSF, 2021). The findings of this study are also used to further elaborate Feinberg’s(2003) widely used model of the internal structure of coparenting. While many researchers have supported the model, others have challenged some of its elements (Feinberg et al., 2012). Kotila and Schoppe-Sullivan (2015) have called for researchers to further develop coparenting theory to gain a deeper understanding of all aspects of coparenting. This study aimed to provide new information on the early stages of coparenting. The study draws on the family systems and life course theory (Elder, 1998), according to which the birth of a firstborn is considered a significant stage in the life course of individuals in which, in their social contexts, they move through time, relationship and interactions with each other. The family system theory (FST) sees coparenting as the centre around which family processes start and develop (Weissman & Cohen, 1985). The FST defines a family as a dynamic, ever-changing system of interdependent individuals (Allen & Henderson, 2017). The transition from couplehood to parenthood carries with it a more intense and conscious relationship between the partners (Grunow & Evertsson, 2021), in which new parents also face challenges in parental equality in terms of their child-caring responsibilities (Lévesque et al., 2020). Increasing pressures on family and working life partly explain why parents have difficulties in starting a family (Mills et al., 2011) or end up in divorce or separation during the first years of parenthood (Pruett et al., 2014). Understanding different prenatal coparenting expectations could help support new mothers and fathers in working together as parents and mitigate the risk of family dissolution during the transition to parenthood. Spouses’expectations and visions of a coparenting relationship are often optimistic, but they seem to shape postpartum experiences in the face of major changes in the family system (KuerstenHogan, 2017). Thus, knowing what each parent thinks is important when considering families and development. Preparing for new parental roles, expectations for a new stage of life Becoming a parent and preparing for the birth of the first child is a major developmental transition in adulthood. According to the life-course theory, this transition is characterized by dynamic interaction between individuals and their families (Allen & Henderson, 2017), and one where individuals make meanings in their social contexts (Bengtson & 2M. RANTA ET AL. Allen, 1993). The transition to parenthood is manifested in the gender gap in parenting, which reflects cultural expectations, norms, and ideals ‒sometimes contradictory ‒that are related to motherand fatherhood (Allan, 2008; Milkie, 2011). During pregnancy, the baby is mentally represented in the partners’minds, and the couple live through and seek to reconcile various ideals related to their family roles and responsibilities (Allan, 2008; Dew & Wilcox, 2011) and their future as a family. Successful preparation for this new stage of life leads to individuality in psychological processes and perceived experiences of adequate parenting (Pinto et al., 2016). Expectant parents often have optimistic expectations about parenthood despite the many challenges presented by this transition (Harword et al., 2007; Kuersten-Hogan, 2017). Sevón (2012), for example, reported that women talked optimistically and positively about their partner, relationship, commitment, and future parental involvement during pregnancy. Harword et al. (2007), in turn, found that women’s perceptions of their relationship with their partner and confidence in their ability to care for their infant affected their level of optimism about their parenting role. Less research has incorporated fathers’prenatal perceptions. However, new fathers face expectations of active fatherhood nowadays, even if most new mothers remain the primary caregivers of their newborn baby (Olsavsky et al., 2020). Previous research (Riggs et al., 2018) has found that prenatal expectations influence postnatal experiences of parenthood. Expectant couples’prenatal perceptions of their cooperation skills as well as family relations are closely reflected in the postnatal quality of parenting (Kuersten-Hogan, 2017). Couples must learn, share, and negotiate new things: their responsibilities and tasks, family routines, work and family roles, and childrearing ideals (see Allan, 2008). The way new parents navigate this stage has important implications for the wellbeing of the whole family (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2016). Some families may operate along traditional family lines, while others may try to share caretaking and household duties more equally. After childbirth, according to the family systems theory, family relationships and patterns become unstable for a while (Allen & Henderson, 2017). Lévesque et al. (2020) noted that since finding a balance between one’s various roles and identities (e.g. parent, partner, professional) is challenging, it is beneficial to share tasks, divide parental leave and view parenthood in a genderneutral way, thereby increasing the parents’awareness of possible difficulties and solutions. Furthermore, in their relationship, parents can also learn by experience and adapt their behaviour (McHale et al., 2004). Dimensions of coparenting Coparenting is an integral aspect of family life, which affects parenting experiences, children, and parental roles (Feinberg, 2003). Coparenting consists of much more than adult ´s taking responsibility for the upbringing of a child (McHale, 1995). Coparenting can be a source of support for parents, enhancing the wellbeing of the child and the whole family (McDaniel et al., 2017). Effective coparenting between spouses might also ease the transition to parenthood (Durtschi et al., 2017; McHale et al., 2004; Van Egeren, 2004). Coparenting has also been highlighted as a key process in adult development (McHale et al., 2004; Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 3 According to Feinberg’s(2003) model, coparenting comprises four domains: childrearing agreement, division of labour, support versus undermining, and joint family management. The outcomes of each component influence the success of parental adjustment, the interparental relationship, parenting, and child adjustment. A childrearing agreement consists of mutually accepted rules and behavioural expectations regarding the child’s safety, emotional needs, and couple’s moral values. Division of labour refers to the distribution between parents of the daily routines involved in childcare, including household tasks and responsibilities. (Feinberg, 2003; Feinberg et al., 2012). Support encompasses positive behaviours that help the other partner’s parenting efforts, such as seeing them as a competent parent and acknowledging and respecting their contribution (Feinberg, 2003; McHale, 1995). Undermining is the opposite of support, and refers to negative criticism, blame or disparagement (Feinberg, 2003) behaviours which can lead to competitive coparenting (McHale, 1995). Joint family management (called joint management of family dynamics by Feinberg et al., 2012) refers to family interaction, where the parents’primary responsibility is controlling their mutual interparental behaviours and communication, as these affect their parenting and children. Problematic communication and conflicts are risky as they might disturb the balance and affect interaction in the whole family (Feinberg, 2003; Feinberg et al., 2012). Feinberg et al. (2012) subsequently added the further dimension of coparenting as parenting-based closeness, (termed coparenting solidarity by Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004), which refers to shared joy in the child´s development and the experience of working together as a team. Coparenting is significantly associated with the couple relationship and parenting experiences (Sheedy & Gambrel, 2019). Couples’positive representations of their future coparenting relationship during prenatal triadic interactions may predict better postpartum functioning (Kuersten-Hogan, 2017). Van Egeren (2004) pointed out that the quality of the marriage before childbirth sets the stage for coparenting. Couples who are satisfied with their relationship are also likely to experience parenting satisfaction. Moreover, if mothers’experience of the division of childcare and housework meets their expectations, they are more satisfied with the coparenting relationship. If these expectations are not met, coparenting may be experienced as less supportive by mothers than fathers. Nevertheless, higher expectations of shared childcare are related to greater equality in childcare in parenthood (Almqvist & Duvander, 2014). Previous studies have also demonstrated differences between mothers and fathers in coparental behaviours and dynamics. Several studies (Hock & Mooradian, 2013; Murphy et al., 2017; Olsavsky et al., 2020; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008) have found that the quality of coparenting influences parents’behaviours. For example, a strong coparenting relationship is associated with lower parental negativity and more positive parent-infant interactions (Hock & Mooradian, 2013). Murphy et al. (2017) found that fathers support their partners more, but mothers are more involved in parental decision-making. It is noteworthy that the encouragement of fathers by mothers increases father involvement with infants and positively influences coparenting quality, although only when mothers’criticism of fathers is minor (see Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). International research on coparenting has burgeoned over the past few decades, and the coparenting theory has increasingly focused on describing the phenomenon during 4M. RANTA ET AL. the child’s early years. Fewer studies have approached coparenting using a qualitative design with traditional coparenting partners (Kotila & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015). Even in the Nordic countries, despite the increased interest in shared and equal parenting styles, coparenting research remains very limited. This qualitative study focuses on the period preceding the birth of the child and investigates first-time parents’prenatal expectations about coparenting, interviewing couples each partner individually. The study is part of an international research project (Learning to coparent: A longitudinal, crossnational study on construction of coparenting in transition to parenthood) aimed at finding out how coparenting develops in the transition to parenthood among firsttime parents. This study The aim of this qualitative study is to add knowledge on the early stages of coparenting with particular focus on the meanings attributed to coparenting by expectant first-time parents. According to Feinberg (2003), the development of the coparenting relationship has not been adequately researched. In identifying this process during the transition to first-time parenthood, we think that it is important to start from the time before childbirth. Previous studies (Murphy et al., 2017; Olsavsky et al., 2020) have also found that differences between mothers’and fathers’coparenting relationship dynamics and behaviour influence the quality of coparenting. Therefore, we compared mothers’and fathers’ expectations about their coparenting relationship. The research questions were 1) What expectations of coparenting are described by expectant first-time parents? and 2) What elements of coparenting can be identified from their descriptions? The findings identified from the data were compared with Feinberg’s(2003) model of the internal structure of coparenting. Methods Participants Participants were 30 expectant heterosexual married or cohabiting couples (N = 60 individuals). The purposive sampling protocol comprised Finnish-speaking parents expecting their first child and living together at the time of recruitment. Mean length of Table 1. Participantścharacteristics during pregnancy. Total N = 60 Expectant mothers (n = 30) Expectant fathers (n = 30) Mean Age 30.8 years 30.2 years Educational level Masteŕs degree or higher 20 (66.6%) 10 (33.3%) Bachelor’s degree 6 (20%) 11 (36.7%) High school or vocational school 4 (13.3%) 8 (26.7%) Less than high school 1 (3.3%) Life situation Working 12 (40%) 29 (96.7%) Maternal leave 16 (53.3%) Other 2 (6.6%) 1 (3.3%) JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 5 relationship was 7 years (range 1–15 years). One-fifth of the couples were cohabiting and the remainder married. Mean participant age was 30.5 years (range 23–42 years for fathers and 23–39 years for mothers). Participants’socio-economic characteristics are listed in Table 1. Participants were mostly highly educated meaning that 70% of the men and more than 80% of the women had at least a bachelor’s degree. Procedures To participate in the study, couples had to be expecting their first child. The data were gathered from semi-structured individual interviews (N = 60) conducted during the third trimester of pregnancy during the year 2020. Recruitment for the study was implemented via advertisements in maternity health clinics in four Finnish municipalities. Parents were also recruited via virtual family classes where the first author briefly advertised the study. Participants were recruited as a part of a larger longitudinal, cross-national research project focusing on the development of coparenting throughout the transition to parenthood and the drivers and barriers in the family, community, and larger society and culture enhancing or impairing coparenting. The present couples will be followed until their child reaches the age of one and a half years. According to the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012), the project was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Jyväskylä. Due to the corona pandemic, the interviews were conducted via a video link (n = 46) or by telephone (n = 14). Participants performed the online or phone interviews independently of their partner. To avoid the effects of spouses influencing each other (Daly, 2003), partners were interviewed individually and consecutively on the same day. The first author conducted 44 of the 60 interviews. The remaining interviews were conducted by other researchers of the project. The researchers observed no appreciable difference between the phone and video methods in their ability to build rapport with the participants. The interviews lasted for 35–70 min. Participation was voluntary. Before giving their consent, all participants were informed about the study, its purpose, their rights as participants, privacy, and told that they would be kept informed about progress of the research. Before beginning the interview, participants were informed about confidentiality, audio recording, data security, and anonymization. The semi-structured interviews comprised three main themes: 1) current life situation (work, home responsibilities) e.g. ‘How do you currently share your home responsibilities with your partner?‘2) expectations for coparenting (cooperation, support, division of labour, use of parental leave) e.g. ‘How would you wish your cooperation as parents to be like when the baby is born?’3) supporting and other people’s meaning on coparenting (social network, services) e.g. ‘Thinking about the way your own parents working together as parents, would you like to follow their example or do something differently?‘At the end of the interview, the participants were sent, via email, a link to a short online questionnaire on background factors and their present life situation. The data collection aimed at reaching diversity and qualitative richness. After 20 couple interviews, no notable new meanings were identified. However, due to the longitudinal research design and possible attrition, the data collection was continued until 30 couples had been interviewed. Couples were rewarded with gift cards for 20 euros for their participation. 6M. RANTA ET AL. Data analysis All the interviews were voice-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were pseudonymized for the analyses. The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is a systematic and structured way to code and thematically organize data (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017) and to view the phenomenon more broadly. The analysis was a combination of inductive and abductive approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2006) utilizing all the interview data. The Atlas.ti software programme (Silver & Lewins, 2014), was used in organizing and categorizing the qualitative data. Thematic analysis process was conducted in six phases, as described in Figure 1.The approach to coding was primarily data driven, although the initial understanding of coparenting was influenced by theoretical background. Hence, the interpretation process and ways of seeing patterns were central to the analysis. The principal researcher promoted the first three phases of the analysis by familiarizing herself the data, generating codes and identifying themes in the interviews. Open coding was used, meaning that the codes were developed and modified during the process. Due to the broad research question, every data segment was coded from the perspective of coparenting expectations. In phase four, the analysis switched to abductive when reviewing, naming, and identifying the boundaries of each theme. Themes were compared to the conceptual framework of coparenting developed by Feinberg (2003): four of the themes corresponded to Feinberg’s domains. A fifth important theme on coparenting expectations was also identified. Table 2 collates all the relevant codes and extracts under the five themes. In this process, four focusing categories were identified within the themes: content, aspirations, challenge and a coparenting ideal. The table was constructed based on these categories. Finally, the results were interpreted, e.g. the results for mothers and fathers were compared. Results Five overarching themes and four categories were identified from the data. The themes describe the components of coparenting, which were refined according to the four Figure 1. Process of thematic analysis. JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 7 undermining by Feinberg), refers mostly to each parent’s expectation of postnatal support by the other parent. Helping and doing for one’s spouse was the most commonly cited form of support. Support was seen as emotional as well as practical. The participants’talk did not include undermining: instead, the participants hoped that the division of labour would not be subject to close accounting or analysis. This more closely resembles McHale’s(1995) notion of competitive coparenting. 5) Learning and developing were identified from the data and did not correspond to any component in Feinberg s model. According to prenatal expectations, first-time parents see parenting as an opportunity to develop that is a process for themselves both individually and together. The expectant parents wanted to work and learn together with their firstborn. While past experiences can help with learning, one needs to find one’sown ways of acting as parents. This component describes the development of coparenting throughboththechild–parent relationship and the parent-parent relationship. Shared parenting is on a firm foundation if each partner allows the other room for growth as a parent Figure 2. The five components are interrelated and affect each other, as shown in Figure 2.As Feinberg (2003) indicates, the four peripheral components are both partially associated and partially distinct and there is variability across families in the degree of linkage across these four components. The component of learning and developing is located in the centre, combining all four coparenting components together. Thus, growth in the central component affects growth in the surrounding components. Moreover, challenges in one component may complicate cooperation in another. Figure 2. Model of components of coparenting identified by expectant couples. 14 M. RANTA ET AL. Discussion This study makes an important contribution to understanding the role of coparenting from the perspective of new coming parents in two-parent families in Finland. The expectant first-time mothers and fathers saw coparenting multidimensionally. The couples’descriptions of their coparenting expectations could be divided into five interactive areas. 1) division of labour issues, including parental roles and the sharing of duties and responsibilities and an emphasis on the attendance and participation of both parents; 2) management of family dynamics, including interparental communication and an emphasis on the importance of responsibility and commitment to family life and team working; 3) childrearing agreement, including mutual goals and rules on childrearing issues that enable both parents to meet the child’s needs; 4) coparental support, consisting of mutual encouragement, sympathy, and positive feedback allowing parents to help each other; and 5) learning and developing, related to learning and growing together as parents and to sharing and also giving the other parent space to develop. As well as describing coparenting content, the expectant parents talked about coparental aspirations, challenges, and the ideal of coparenting (see table 2). This study strengthens and elaborates Feinberg’s(2003) theoretical model of coparenting. It is noteworthy that these components were identified in the prenatal expectations of first-time parents. The study also updates the model by adding an important novel component, labelled learning and developing. The fifth dimension, describing coparenting as an opportunity to grow and learn during the parenting process through a collaborative parental relationship, finding one’s own way both as a parent and as a couple, giving the other parent space, and avoiding maternal gatekeeping, is possibly pertinent to expectant couples. The present results show that the ability to grow, develop and learn is needed in order to implement parenting in a slightly new way than society or one’s own parents might expect. The talk about coparenting by the expectant mothers and fathers indicated that learning can be seen as collective communication between parents. For their part, Feinberg et al. (2012) added a new dimension to their model, labelled parenting-based closeness, which refers to parents’shared joy over the child’s development and the experience of working together that bring the partners closer together. Although the present expectant parents also hoped that their closeness and intimacy in a relationship would last during the early years, shared joy in watching the child’s development is not visible likewise in the prenatal stage. Most of the present participants hoped to experience equal and shared parenting in which both parents can become experts in parenting. For them, equality meant wanting to work together in their own way and develop their own parenting style. They highlighted both parents’possibility to participate in parental leave and working life. Successful cooperation did not necessarily mean that parents had to do the same things in the same way as their spouse or in exactly same amounts. Previous researchers (Hodkinson & Brooks, 2020; Miller, 2011) have reported that fathers are willing to share tasks and responsibilities as part of an interchangeable equal partnership where caregiving tasks are allocated based on factors other than gender, and thus transcend the differentiated roles of mothers and fathers. However, these expectations are challenged by the structural arrangements of society and the demands of working life making the parenting context more complex (Miller, 2011). Both partners in this study emphasized the JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 15 importance of joint discussions and decisions to achieve parenting in harmony with their values and aspirations. It is worth noting that to facilitate coparenting quality, egalitarian values need to be clearly recognized not only at the family level but also in the structures of society. Entering a new stage of life and experiencing changes in family dynamics after childbirth necessitates new strategies for cooperation (Allan, 2008). It is important that both parents understand that they can better learn if they work together and share duties in a way of good cooperation. This interview data focused on expectations of coparenting. Expectant parents’prenatal hopes for ideal coparenting are also informed by their current couple dynamics (Kuersten-Hogan, 2017). While they expressed optimistic ideals about their coparenting, they also raised concerns about interparental collaboration owing to differences in the partners’temperaments, needs and background, exhaustion associated with childcaring, disagreements, timeand resource-consuming work, the mother’s potential gatekeeping role, and changes in the couple relationship. Previous studies (e.g. Solmeyer & Feinberg, 2011) have typically dealt with this issue from the viewpoint of the child’s temperament. This study, in turn, revealed that expectant parents are worried about the possible negative effects of their different temperaments on coparenting cooperation. In earlier research, researchers (Talbot & McHale, 2004; Van Egeren, 2003) have also asked how individual personality traits might influence coparenting. Another interesting concern raised in this study was the possible role of mothers as gatekeepers. Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2008) argue that mothers may limit fathers’involvement by acting as gatekeepers, and that a supportive coparenting relationship combined with an encouraging partner is the most likely condition for promoting involved, competent fathering behaviour. Thus, these findings showed that expectant first-time parents were already aware of possible challenges stemming from their current relationship. The desire of the expectant first-time parents for mutual and supportive interaction and cooperation was evident. Showing consideration for the other parent was seen as the mainstay of coparental support. Helping and doing for the other parent was described as a desirable way to support one’s spouse that was appreciated already during the pregnancy. In addition to being sensitive to the child’s needs, the spouses hoped to be sensitive to each other. It is beneficial for coparents to actively recognize their partner’s support and determine what kind of support suits them best, e.g. offering emotional support, encouraging breaks away from the baby, and self-care (Sheedy & Gambrel, 2019). The present results also emphasize the importance of flexibility in the parental role where both parents work together or alternate in childcare. Talbot and McHale (2004) and Van Egeren (2003) found that parents’psychological flexibility was important, e.g. in how capably parents incorporate their child and their partner into the family dynamic. Parents may experience little motivation for flexibility if their partner shows inflexibility or criticizes them (McHale et al., 2004). Learning how to be fluid and flexible within the coparenting relationship makes for successful coparenting. Flexibility in parental roles also appeared to help couples navigate the stress of coparenting. (Feinberg & Kan, 2008;Sheedy & Gambrel, 2019.) Finally, this study highlighted coparenting as a field of learning and growing up.Previous studies have also found a developmental perspective, but it has not been identified as a dimension of coparenting. The coparenting relationship, like other adult relationships, develops too (McHale et al., 2004) during the life course. Furthermore, families 16 M. RANTA ET AL. are not static, but change over time, along with other developmental processes (Feinberg, 2003; Kotila & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015). Coparenting has been identified as a central feature (McHale et al., 2004; Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004) and as an interpersonal and intrapsychic process (Weissman & Cohen, 1985) in adult development. Parents who successfully cooperate and collaborate in raising children also value and respect each other’s involvement with the child, and desire to communicate with each other (Weissman & Cohen, 1985). This study also shows that successful coparenting involves mutual respect, equality, discussion and negotiation, enabling both partners to grow as a parent and a coparent. Cooperation was seen as a value an interactional family system where the child is the priority. Equal parenting seems to be strengthened by coparenting, at least in the expectations of our informants. As in previous studies (see KuerstenHogan, 2017), this study indicates that coparenting begins during pregnancy when parents start to plan and discuss the dimensions of coparenting together. Limitations and future directions The findings of this study highlight prenatal expectations on coparenting. However, it has its limitations. First, the participants were heterosexual couples who were cohabiting or married, and childless. It is noteworthy that family forms have more recently diversified to include, e.g. same-sex couples, who were not included here. The number of single women is also growing, meaning that firstborns are found in very different family situations. Second, as is typical in family research, the participants were largely well-educated volunteers (Rönkä et al., 2014). To some extent, the findings on shared parenthood may be biased towards more egalitarian values. The idea of parenting as an equal and shared commitment in caring and work tasks has most clearly been observed among highly educated couples (Grunow & Evertsson, 2021). Couples struggling in their relationship during pregnancy are not likely to participate in a study of this kind (Rönkä et al., 2014). On the other hand, the pursuit of effective parental collaboration may have motivated some couples to participate. Thus, the educated middle class seems to be determining the most likely future model of parenthood. Third, the interviews and qualitative analysis focused on prenatal coparenting in general rather than on specific domains (see Feinberg et al., 2012) and thus warrant comparison with other groups across cultures. It is possible that utilizing Feinberg’s model in the study influenced our interpretations of the data. However, we only used the model after the data-driven phase of the analysis. In addition, the research questions may have led the interviewees to reflect more on their ideals and aspirations than concerns and challenges. However, the number of participants was sufficient to elicit expectations of coparenting in a qualitative study. Moreover, the age and family type distribution of the couples was representative of first-time parents in Finland (OSF, 2021). Finally, as the context for this study was Finland, the results can best be generalized to similar countries with a relatively high level of gender equity (EIGE, equality index 74.7, 2020). Linking learning to coparenting may also be an important aspect in which equal parenting can be achieved. However, parents need support in how to negotiate with each other and learn together in cooperation. Riggs et al. (2018) suggest that a stronger focus in parental education programmes on the social and emotional (intraand interpersonal) rather than physical changes may be a useful strategy to help couples navigate the transition to first-time parenthood. This study showed that having a child can be seen as a JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 17 mutual project and site for growth on both the individual and couple-relationship level. Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004) noticed that studies in relationship processes before childbirth are excellent predictors of some aspects of coparenting quality. However, decisions that are made during prebirth discussions are often at odds with postnatal reality. For example, the expectations of couples who decide to share caregiving equally are likely to be violated, with mothers usually doing more and fathers less of the caregiving than earlier agreed (Miller, 2011). Clearly, more research is needed to find out whether these assumptions are any longer realistic in the present cultural framework. It is necessary to consider how society could support new parents to achieve their new parenting style aspirations. Practical implications These findings can be best utilized by professionals who work with families, first-time parents, and parents with young children, e.g. in maternity clinics and family centres. It is important that practitioners who work with couples during the transition to parenthood not only regard both expectant mothers and fathers as equally important, but also promote their clients’understanding of the importance of both parents in the day-to-day care of their child. The findings may also have relevance in other cultures where equality and shared parenthood are displacing the traditional roles of mother and father. Becoming a parent is a meaningful period of great adjustment for couples. This study suggests that it is important for new parents to discuss, share experiences and obtain knowledge about coparenting, and learn to work together as a team. Awareness of the two spouses’thoughts about parenthood, cooperation, and childrearing may facilitate a good beginning to parenthood. Coparenting changes over time, and thus it is important to identify all the factors that drive good coparenting behaviour. In the future, the developmental dimension is likely to be one of the most important areas of coparenting research. If, as posited by the family system theory, coparenting is the centre around which family processes start and develop (Weissman & Cohen, 1985), then further study of the developmental dimension of coparenting is called for. Hence, to clarify what factors promote or hinder the development of interparental cooperation during the transition to parenthood, we will collect post-natal follow-up data on our participants until their child reaches the age of one and a half years. Learning is an important part of coparenting research, as it facilitates the implementation of parenting on an equal and collaborative basis. The opportunity to learn and grow and find one’s way both as a parent and as a couple is needed to implement parenting in their own way. When parents see parenting as a teamwork, they may see its similarities with the skills required in today’s working life. When cooperation and the division of labour proceed smoothly, and both parents grow into experts, a common approach to parenting may result. Challenges in coparenting cannot, however, be avoided, and coping with these also requires flexibility in everyday practices. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank the respondents participating in this study. Financial support was received from the Academy of Finland, grant number 323492. 18 M. RANTA ET AL. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by Academy of Finland: [Grant Number 323492]. ORCID Minna Ranta http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-3367 Marja Leena Böök http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0350-2826 Susanna Paloniemi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5591-6353 Anna Rönkä http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2889-3264 References Allan, G. (2008). Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships,15(1), 1–16. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00181.x Allen, K. R., & Henderson, A. C. (2017). Family theories: Foundations and applications.Wiley Blackwell. Almqvist, A., & Duvander, A. (2014). Changes in gender equality? Swedish fathers’parental leave, division of childcare and housework. Journal of Family Studies,20(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10. 5172/jfs.2014.20.1.19 Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–499). Plenum. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00771.x Dew, J., & Wilcox, W. B. (2011). If momma ain’t happy: Explaining declines in marital satisfaction among new mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family,73(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2010.00782.x Durtschi, J. A., Soloski, K. L., & Kimmes, J. (2017). The dyadic effects of supportive coparenting and parental stress on relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,43(2), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12194 Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development,69(19), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x European Institute for Gender Equality. Gender equality index 2020 for Finland. [referred: 10.5.2021]. Available at https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2020/FI. Feinberg, M. (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,5(3), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1019695015110 Feinberg, M., Brown, L., & Kan, M. (2012). A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting,12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638870 Feinberg, M., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing family foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent–child relations. Journal of Family Psychology,22 (2), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253 Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting,3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922 PAR0302_01 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 19 Grunow, D., & Evertsson, M. (2021). Relationality and linked lives during transitions to parenthood in Europe: An analysis of institutionally framed work-care divisions. Families, Relationships and Societies,10(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674321X16111601582694 Harword, K., McLean, N., & Durkin, K. (2007). First-time mothers’expectations of parenthood. Developmental Psychology,43(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.1 Hock, R. M., & Mooradian, J. K. (2013). Defining coparenting for social work practice: A critical interpretive synthesis. Journal of Family Social Work,16(4), 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10522158.2013.795920 Hodkinson, P., & Brooks, R. (2020). Interchangeable parents? The roles and identities of primary and equal carer fathers of young children. Current Sociology Review,68(6), 780–797. https://doi. org/10.1177/0011392118807530 Kotila, L. E., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2015). Integrating sociological and psychological perspectives on coparenting. Sociology Compass,9(8), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12285 Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2017). Bridging the gap across the transition to coparenthood: Triadic interactions and coparenting representations from pregnancy through 12 months postpartum. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00475 Lévesque, S., Bisson, V., Charton, L., & Fernet, M. (2020). Parenting and relational well-being during the transition to parenthood: Challenges for first-time parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies,29(7), 1938–1956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01727-z Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J,9, 3351. McDaniel, B., Teti, D., & Feinberg, M. (2017). Assessing coparenting relationships in daily life: The daily coparenting scale (D-Cop). Journal of Child and Family Studies,26(9), 2396–2411. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0762-0 McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology,31(6), 985–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.31.6.985 McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development,11(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE. 0000035629.29960.ed Miettinen, A., Basten, S., & Rotkirch, A. (2011). Gender equality and fertility intentions. Evidence from Finland. Demographic Research,24, 469–496. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2011.24.20 Milkie, M. A. (2011). Social and cultural resources for and constraints on new mother’s marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family,73(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00784.x Miller, T. (2011). Falling back into gender? Men’s narratives and practices around first-time fatherhood. Sociology (Oxford),45(6), 1094–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511419180 Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., & Velde, E. T. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update,17(6), 848–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026 Murphy, S. E., Gallegos, M. I., Jacobvitz, D. B., & Hazen, N. L. (2017). Coparenting dynamics: Mothers’and fathers’differential support and involvement. Personal Relationships,24(4), 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12221 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Births [e-publication]. ISSN = 1798-2413. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 18.5.2021]. Available at Statistics Finland - Population - Births. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Changes in marital status [e-publication]. ISSN = 1797-643X. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 8.4.2021]. Available at Statistics Finland - Population - Changes in marital status. Olsavsky, A. L., Yan, J., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2020). New fathers’perceptions of dyadic adjustment: The roles of maternal gatekeeping and coparenting closeness. Family Process,59(2), 571. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12451 Pinto, T. M., Figueiredo, B., Pinheiro, L. L., & Canário, C. (2016). Fathers’parenting self-efficacy during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,34(4), 343– 355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1178853 20 M. RANTA ET AL. Pruett, M. K., McIntosh, J. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2014). Parental separation and overnight care of young children, part I: Consensus through theoretical and empirical integration. Family Court Review, 52(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12087 Riggs, D. W., Worth, A., & Bartholomaeus, C. (2018). The transition to parenthood for Australian heterosexual couples: Expectations, experiences and the partner relationship. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth,18(1), 342. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1985-9 Rönkä, A., Sevõn, E., Malinen, K., & Salonen, E. (2014). An examination of nonresponse in a study on daily family life: I do not have time to participate, but I can tell you something about our life. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,17(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13645579.2012.729401 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. L., Cannon, E. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Sokolowski, M. S. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology,22(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.389 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Settle, T., Lee, J., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2016). Supportive coparenting relationships as a haven of psychological safety at the transition to parenthood. Research in Human Development,13(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1141281 Sevón, E. (2012). My life has changed, but his life hasn’t’: Making sense of the gendering of parenthood during the transition to motherhood. Feminism & Psychology,22(1), 60–80. https://doi. org/10.1177/0959353511415076 Sheedy, A., & Gambrel, L. E. (2019). Coparenting negotiation during the transition to parenthood: A qualitative study of couples’experiences as new parents. The American Journal of Family Therapy,47(2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2019.1586593 Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide (2nd edition.).SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473906907. Solmeyer, A. R., & Feinberg, M. E. (2011). Mother and father adjustment during early parenthood: The roles of infant temperament and coparenting relationship quality. Infant Behavior and Development,34(4), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.07.006 Talbot, J., & McHale, J. (2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult Development,11(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JADE.0000035627.26870.f8 Van Egeren, L., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development,11(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b Van Egeren, L. A. (2003a). Prebirth predictors of coparenting perception trajectories in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal,24(3), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10056 Van Egeren, L. A. (2004). The development of the coparenting relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal,25(5), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20019 Weissman, S., & Cohen, R. (1985). The parenting alliance and adolescence. Adolescent Psychiatry, 12,24–45. JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 21