Fatherhood in public opinion: a socio-demographic analysis in the context of family policy

The article examines the socio-demographic specifics of the perception of fatherhood in contemporary Russia. The relevance of this study arises from the transformation of the institution of the family, shifts in the gender division of parental labor, and the increasing emphasis on engaged fatherhood as a priority of state demographic policy. This work analyzes differences in perceptions of how difficult it is to be a father and in views of the ideal father depending on respondents' gender, age, and educational background. The empirical base consists of data from a nationwide telephone survey by VCIOM (N=1 600, December 2025). The study applies methods for secondary data analysis, including contingency tables, Pearson’s chi-square test, Student t-test, and Cramér's V. The results show that two-thirds of respondents consider fatherhood to be a rather difficult role. The most positive perceptions are characteristic of the 29–33 age group. Meanwhile, women are most optimistic at ages 24–28, while men are most optimistic at ages 29–33. The image of a good father includes both traditional compo-nents (financial support, protection, and authority) and recent ones (emotional closeness and involvement in childrearing). Among women, this image is associated with the emotional component and instrumental functions, whereas men more often emphasize status-related and normative aspects. Educational background also shapes perceptions of fatherhood. Respondents with lower education levels often prioritize the father’s physical presence in daily family life. Respondents with higher education levels place greater emphasis on interactional quality and emotional engagement. The results indicate the heterogeneity of normative expectations. The practical significance of this work is that its results can serve to develop measures of support for fatherhood.

1. Lamb M. E. (Ed.). The Role of the Father in Child Development. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

2. Parsons T., Bales R. F. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press; 1955. 422 p.

3. Connell R. W. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987. XVII, 334 p.

4. Khitruk E. B. The concept of hegemonic masculinity in the theory of Raewyn Connell: from the XX to the XXI century. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, 2017;23(4):8–30. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2017.23.4.5526.

5. Lipasova A. (2016). Fatherhood models in the middle class of contemporary Russia. Sotsiologicheskoye obozreniye, no. 4, pp. 202–214. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2016-4-202-214

6. Ermolova E. O., Radionova D. O. Impact of hegemonic masculinity on the formation of responsible fatherhood. Bulletin of Psychology and Pedagogy of Altai State University. 2022;4(3):14–27. (In Russ.). URL: https://bppasu.ru/article/view/11893

7. Gurko T. A. Fatherhood: perceptions and practices. Blog Instituta sotsiologii RAN, 24 September 2024. (In Russ.). URL: https://www.isras.ru/blog_gurko3.html

8. Avdeeva A. V. (2012). "Involved fatherhood" in modern Russia: strategies of participation in child care. Sociological Studies. 2012;(11):95–104. (In Russ.) URL: https://www.isras.ru/files/File/Socis/2012_11/Avdeeva.pdf

9. Bezrukova O. N., Samoilova V. А. Fatherhood in Modern Russia: Meanings, Values, Practices and Intergenerational Translation. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2022;(2);94–106. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250016969-8.

10. Shevchenko I. O. Fathers and fatherhood in modern Russia: sociological analysis. Moscow: Trovant; 2019. (In Russ.)

11. Rostovskaya T. K., Vasilieva E. N. Social Portrait of Single Fathers: an Analysis within the Framework of Responsible Parenthood. Social area. 2023;9(1). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2023.1.37.2 URL: http://socialarea-journal.ru/article/29561

12. Yanak A. A Factorial Model of Paternal Involvemen. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2022;25(4):140–176. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2022.25.4.6