Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 101 references

Parental Collaboration and Closeness: Envisioning with New Couple Parents

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Co-parenting technology should treat closeness as a design goal, not just logistics.

desk verdict Solid interdependence contribution; the positive-emotion expansion looks partly probe-driven, so read it as design inspiration rather than discovered need. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22428 v1 pith:IMZE7BDE submitted 2025-05-28 cs.HC cs.CY

Ya-Fang Lin , Xiaotian Li , Wan-Hsuan Huang , Charan Pushpanathan Prabavathi , Jie Cai , John M. Carroll This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords co-parentingclosenessfamilyinformaticsinterdependencepositiveemotionco-designnewparents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that technology designed to help new parents collaborate should treat relational closeness as an explicit design goal, not an afterthought. Based on brainstorming sessions with ten Taiwanese couples whose first child was under four, the authors claim that closeness can be fostered through two mechanisms: fostering interdependence, by helping each parent become competent and able to take over tasks proactively, and integrating positive emotions, such as validation, gratitude, and fun, into parenting tasks. The study matters because the transition to parenthood is a documented strain on couple closeness, and current co-parenting apps concentrate on logistics like calendars and tracking. If the claim holds, designers of family technology would have a concrete, evidence-grounded direction: build for mutual reliance and shared positive experience, not only efficiency.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a co-design envisioning procedure in which each couple works as a single unit. Couples were presented with nine problematic co-parenting situations and a set of functions from existing parenting, couple, and pregnancy apps, then asked to brainstorm and discuss technological solutions with prompts about closeness; their verbal proposals were transcribed and inductively coded into themes. The method matters because it elicits joint, negotiated design ideas from both parents rather than from one parent alone, and it grounds the design-space claims in what couples themselves say would make them feel closer.

What would settle it

A field experiment with new parent couples comparing a co-parenting app that includes the proposed features, such as shared co-editable baby records, done lists, gratitude prompts, and mood-sharing, against an equivalent app limited to task coordination, measuring closeness with a validated scale over four to eight weeks; if closeness does not differ between conditions, the paper's design-space claim would be contradicted. A quicker check is to ask couples to use a mood-sharing feature and see whether the partner's awareness actually leads to proactive task takeover.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the design space of closeness in co-parenting technology should expand in two directions. First, closeness should be pursued through interdependence, which the paper defines as the extent to which partners rely on each other; concretely, participants wanted technologies that build each parent's competence, keep both parents on the same page about baby information, and support the less-active parent in proactively taking over tasks. Second, closeness should be pursued by weaving positive emotions into parenting tasks, for example through done lists that make each partner's contributions visible, nudges to express gratitude and validation, and playful invitations to shared time. The evidence comes from what couples envisioned when prompted with realistic problem scenarios and existing app functions: they repeatedly asked for shared co-editing of baby records, awareness of each other's mental state, and ways to turn completed care work into shared celebration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that what ten married, middle-to-high-income, cohabiting Taiwanese couples verbally proposed during one one-to-one-and-a-half-hour video session, prompted by scenario cards and app screenshots, is a faithful and sufficient basis for claims about what co-parenting technology should support; no prototype was built or tested, and partners may have censored themselves in front of each other.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Co-parenting apps should offer shared, co-editable baby information and task records so both parents can stay on the same page without one parent acting as information gatekeeper.
  • Designs should make each parent's parenting competence and contributions visible, for example with a done list, so the less-active parent can learn and take over tasks proactively.
  • Designs should support mutual awareness of mental state, including mood, sleep, and stress, so that a partner can respond with empathy and support rather than react only after conflict.
  • Designs should include positive-emotion features such as gratitude nudges, achievements, celebration prompts, and playful date invitations, treating parenting tasks as shared life experience rather than pure logistics.
  • Because closeness and supportive co-parenting are associated with each other, technology that increases closeness may also improve collaboration itself, creating a reinforcing cycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is a prototype evaluation: the proposed features could be bundled into an app and tested with new parents over several weeks to see whether interdependence features and positive-emotion features each move closeness measures independently.
  • The design recommendations are likely culturally shaped: in a context where fathers take more parental leave, the catch-up competence framing for the less-active parent might shift toward symmetric redistribution of tasks, and testing the same probes with same-sex couples or parents who live apart would reveal which parts of the design space generalize.
  • The paper's method suggests a testable boundary: if couples' closeness rises mainly from jointly negotiated features rather than from the features themselves, then co-designing the task list together may matter as much as the app's content.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative co-design study with ten Taiwanese first-time parent couples. In one Zoom session per couple, the first author interviewed the couple about their current technology use for co-parenting (RQ1) and then ran an envisioning activity in which couples selected a problematic co-parenting scenario, were shown existing app functions (shared calendar, to-do lists, baby trackers, journaling, and emotion-focused couple apps), and brainstormed how such features could be used or modified to support closeness (RQ2). The thematic analysis describes how parental collaboration can both increase distance and foster closeness, how current technologies support information and task coordination and memory sharing but lack emotional awareness, and how participants envisioned information co-editing, satisfactory task sharing, mutual mental-state awareness and proactive support, and positive emotion and fun features. The discussion proposes two design-space expansions: supporting interdependence (parental competence, task takeover, consensus) and integrating positive emotions (validation, gratitude, fun) into co-parenting technology.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution by shifting family informatics from logistics and coordination toward relational closeness as an explicit design goal. The interdependence expansion is well grounded in participants' own accounts of maternal burden, paternal passivity, and the relational value of feeling supported (Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.3.2, 5.3.3), and the paper offers concrete, buildable ideas such as shared knowledge bases, mutual emotion tracking, and task-takeover support. The study's strengths include the couple-as-unit design, collaborative and transparent coding procedures, direct quotes with participant IDs, and an unusually candid limitations section (Section 7) that acknowledges self-censorship, cultural specificity, and the lack of generalization. The self-citation to prior co-parenting work [56] is used as background context rather than as evidence for the conclusions, so I do not see a circularity problem.

major comments (1)
  1. [§6.2, §5.3.2] The positive-emotion theme, which is half of the central contribution (abstract; §6.1), is vulnerable to probe contamination. In Step 2 of the envisioning activity, the authors introduced app function categories that explicitly include 'done list' and 'parents' journal,' and the example apps include Gottman Card Decks and Love Nudge, which are emotion- and gratitude-oriented. Step 3 then asked participants how they would 'use or modify the design features presented' to feel closer. It is therefore unsurprising that §5.3.4 reports participants proposing a 'done list' to foster gratitude, prompts to celebrate, and playful date invitations. The paper does not report any temporal or source coding that distinguishes ideas voiced before probe exposure from ideas that directly echo the probe set; notably, the P5M quote used to motivate the 'done list' in §5.3.4 is nearly identical to a quote already presented as current-practice evidence in §5.2.3, so its placement as an envisioned design is ambiguous. Some independent grounding exists in participants' current emotional use of baby and photo apps (§5.2.3), but the design-space expansion in the abstract and §6.1 goes beyond that. To make the contribution load-bearing, the authors should re-analyze the transcripts to report whether positive-emotion design ideas emerged before or independently of the probe set, or explicitly reframe the contribution as design possibilities elicited under these probe conditions and temper the 'we expand' wording accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3] The statement that 'companies are legally bound to offer two-year paternity leave for new fathers' is imprecise: Taiwan's two-year unpaid parental leave is available to either parent, not as a paternity-specific entitlement. Please correct or qualify this sentence.
  2. [§4.3] The coding description says that after the initial transcript, three researchers independently read and coded two transcripts each, which accounts for only six of the nine remaining transcripts; please clarify how the remaining transcripts were coded and how codebook consistency was ensured across all ten sessions.
  3. [§4.2.1] The design probes were shown as English screenshots and explained in Mandarin; a sentence on how this language mix may have affected comprehension or engagement would strengthen the method section.
  4. [Abstract, §6.1–§6.2] Because the data are verbal design proposals from a single co-design session with no prototype evaluation, the abstract's 'we expand the design space' and similar discussion wording could be read as stronger than the evidence supports; consider consistently using 'propose' or 'identify opportunities for' and relying on the candid limitations already stated in §7.
  5. [§2.1, Abstract] The phrase 'expand the design space of technology for closeness to include interdependence' is confusing because interdependence is already part of the paper's definition of closeness in §2.1; consider phrasing such as 'extend prior technology-for-closeness research, which has focused on intimacy and shared experiences, to include interdependence in high-stakes caregiving contexts.'
  6. [§5.3.4] The statement that current technology 'ignore[s] the positive emotions parents experience' is too strong given the current-practice evidence in §5.2.3 (baby photo sharing, breastfeeding-tracker memory, shared pregnancy apps); 'do not adequately support' would be more accurate.
  7. [Front matter] The ACM template fields (conference acronym, year, DOI, ACM Reference Format) are still unfilled; update these before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the design-space expansion rests on participant co-design data and external literature, not on the authors' prior conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a qualitative co-design study: participant reports of current technology use (Section 5.2) and co-created design proposals (Section 5.3) are interpreted through two lenses—interdependence and positive emotion (Section 6). The central claims are not derived from the authors' earlier results. The only prior work by the same team ([56]) is cited as background for co-parenting obstacles and for a cross-cultural contrast in the limitations; it does not supply the target conclusion. The definitional overlap—closeness is defined to include interdependence, and the paper later 'expands' the technology-for-closeness design space to include interdependence—is framing, not reduction: the empirical content, such as the 'done list' for gratitude and proactive task takeover, comes from participant transcripts, not from the definition. The envisioning prompt did ask participants to build on presented app functions, which could channel ideas; however, the paper transparently frames the outputs as co-designed possibilities rather than unprompted discoveries, and the positive-emotion theme is also grounded in the Section 5.2.3 reports of current practices (e.g., P5M's breastfeeding app, P1M's journal). That is a study-design caveat about probe influence, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no self-citation chain is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This qualitative paper's conclusions rest on conceptual and methodological assumptions rather than fitted parameters. The main load-bearing assumptions are the chosen definition of closeness, the validity of joint co-design elicitation, and the representativeness of the ten couples. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond design opportunities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Closeness can be decomposed into shared experiences, interdependence, and intimacy.
    Adopted from social psychology literature (Berscheid et al., Rusbult et al., Reis) in Section 2.1; this definition shapes what counts as closeness throughout the findings and discussion.
  • domain assumption Self-disclosure and partner responsiveness drive intimacy, as described by Reis's interpersonal process model.
    Section 2.1 defines intimacy via this model, and Section 6.2.1 uses it to argue that mutual mental-state tracking can increase closeness.
  • domain assumption Joint co-design sessions with both parents yield valid design requirements.
    Section 4.2 treats users as experts in their experiences and has couples ideate together; the paper itself notes in Section 7 that participants may hesitate to share thoughts that upset their partners.
  • ad hoc to paper First-time parents whose first child is under four years old can accurately recall their transition-to-parenthood experience.
    Section 4.1.1 recruitment criterion; plausible but not validated with external evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper A single session per couple with scenario cards and existing app screenshots is enough to elicit design ideas relevant to closeness.
    Section 4.2.1 procedure has no follow-up sessions or prototype testing; the prompts may anchor participants' ideas toward the functions shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parental Collaboration and Closeness: Envisioning with New Couple Parents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMZE7BDE

@misc{pith2026250522428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parental Collaboration and Closeness: Envisioning with New Couple Parents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMZE7BDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22428}
}
read the original abstract

Couples often experience a decrease in closeness as they cope with the demands of parenthood. Existing technologies have supported parenting and parental collaboration. However, these technologies do not adequately support closeness in co-parenting. We use scenarios and design probes to brainstorm with 10 new parent couples to explore and envision possibilities for technologies to support closeness. We reported parents' current technology use for co-parenting and how participants considered and envisioned co-parenting technology for closeness, including information and task sharing, emotion awareness and disclosure, and fostering fun interaction. We discuss the potential technology has for fostering closeness in co-parenting by (1) fostering interdependence by supporting parental competence and (2) integrating positive emotions and experiences, such as validation and fun, in parenting. Based on our findings, we expand the design space of technology for closeness to include interdependence. We also expand the design space for co-parenting technology by integrating more positive emotions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Ultimately We’re Together

    Ya-Fang Lin, Na Li, Wan-Hsuan Huang, Karen Ecsedy, Mark E Feinberg, Douglas Teti, and John M Carroll. 2024. " Ultimately We’re Together": Understanding New Parents’ Experiences of Co-parenting. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–25

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    José Abreu-Afonso, Maria Meireles Ramos, Ine^s Queiroz-Garcia, and Isabel Leal

  3. [2]

    Sara B Algoe. 2012. Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships. Social and personality psychology compass 6, 6 (2012), 455–469

    2012

  4. [3]

    Sarah M Allen and Alan J Hawkins. 1999. Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1999), 199–212

    1999

  5. [4]

    Arthur Aron and Elaine N Aron. 1997. Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. (1997)

    1997

  6. [5]

    James A Banks. 1998. The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational researcher 27, 7 (1998), 4–17

    1998

  7. [6]

    Katherine Bécotte, Audrey Brassard, Anne Brault-Labbé, Anne-Laurence Gagné, and Katherine Péloquin. 2023. Positive relationship adaptation of couples tran- sitioning to parenthood: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Family Relations 72, 4 (2023), 2251–2269

    2023

  8. [7]

    Ellen Berscheid, Mark Snyder, and Allen M Omoto. 1989. The Relationship Close- ness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 57, 5 (1989), 792

    1989

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    Unfor- tunately I’ma massively heavy sleeper

    Ashlee Borgkvist, Jaklin Eliott, Shona Crabb, and Vivienne Moore. 2020. “Unfor- tunately I’ma massively heavy sleeper”: An analysis of fathers’ constructions of parenting. Men and Masculinities 23, 3-4 (2020), 680–701

    2020

  2. [9]

    Stacy Branham and Steve Harrison. 2013. Designing for collocated couples. Connecting families: the impact of new communication technologies on domestic life (2013), 15–36

    2013

  3. [10]

    Amanda V Broderick, Gina M Brelsford, and Martha E Wadsworth. 2019. Inter- parental relationships among low income, ethnically diverse, two-parent cohab- iting families. Journal of Child and Family Studies 28 (2019), 2259–2271

    2019

  4. [11]

    Barry Brown, Alex S Taylor, Shahram Izadi, Abigail Sellen, Joseph Jofish’ Kaye, and Rachel Eardley. 2007. Locating Family Values: A Field Trial of the Where- abouts Clock: (Nominated for the Best Paper Award). InUbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous Computing: 9th International Conference,...

    2007

  5. [12]

    Cynthia G Campbell. 2023. Two decades of coparenting research: a scoping review. Marriage & Family Review 59, 6 (2023), 379–411

    2023

  6. [13]

    John M Carroll. 2003. Scenario-based design. MIT Press

    2003

  7. [14]

    Peter Knøsgaard Christensen, Christoffer Øland Skovgaard, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2019. Together together: Combining shared and separate activities in designing technology for family life. In Proceedings of the 18th acm international conference on interaction design and ...

    2019

  8. [15]

    Caroline Christopher, Tomo Umemura, Tanya Mann, Deborah Jacobvitz, and Nancy Hazen. 2015. Marital quality over the transition to parenthood as a predictor of coparenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies 24, 12 (2015), 3636–3651

    2015

  9. [16]

    Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip A Cowan. 1992. When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. basic books

    1992

  10. [17]

    Martha J Cox and Blair Paley. 1997. Families as systems. Annual review of psychology 48, 1 (1997), 243–267

    1997

  11. [18]

    I’m Trying to be There for my Kids

    Francine E Darroch, John L Oliffe, Gabriela Gonzalez Montaner, and Jessica M Webb. 2023. “I’m Trying to be There for my Kids”: A Needs Analysis of Fathers Who Experience Health Inequities in Vancouver, Canada. Men and Masculinities 26, 2 (2023), 229–250

    2023

  12. [19]

    Scott Davidoff, John Zimmerman, and Anind K Dey. 2010. How routine learners can support family coordination. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2461–2470

    2010

  13. [20]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2014. Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. Human motivation and interpersonal relationships: Theory, research, and applications (2014), 53–73

    2014

  14. [21]

    Eleanor Chin Derix and Tuck Wah Leong. 2020. Probes to explore the individual perspectives on technology use that exist within sets of parents. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 519–531

    2020

  15. [22]

    Dominique Deuff, Isabelle Milleville-Pennel, Ioana Ocnarescu, Dora Garcin, Corentin Aznar, Siméon Capy, Shohei Hagane, Pablo Felipe Osorio Marin, En- rique Coronado Zuniga, Liz Rincon Ardila, et al. 2022. Together alone, Y¯okobo, a sensible presence robject for the home of new...

    2022

  16. [23]

    Eva Diniz, Tânia Brandão, Lígia Monteiro, and Manuela Veríssimo. 2021. Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of the literature.Journal of Family Theory & Review 13, 1 (2021), 77–99

    2021

  17. [24]

    Paul Dourish and Victoria Bellotti. 1992. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. 107–114

    1992

  18. [25]

    Jodi Dworkin, Ellie McCann, and Jenifer K McGuire. 2016. Coparenting in the digital era: Exploring divorced parents’ use of technology. In Divorce, separation, and remarriage: The transformation of family. Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    2016

  19. [26]

    Elisabeth Eichhorn, Reto Wettach, and Eva Hornecker. 2008. A stroking device for spatially separated couples. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services . 303–306

    2008

  20. [27]

    Cindy Eira Nunes, Yves De Roten, Nahema El Ghaziri, Nicolas Favez, and Joëlle Darwiche. 2021. Co-parenting programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Family Relations 70, 3 (2021), 759–776

    2021

  21. [28]

    Anne Ellegaard Christensen, Malene H Magnussen, Tobias S Seindal, and Dim- itrios Raptis. 2021. Shaping Romance: Mediating Intimacy for Co-Located Couples. In Proceedings of the 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . 86–98

    2021

  22. [29]

    Angela Afua Entsieh and Inger Kristensson Hallström. 2016. First-time parents’ prenatal needs for early parenthood preparation-A systematic review and meta- synthesis of qualitative literature. Midwifery 39 (2016), 1–11

    2016

  23. [30]

    Mark E Feinberg. 2002. Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A frame- work for prevention. Clinical child and family psychology review 5, 3 (2002), 173–195

    2002

  24. [31]

    Mark E Feinberg. 2003. The internal structure and ecological context of coparent- ing: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice 3, 2 (2003), 95–131

    2003

  25. [32]

    Child Welfare League Foundation. 2020. 2020 Survey Report on Taiwanese Men’s Parenting Attitudes and Current Situation . https://www.children.org.tw/ publication_research/research_report/340

    2020

  26. [33]

    TG Futris, F Adler-Baeder, et al. 2013. The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Model: Core teaching concepts for relationship and marriage enrichment programming. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved February 21 (2013), 2016

    2013

  27. [34]

    Amie M Gordon, Emily A Impett, Aleksandr Kogan, Christopher Oveis, and Dacher Keltner. 2012. To have and to hold: gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of personality and social psychology 103, 2 (2012), 257

    2012

  28. [35]

    Cameron L Gordon, Robyn AM Arnette, and Rachel E Smith. 2011. Have you thanked your spouse today?: Felt and expressed gratitude among married couples. Personality and Individual Differences 50, 3 (2011), 339–343

    2011

  29. [36]

    John Mordechai Gottman. 1998. Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual review of psychology 49, 1 (1998), 169–197

    1998

  30. [37]

    John M Gottman and Clifford I Notarius. 2000. Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of marriage and family 62, 4 (2000), 927–947

    2000

  31. [38]

    N Grant, S Rodger, and T Hoffmann. 2016. Intervention decision-making pro- cesses and information preferences of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. Child: care, health and development 42, 1 (2016), 125–134

    2016

  32. [39]

    Cindy Hazan and Phillip R Shaver. 1994. Attachment as an organizational frame- work for research on close relationships. Psychological inquiry 5, 1 (1994), 1–22

    1994

  33. [40]

    Li He. 2013. Couple collaboration: a design research exploration. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2689–2694

    2013

  34. [41]

    Hsiu-Zu Ho, Wei-Wen Chen, Connie N Tran, and Chu-Ting Ko. 2010. Parental in- volvement in Taiwanese families: Father-mother differences.Childhood Education 86, 6 (2010), 376–381

    2010

  35. [42]

    Hsiu-Zu Ho and Yeana W Lam. 2019. Father involvement in East Asia: Beyond the breadwinner role? The Wiley handbook of family, school, and community relationships in education (2019), 333–356

    2019

  36. [43]

    Ho Hsiu-Zu, Connie N Tran, Chu-Ting Ko, Jessica M Phillips, Alma Boutin- Martinez, Carol N Dixon, and Wei-Wen Chen. 2011. Parent involvement: Voices of Taiwanese fathers. International Journal about Parents in Education 5, 2 (2011)

    2011

  37. [44]

    Hsin-Hui Huang, Tzu-Ying Lee, Xin-Ting Lin, and Hui-Ying Duan. 2022. Maternal confidence and parenting stress of first-time mothers in Taiwan: The impact of Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Lin et al. sources and types of social support. In Healthcare, V...

    2022

  38. [45]

    Jonas Kjeldmand Jensen, Tawfiq Ammari, and Pernille Bjørn. 2019. Into Scandi- navia: When Online Fatherhood Reflects Societal Infrastructures. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, GROUP (2019), 1–21

    2019

  39. [46]

    Eunkyung Jo, Austin L Toombs, Colin M Gray, and Hwajung Hong. 2020. Under- standing parenting stress through co-designed self-trackers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  40. [47]

    Victor Karandashev and Victor Karandashev. 2019. Love as Intimacy. Cross- Cultural Perspectives on the Experience and Expression of Love (2019), 187–202

    2019

  41. [48]

    Inna Khazan, James P Mchale, and Wendy Decourcey. 2008. Violated wishes about division of childcare labor predict early coparenting process during stressful and nonstressful family evaluations. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Inf...

    2008

  42. [49]

    This just felt to me like the right thing to do

    Susanne Kirchner, Dawn K Sakaguchi-Tang, Rebecca Michelson, Sean A Munson, and Julie A Kientz. 2020. "This just felt to me like the right thing to do" Decision- Making Experiences of Parents of Young Children. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems confer...

    2020

  43. [50]

    Man Ching Ko and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. Mobilizing Instrumental Childcare Sup- port for Postpartum Mothers: Needs for and Barriers to Infant-centric Family Informatics Practices in Hong Kong. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–40

    2022

  44. [51]

    Robert Kowalski, Sebastian Loehmann, and Doris Hausen. 2013. Cubble: A multi- device hybrid approach supporting communication in long-distance relationships. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. 201–204

    2013

  45. [52]

    Kyong-Ah Kwon, Suejung Han, Hyun-Joo Jeon, and Gary E Bingham. 2013. Moth- ers’ and fathers’ parenting challenges, strategies, and resources in toddlerhood. Early Child Development and Care 183, 3-4 (2013), 415–429

    2013

  46. [53]

    Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Michael J Rovine. 2005. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of family psychology 19, 2 (2005), 314

    2005

  47. [54]

    Yunying Le, Steffany J Fredman, Brandon T McDaniel, Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, and Mark E Feinberg. 2019. Cross-day influences between couple closeness and coparenting support among new parents. Journal of Family Psychology 33, 3 (2019), 360

    2019

  48. [55]

    Ersel E LeMasters. 1957. Parenthood as crisis. Marriage and family living 19, 4 (1957), 352–355

    1957

  49. [57]

    Sinna Lindquist, Bo Westerlund, Yngve Sundblad, Helena Tobiasson, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Wendy Mackay. 2007. Co-designing communication tech- nology with and for families–Methods, experience, results and impact. The Disappearing Computer: Interaction Design, System Infras...

    2007

  50. [58]

    Xi Lu, Jacquelyn E Powell, Elena Agapie, Yunan Chen, and Daniel A Epstein. 2024. Examining the Social Aspects of Pregnancy Tracking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–30

    2024

  51. [59]

    Xi Lu, Jacquelyn E Powell, Elena Agapie, Yunan Chen, and Daniel A Epstein

  52. [60]

    Mallory Lucier-Greer, Amelia J Birney, Teri M Gutierrez, and Francesca Adler- Baeder. 2018. Enhancing relationship skills and couple functioning with mobile technology: An evaluation of the Love Every Day mobile intervention. Journal of Family Social Work 21, 2 (2018), 152–171

    2018

  53. [61]

    Kai Lukoff, Carol Moser, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2017. Gender norms and attitudes about childcare activities presented on father blogs. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4966–4971

    2017

  54. [62]

    James P McHale, Regina Kuersten-Hogan, and Nirmala Rao. 2004. Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of adult development 11, 3 (2004), 221–234

    2004

  55. [63]

    Lisa A Newland, Hui-Hua Chen, Diana D Coyl-Shepherd, Yi-Ching Liang, Eliann R Carr, Emily Dykstra, and Susan C Gapp. 2013. Parent and child per- spectives on mothering and fathering: The influence of ecocultural niches. Early Child Development and Care 183, 3-4 (2013), 534–552

    2013

  56. [64]

    Sarah Nikkhah, Swaroop John, Krishna Supradeep Yalamarti, Emily L Mueller, and Andrew D Miller. 2022. Family Care Coordination in the Children’s Hospital: Phases and Cycles in the Pediatric Cancer Caregiving Journey. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW...

    2022

  57. [65]

    William Odom, John Zimmerman, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. Designing for dynamic family structures: divorced families and interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems . 151–160

    2010

  58. [66]

    In Young Park, Jennifer L Bellamy, Stephanie Rachel Speer, Jangmin Kim, Jin Yao Kwan, Paula Powe, Aaron Banman, Justin S Harty, and Neil B Guterman. 2023. Actor and Partner Effects of Interparental Relationship and Co-Parenting on Parenting Stress Among Fathers and Mothers. Fa...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Lexie Pfeifer, Richard B Miller, Tsui-Shan Li, and Ying-Ling Hsiao. 2013. Perceived marital problems in Taiwan. Contemporary Family Therapy 35 (2013), 91–104

    2013

  60. [68]

    Paula R Pietromonaco and Nancy L Collins. 2017. Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. American Psychologist 72, 6 (2017), 531

    2017

  61. [69]

    Paul G Ramchandani, Jill Domoney, Vaheshta Sethna, Lamprini Psychogiou, Haido Vlachos, and Lynne Murray. 2013. Do early father–infant interactions predict the onset of externalising behaviours in young children? Findings from a longitudinal cohort study. Journal of child psych...

    2013

  62. [70]

    Harry T Reis et al. 2018. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Relationships, well-being and behaviour. Routledge, 113–143

    2018

  63. [71]

    Damien W Riggs and Clare Bartholomaeus. 2020. ‘That’s my job’: Accounting for division of labour amongst heterosexual first time parents. Community, Work & Family 23, 1 (2020), 107–122

    2020

  64. [72]

    Michael J Rosenfeld and Sonia Hausen. 2023. Resilience and Stress in Romantic Relationships in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sociological Science 10 (2023), 472–500

    2023

  65. [73]

    Caryl E Rusbult, Madoka Kumashiro, Michael K Coolsen, and Jeffrey L Kirchner

  66. [74]

    Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 1 (2008), 5–18

    2008

  67. [75]

    September 16, 2021

    Zachary Scherer. September 16, 2021. College-Educated Women and Non-Hispanic White Women More Likely to Work During First Preg- nancy. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/09/two-thirds-recent- first-time-fathers-took-time-off-after-birth.html#:~:text=Roughly%20two- thi...

    2021

  68. [76]

    Jenny Lukito Setiawan, Jessica Christina Widhigdo, Lisa Indriati, Mychael Mao- eretz Engel, and Amanda Teonata. 2022. Understanding the Issues of Co-parenting in Indonesia. (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Alyson Fearnley Shapiro, John M Gottman, and Sybil Carrere. 2000. The baby and the marriage: identifying factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal of family psychology 14, 1 (2000), 59

    2000

  70. [78]

    Anna Sheedy and Laura Eubanks Gambrel. 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 (2019), 67–86

    2019

  71. [79]

    April Chiung-Tao Shen. 2005. Factors in the marital relationship in a changing society: A Taiwan case study. International Social Work 48, 3 (2005), 325–340

    2005

  72. [80]

    Ji Youn Shin, Wei Peng, and Hee Rin Lee. 2022. More than Bedtime and the Bedroom: Sleep Management as a Collaborative Work for the Family. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2022

  73. [81]

    Madeline E Smith, Leo Ascenzi, Yingsi Qin, and Ryan Wetsman. 2018. Designing a Video Co-Watching Web App to Support Interpersonal Relationship Maintenance. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 162–165

    2018

  74. [82]

    Seokwoo Song, Juho Kim, Bumsoo Kang, Wonjeong Park, and John Kim. 2018. Bebecode: Collaborative child development tracking system. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2018

  75. [83]

    Seokwoo Song, Naomi Yamashita, and John Kim. 2020. Bodeum: Encouraging Working Parents to Provide Emotional Support for Stay-at-Home Parents in Korea. In Proceedings of the 14th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 38–49

    2020

  76. [84]

    Marc Steen. 2013. Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination.Design issues 29, 2 (2013), 16–28

    2013

  77. [85]

    Robert J Sternberg. 1986. A triangular theory of love. Psychological review 93, 2 (1986), 119

    1986

  78. [86]

    Li Ping Su, Richard B Miller, Jerevie M Canlas, Tsui-Shan Li, Ying-Ling Hsiao, and Brian J Willoughby. 2015. A cross-cultural study of perceived marital problems in Taiwan and the United States. Contemporary Family Therapy 37 (2015), 165–175

    2015

  79. [87]

    Keita Suzuki, Masanori Yokoyama, Shigeo Yoshida, Takayoshi Mochizuki, Tomo- hiro Yamada, Takuji Narumi, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2017. Faceshare: Mirroring with pseudo-smile enriches video chat communications. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human ...

    2017

  80. [88]

    Gareth M Thomas, Deborah Lupton, and Sarah Pedersen. 2018. ‘The appy for a happy pappy’: expectant fatherhood and pregnancy apps. Journal of Gender Studies 27, 7 (2018), 759–770

    2018

  81. [89]

    Yi-Chan Tu, Jen-Chun Chang, and Tsai-Feng Kao. 2014. A study on the rela- tionships between maternal gatekeeping and paternal involvement in Taiwan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 122 (2014), 319–328

    2014

  82. [90]

    Jean M Twenge, W Keith Campbell, and Craig A Foster. 2003. Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. Journal of marriage and family 65, 3 (2003), 574–583

    2003

  83. [91]

    Laurie A Van Egeren and Dyane P Hawkins. 2004. Coming to terms with copar- enting: Implications of definition and measurement.Journal of Adult Development 11, 3 (2004), 165–178. Parental Collaboration and Closeness Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    2004

  84. [92]

    Like a candy shop with forbidden fruits

    Roos van Greevenbroek, Dilisha Patel, and Aneesha Singh. 2023. " Like a candy shop with forbidden fruits": Exploring Sexual Desire of Cohabiting Millennial Couples with Technology. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1842–1860

    2023

  85. [93]

    Frank Vetere, Martin R Gibbs, Jesper Kjeldskov, Steve Howard, Florian’Floyd’ Mueller, Sonja Pedell, Karen Mecoles, and Marcus Bunyan. 2005. Mediating inti- macy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factor...

    2005

  86. [94]

    Chelsea-Joy Wardle, Mitchell Green, Christine Wanjiru Mburu, and Melissa Densmore. 2018. Exploring co-design with breastfeeding mothers. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2018

  87. [95]

    Kathy Weingarten. 2022. Interdependence. In Working couples. Routledge, 147– 158

    2022

  88. [96]

    Alison C White, Olivia N Diggs, and Tricia K Neppl. 2024. Father and mother harsh parenting and adult romantic relationships over time: Individual behavior during adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology (2024)

    2024

  89. [97]

    Svetlana Yarosh, Sarita Schoenebeck, Shreya Kothaneth, and Elizabeth Bales

  90. [2004]

    Handbook of closeness and intimacy (2004), 147–172

    Interdependence, closeness, and relationships. Handbook of closeness and intimacy (2004), 147–172

    2004

  91. [2016]

    Best of Both Worlds

    "Best of Both Worlds" Opportunities for Technology in Cross-Cultural Parenting. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 635–647

    2016

  92. [2022]

    Psychological reports 125, 3 (2022), 1601–1627

    How couple’s relationship lasts over time? A model for marital satisfaction. Psychological reports 125, 3 (2022), 1601–1627

    2022

  93. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Unpacking the Lived Experience of Collaborative Pregnancy Tracking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.