Implications of Research

User Generated

zmpulanqbyy1

Writing

Description

An important part of research is understanding what to do with the information gained from research or, in other words, the implications for the research findings. In this discussion, you consider the implications of the findings of a research study concerning fathers' roles in their children's socioemotional development.

While psychology has a long history of researching attachment, early research focused on mothers' relationships with children. It has not always been clear what a father's role is in children's development. Fortunately, there is a great deal of research examining how fathers are an important part of children's development.

After reading the Jia, Kotila, and Schoppe-Sullivan article, "Transactional Relations Between Father Involvement and Preschoolers' Socioemotional Adjustment," (attached) consider the implications of this study's findings. Then, complete the following:

  • Describe what the authors studied.
  • Describe the findings—how you understand the findings.
  • Discuss the implications of the findings. (What value is there in the findings? How can we apply them? How could we effectively get this information out to parents who could benefit? Are there any risks or other drawbacks to implementing the findings?)

Note: Avoid using direct quotes. Paraphrase what you read to demonstrate your own understanding of the research. Use in-text citations for your paraphrases.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of Family Psychology 2012, Vol. 26, No. 6, 848 – 857 © 2012 American Psychological Association 0893-3200/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030245 Transactional Relations Between Father Involvement and Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Adjustment Rongfang Jia, Letitia E. Kotila, and Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Ohio State University Children’s socioemotional development is child as well as parent driven. Yet, transactional frameworks are rarely applied to studies of father– child relations. This study examined reciprocal associations between father involvement in play and caregiving and children’s adjustment and tested supportive coparenting behavior as a moderator of these associations. One hundred twelve families participated in a 1-year longitudinal study. Fathers reported on their involvement and mothers and teachers reported on preschoolers’ behavior at two time points, and supportive coparenting behavior was observed at the second time point. Results showed that father involvement in play predicted relative decreases in externalizing behaviors, and also relative decreases in internalizing behaviors and relative increases in social competence at school only when accompanied by supportive coparenting behavior; reciprocally, fathers showed relative reductions in their play with children initially high in internalizing behaviors perceived by teachers. Father involvement in caregiving predicted relative increases in children’s internalizing behaviors, but reciprocal effects indicated that these associations may be driven by children. The presence of reciprocal associations between father involvement and child behaviors that differed for play and caregiving domains and were moderated by supportive coparenting behavior suggests the importance of a transactional, domain-specific, and systemic approach to understanding father– child relations and the implementation of relevant intervention practices. Keywords: socioemotional adjustment, father– child relationships, coparenting, preschool children, transactional relations Veits, & Zeman, 2006) and rarely has the transactional framework been applied to the study of relations between father involvement and child adjustment. To address these limitations, the current study examined reciprocal associations between father involvement and preschool-age children’s adjustment. Guided by domain-specific theory (Grusec & Davidov, 2010), which assumes that different parent– child interaction domains are governed by different rules and are associated with child outcomes in distinct ways, we considered two important domains of father involvement during the preschool years (i.e., play and caregiving), aiming to explore how the quantity of father involvement in the two different domains affects and is affected by children’s behavior. The notion that the development of child adjustment problems is child as well as parent driven has been widely accepted (Pardini, 2008). Children’s initial problematic behaviors contribute to change in parenting over time, just as they are influenced by parenting practices (Crouter & Booth, 2003). This bidirectional interchange between parent and child has been elaborated in transactional models (Bates & Pettit, 2007; Patterson, 2002; Sameroff, 1975) that illustrate how specific child behaviors may initially “push buttons” in parents, whose mismatched responses in turn escalate the child’s initial symptoms. Although an awareness of the importance of the father to children’s socialization (Lamb, 2010) has spurred empirical studies linking father involvement to positive child socioemotional adjustment (Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, & Bremberg, 2008), fathers continue to be neglected in the developmental psychopathology literature (Cassano, Adrian, Father Involvement in Play and Caregiving and Children’s Socioemotional Adjustment Fathers have often been described as “specializing” in playoriented activities with their children. Indeed, fathers spend a greater proportion of time in play with children than mothers (Paquette, 2004), and boisterous play interactions with fathers elicit highly positive responses from young children (Feldman, 2003), rendering this type of father involvement a salient and positive influence on preschoolers who are rapidly developing emotionally and socially (Roggman, Boyce, Cook, Christiansen, & Jones, 2004). Domain-specific theory (Grusec & Davidov, 2010) attributes the benefits of father involvement in play to its “reciprocal” nature: parents and children engaged in playful interactions are mutually responsive to each other’s needs and interact as equal-status part- This article was published Online First October 15, 2012. Rongfang Jia, Letitia E. Kotila, and Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan, Department of Human Development and Family Science, Ohio State University. This research was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant (R03 HD050235) to Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan. We express gratitude to the parents, children, and teachers who participated in this study and the students who assisted with data collection and coding, especially Claire Cook, Angela Rule, Catherine Buckley, Evan Davis, and Arielle Sheftall. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rongfang Jia, Department of Human Development and Family Science, Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: jia.31@osu.edu 848 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FATHER INVOLVEMENT ners; children’s reasonable requests are accommodated by parents while they are taught to follow rules and compete in appropriate ways. This is consistent with Russell, Pettit, and Mize’s (1998) “horizontal” interaction and Paquette’s (2004) “activation relationship,” both emphasizing the significance of fathers’ arousing and responsible play in opening and adapting children to the world. Indeed, studies have found that high quality play with fathers gives children opportunities to practice skills involved in peer relationships, increasing children’s social competence (e.g., Lindsey, Mize, & Pettit, 1997). Mutually responsive father– child play also facilitates children’s self-regulation and development of compliance (Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, & Adams, 2008), which reduces children’s risk for externalizing and internalizing behaviors (Bögels & Phares, 2008; Mattanah, 2001). However, research explicitly testing how father involvement in play, especially the quantity aspect (e.g., frequency or level of involvement), contributes to child adjustment is limited. On the other hand, parent– child interaction in caregiving activities such as feeding, bathing, or putting the child to bed is more “vertical,” with parents more reliant on authority and control over their children (Lindsey, Cremeens, & Caldera, 2010; Russell et al., 1998) and can be categorized under the “control” and “protection” domains (Grusec & Davidov, 2010). The “vertical” and “control” qualities of this domain increase uncertainty regarding the effect of level or frequency of father involvement in caregiving on child outcomes. Indeed, although some studies have shown that fathers who are more frequently involved in caregiving are high in parental efficacy (Barry, Smith, Deutsch, & Perry-Jenkins, 2011) and have more sociable infants (Frascarolo, 2004), in other studies the quantity of father involvement in caregiving either had few benefits (Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1984) or was associated with poorer child behavioral adjustment (Culp, Schadle, Robinson, & Culp, 2000; Mitchell & Cabrera, 2009). These inconsistencies highlight the need to disentangle the domains of caregiving and play when examining the impact of father involvement on child adjustment. Just as father involvement may affect child adjustment, father involvement may also be affected by child behavior. However, few studies have considered this alternative possibility. Limited studies have shown that children with difficult temperaments, who are at risk for behavior problems, experience reduced father involvement (Manlove & Vernon-Feagans, 2002; McBride, Schoppe, & Rane, 2002). Whether these child-driven effects differ for play and caregiving involvement is unclear. Father involvement in play, which emphasizes children’s reciprocity with fathers, may be more dampened by the aversive effect of children’s problem behaviors, whereas father involvement in caregiving, which primarily functions to fulfill children’s needs, may be heightened when children’s needs are more challenging to meet. Thus far, only two studies have formally tested reciprocal links between father involvement and child adjustment and both focused on families with adolescents and relied on mothers or/and adolescents (but not fathers) as informants regarding father involvement. Coley and Medeiros (2007) found higher contact and responsibility for children’s care and behavior by nonresident fathers predicted decreases in adolescent delinquency over a 16-month period but not vice versa. Hawkins, Amato, and King (2007) examined bidirectional associations of father– child communication, closeness, and shared activities with adolescents’ problem behaviors 849 and academic competence. Their data supported both child- and father-driven effects in resident father families. However, it is unclear whether these results would apply to resident father families of preschool-age children and how fathers’ quantitative involvement in play and caregiving might respond differently to children’s initial adjustment difficulties. Coparenting Behavior as a Moderator Father– child relations are susceptible to the quality of the coparenting relationship with the child’s mother (Schoppe-Sullivan, Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, & Sokolowski, 2008). Coparenting behavior can be primarily defined as the extent to which parents support versus undermine each other’s parenting efforts (SchoppeSullivan et al., 2008). A high-quality coparenting relationship has been found to be important for supportive father-adolescent relationships (Sobolewski & King, 2005) and children’s positive adjustment (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). The current study examined the moderating effect of coparenting behavior on the prospective associations between father involvement and child adjustment, positing that the effect of father involvement on child adjustment would become vulnerable in the face of coparental discord, but strengthened in the context of supportive coparenting behavior (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2007). Although direct evidence does not exist for the proposed moderating effect of supportive coparenting behavior, Sturge-Apple, Davies, and Cummings (2006) found that interparental withdrawal compromised fathers’ emotional availability in play, which was associated with greater behavior problems in 6 year olds. Reciprocally, coparenting behavior may also moderate prospective associations between child behavior and father involvement, in light of evidence indicating that a supportive relationship draws parents of temperamentally challenging children together (Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, & Sokolowski, 2007) and that infant difficult temperament impacts parents adversely only in conjunction with other family risks such as undermining coparenting behavior (see Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003 for a review). As such, fathers may become more involved with children initially high in problem behaviors when they have a supportive coparenting relationship with their child’s mother. To our knowledge, no prior studies have tested whether transactional relations between father involvement and child adjustment may be qualified as a function of coparenting behavior, nor is there direct evidence regarding how such moderation effects may differ for play and caregiving domains of father involvement. The Present Study In the current study, we focused on preschool-aged children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors that often persist, negatively influencing later functioning. We also included teacher reports of preschoolers’ social competence that reflected the child’s ability to regulate their behaviors and interactions with peers (Ladd, 1999). We relied on fathers’ reports of their involvement, which have greater predictive validity than mothers’ reports (Hernandez & Coley, 2007) and utilized mothers and teachers as independent informants of child behavior in an effort to minimize shared informant effects and to provide complementary perspectives. JIA, KOTILA, AND SCHOPPE-SULLIVAN 850 Hypotheses About Father Involvement in Play We expected that father involvement in play would be associated with relative decreases in externalizing and internalizing behaviors and relative increases in social competence, especially for families characterized by supportive coparenting behavior (parent-driven main and moderating effects). Reciprocally, we expected initially high levels of child problem behaviors and social incompetence to predict relative decreases in father involvement in play, especially within an unsupportive coparenting context (childdriven main and moderating effects). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Hypotheses About Father Involvement in Caregiving Because of the more “vertical” nature of father involvement in caregiving and its inconsistent associations with child functioning in the existing literature, we advanced no specific hypotheses with respect to prospective associations between father involvement in caregiving and child adjustment (parent-driven effects). However, we anticipated that preschoolers’ initial problem behaviors and social incompetence would be associated with relative increases in father involvement in caregiving, especially when coparenting behavior was supportive (child-driven main and moderating effects). Method Participants and Procedure The sample included 112 families (mother, father, 4-year-old child; 54 girls) recruited from a large midwestern U.S. city and surrounding area through a network of local preschools and daycare centers, advertisements, and a “snowball” approach. To meet inclusion criteria, parents were required to be married or cohabiting together with the focal child (98% were married). On average, mothers were 36 (SD ⫽ 5.26) and fathers 39 years old (SD ⫽ 5.74). Most focal children were first (59.8%) or second (26.8%) born. Eighty-four percent of mothers and 81% of fathers had obtained at least a college degree, and the sample was primarily European American (86% of mothers and 84% of fathers). Median family income ranged from $71,000 to 80,000 per year, and more than half (58%) of mothers and nearly all fathers (94%) were employed outside of the home. For further sample information, see Jia and Schoppe-Sullivan (2011). Parents visited the laboratory together with their child two times, 1 year apart (Time 1 and Time 2). Two weeks prior to each visit, mothers completed questionnaires about child behavior problems and fathers completed questionnaires about their involvement. Two triadic interaction tasks involving both parents and the focal child were videotaped at the second lab visit to assess coparenting behavior. The focal child’s current preschool or kindergarten teacher was asked to report on the child’s behaviors via questionnaire. Seventy-eight teachers (70%) at Time 1 and 79 teachers (85%) at Time 2 returned completed questionnaires. Following the University Institutional Review Board’s procedures, informed consent was obtained from parents. Families were given $80 and teachers were given $5 as incentives for their participation. Ninety-three families completed the assessment at Time 2. Attrition (17%) was primarily due to an inability to contact families, geographic relocation, and parents being “too busy” to participate. Families participating at both times were not significantly different from families who only participated at Time 1 on all family, parent, and child variables, except that mothers who participated only at Time 1 worked fewer hours per week than mothers who participated in the follow up, t(109) ⫽ ⫺2.18, p ⬍ .05. Measures Father involvement in play and caregiving activities. Using 13 items from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study (Cabrera et al., 2004), fathers reported on the frequency of their involvement in play activities (six items; e.g., “take him/her for a ride on your shoulders or back”; ␣ ⫽ .76 for Time 1 and .80 for Time 2) and caregiving activities with the focal child (seven items; e.g., “Help get him/her dressed”; ␣ ⫽ .73 for Time 1 and .69 for Time 2) during the past month (1 ⫽ not at all; 6 ⫽ more than once a day). In order to reduce the number of indices of each latent variable and thus reduce the number of parameters to be estimated in structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses, item parceling was utilized to derive three parcels from the six items to index the latent variable of father involvement in play and three parcels from the seven items to index the latent variable of father involvement in caregiving at each time point (Hall, Snell, & Foust, 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis supported this two-factor structure at Time 1 and Time 2, ␹2(42) ⫽ 52.21, p ⫽ .13, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .05 with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) [0.0, 0.08], with factor loadings all statistically significant and ranging from .61 to .72 for play and .51 to .74 for caregiving. Supportive coparenting behavior. During the lab visit at Time 2, each family played a board game together for 15 min and completed a puzzle together for 5 min (see Jia & SchoppeSullivan, 2011). The 20 min of family interaction was coded for eight coparenting behaviors including pleasure, warmth, cooperation, interactiveness, displeasure, coldness, anger, and competition, using a system developed by Cowan and Cowan (1996) and validated in previous research (see Schoppe, Mangelsdorf, & Frosch, 2001, for descriptions of the coding scales). Two trained coders were each randomly assigned half of the family interactions and overlapped on 34% of the episodes. Gammas for the scales ranged from 0.59 to 0.90 (M ⫽ 0.77), indicating acceptable interrater reliability. The two episodes’ scores were averaged for each coparenting behavior scale. Displeasure, coldness, anger, and competition were reversed and combined with the other four scales to form a composite supportive coparenting score (standardized ␣ ⫽ .77), with higher scores on this observed variable indicating higher levels of supportive and lower levels of undermining coparenting behavior. Children’s adjustment. At each time point, mothers reported on child externalizing (19 items; ␣ ⫽ .91 at Time 1; .91 at Time 2) and internalizing (25 items; ␣ ⫽ .85 at Time 1; .80 at Time 2) behaviors using the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). From these items, three parcels were created to index the latent variable of mothers’ reports of children’s externalizing behavior and three to index the latent variable of mothers’ reports of children’s internalizing behavior, at each time point. Children’s externalizing (Anger-Aggression; 10 items; e.g., “Easily frustrated”; ␣ ⫽ .89 at Time 1 and .88 at Time 2) and internalizing (Anxiety-Withdrawal; 10 items; e.g., “Remain apart, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FATHER INVOLVEMENT isolated from the group”; ␣ ⫽ .89 at Time 1 and .88 at Time 2) behaviors and Social Competence (10 items; e.g., “Negotiates solutions to conflicts with other children”; ␣ ⫽ .89 at Time 1 and .80 at Time 2) were also measured from the teacher or child care provider’s perspective at both time points using the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation Scale–Short Form (LaFreniere & Dumas, 1996). Three indicators each for teacher-reported externalizing behavior, teacher-reported internalizing behavior, and teacher-reported social competence were created using item parceling at each time point. Teachers’ and mothers’ reports of child problem behaviors were not significantly correlated; thus, mother- and teacher-report latent variables were constructed separately. CFA confirmed the acceptable fit of the measurement model for the 10 latent preschoolers’ behavior variables: ␹2(360) ⫽ 548.24, p ⬍ .005, RMSEA ⫽ .07 with 90% CI [0.06, 0.08] with factor loadings all statistically significant and ranging from .55 to .95 for teachers’ reports and from .60 to .89 for mothers’ reports. Control variables. Mother involvement and father involvement are not independent (Pleck & Hofferth, 2008), and thus, identical measures of mothers’ involvement in play and caregiving activities with the target children at Time 1 (␣ ⫽ .70 and .60, respectively) were controlled in the model together with other covariates including parental age, family size, parents’ education, family income, child gender, and family earner status. Results Preliminary Results The descriptive statistics for and the correlations among the summary scores for the key variables at Time 1 and Time 2 are shown in Table 1. Although few significant direct correlations were found between father involvement and children’s behavior, 851 we observed that father involvement in play was mainly negatively correlated with child externalizing/internalizing behaviors, whereas father involvement in caregiving was correlated in inconsistent directions with child behavior. In addition, supportive coparenting behavior was not significantly associated with child adjustment. There were significant positive correlations between each father involvement variable from Time 1 to Time 2, and between each child outcome variable from Time 1 to Time 2, supporting our decision to control the stability of each latent variable in the subsequent analysis. In addition, although these results are not shown in Table 1, mothers and fathers were positively correlated with each other in their play involvement at Time 1, r ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05, and mothers’ caregiving at Time 1 was significantly associated with fathers’ caregiving at Time 2, r ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .01, but not at Time 1. The only significant association between maternal involvement and child adjustment was a significant negative association between maternal involvement in play and externalizing behaviors reported by teachers at Time 1, r ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .05. There were also significant correlations among the parceled items of each latent variable, supporting the construction of these variables for SEM. Analysis Plan We first examined reciprocal associations between father involvement and preschoolers’ behavior (see Figure 1). In each model, the longitudinal paths were specified from one father involvement variable at Time 1 to a child behavior at Time 2 and from that child behavior at Time 1 to that type of father involvement at Time 2. Therefore, a total set of 10 models were specified and tested separately for preschoolers’ externalizing behaviors (teacher vs. mother report), internalizing behaviors (teacher vs. mother report), and social competence (teacher report), and separately for father involvement in play versus caregiving. Also Table 1 Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. M SD N (F)PLAY T1 (F)CARE T1 (F)PLAY T2 (F)CARE T2 (T)EXT T1 (M)EXT T1 (T)INT T1 (M)INT T1 (T)SC T1 (T)EXT T2 (M)EXT T2 (T)INT T2 (M)INT T2 (T)SC T2 COP 1 2 3 4 5 .36ⴱⴱ .70ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.01 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.15 .07 ⫺.09 ⫺.01 ⫺.09 .12 3.62 .75 112 .37ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .07 .13 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.04 .13 .13 ⫺.06 .15 ⫺.18 ⫺.10 3.71 .64 112 .53ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 .12 ⫺.22 .02 ⫺.02 ⫺.19 .07 ⫺.13 .07 ⫺.02 .15 3.42 .80 91 .11 .29ⴱⴱ ⫺.22 .26ⴱ .02 .05 .16 ⫺.00 .27ⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺.01 3.44 .62 91 .31ⴱⴱ .07 .13 ⫺.50ⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱ ⫺.12 .29ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱ .08 1.74 .70 94 6 7 .10 .68ⴱⴱ .19 ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱ .13 ⫺.13 .76ⴱⴱ .12 ⫺.06 .58ⴱⴱ .67ⴱⴱ .21 ⫺.06 .02 .10 .05 .50 1.71 .34 .69 112 94 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ⫺.05 .04 .40ⴱⴱ .16 .72ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 .05 .27 .21 112 ⫺.26ⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.17 .31ⴱⴱ ⫺.12 4.09 .86 94 .36ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 .28ⴱ ⫺.53ⴱⴱ ⫺.13 1.49 .56 79 ⫺.14 .63ⴱⴱ ⫺.14 .11 .43 .32 92 .18 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.13 1.79 .69 79 ⫺.19 ⫺.03 .25 .18 92 .03 4.47 .76 79 3.35 .28 89 Note. PLAY ⫽ Parent involvement in play activities with children; CARE ⫽ Parent involvement in caregiving activities with children; COP ⫽ Supportive coparenting behavior; EXT ⫽ Child externalizing behaviors; INT ⫽ Child internalizing behaviors; SC ⫽ Child social competence; (F) ⫽ Reported by fathers; (T) ⫽ Reported by teachers; (M) ⫽ Reported by mothers; T1 ⫽ Time 1; T2 ⫽ Time 2. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. JIA, KOTILA, AND SCHOPPE-SULLIVAN 852 Father Involvement T2 Father Involvement T1 Covariates Child Outcome T1 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Figure 1. Child Outcome T2 The hypothesized main effects models. controlled were the stability of father involvement and child behaviors over time, residual correlations between father involvement and child behavior at each time point, the error correlations of the repeated measures across time, and the effects of covariates. Next, an observed variable representing supportive coparenting behavior was included to test its moderation of reciprocal associations between father involvement and child behavior (see Figure 2). In each model, a child behavior at Time 2 was predicted by one father involvement variable at Time 1, supportive coparenting behavior at Time 2, and one newly created latent variable representing the interaction effect of supportive coparenting with the father involvement variable; each father involvement variable at Time 2 was also predicted by child behavior at Time 1, supportive coparenting behavior at Time 2, and a newly created latent variable representing the interaction between child behavior and supportive coparenting behavior (Marsh, Wen, & Hau, 2004). The moderation effect models were identical to the main effects models in all other respects, except that indicators of latent variables in the former were mean centered. SEM in LISREL 8.70 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) was applied in this study. Missing data were handled using the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach, which has been shown to produce unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors using all the data available for each individual (Marcoulides & Schumacker, 1996). Because FIML estimation requires the data to be distributed as multivariate normal, the assumption of which might not be met in the current study due to the skewness of the child behavior variables, bootstrapping was used as a supplement for the purpose of more robust estimation in the face of nonnormality (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In the current study, 200 samples were drawn randomly from the original dataset (fraction ⫽ 70%) to generate 200 sets of parameter estimates and their means and 95% CIs. Significance was achieved if zero did not fall within the bootstrapped 95% CIs for the path coefficient of interest. Unstandardized solutions and their statistical significance in both FIML and bootstrapping are reported in the text for significant parameter estimates. The completely standardized estimates and their significance in FIML as well as the fit of the models (evaluated by the chi-square test and RMSEA with its 90% CIs; Bollen, 1989) are summarized in Table 2. Simple slope analyses (Holmbeck, 2002) aided interpretation of significant interaction effects. Longitudinal Associations Between Father Involvement and Child Behavior All main effects models fit the data well (see Table 2). Each type of father involvement showed significant and distinct longitudinal associations with preschoolers’ behaviors as reported by teachers. Specifically, when fathers reported more frequent involvement in play activities with preschoolers at Time 1, preschoolers exhibited lower levels of externalizing behavior (␤ in FIML ⫽ ⫺0.20, p ⬍ Coparenting T2 Father Involvement T1 Father Involvement T2 Father Inv × Coparenting Covariates Child outcome T1 Child outcome × Coparenting Figure 2. The hypothesized moderation effects models. Child Outcome T2 0.01 108.77 0.41 106 0.02 0.0, 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.09 281.82 0.02 234 0.04 0.02, 0.06 0.08 ⫺0.13 0.64ⴱⴱ 0.67ⴱⴱ 294.93 ⬍0.01 234 0.05 0.03, 0.06 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 107.63 0.44 106 0.01 0.0, 0.05 ⴚ0.23ⴱ 0.05 ⴚ0.26ⴱ 0.03 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.10 0.72ⴱⴱ 0.68ⴱⴱ 0.72ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 118.89 0.18 106 0.03 0.0, 0.06 0 0.30ⴱ ⫺0.09 0.33ⴱ ⫺0.10 283.94 0.01 234 0.04 0.02, 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.64ⴱⴱ 0.84ⴱⴱ 0.10 323.57 ⬍0.01 234 0.06 0.04, 0.07 ⴚ0.29ⴱ 0.07 ⫺0.16 ⴚ0.26ⴱ 0.70ⴱⴱ 0.71ⴱⴱ 0.62ⴱⴱ 0.85ⴱⴱ 132.74 0.04 106 0.05 0.01, 0.07 ⫺0.10 ⴚ0.26ⴱ 0.70ⴱⴱ 0.72ⴱⴱ Moderation Internalizing Main 140.75 0.01 106 0.05 0.03, 0.08 ⫺0.10 0.07 0.70ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 114.78 0.26 106 0.03 0.0, 0.06 ⫺0.02 0.05 0.73ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱ 0.02 0.15 322.89 ⬍0.01 234 0.06 0.04, 0.07 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.10 0.08 0.70ⴱⴱ 0.29ⴱ 272.50 0.04 234 0.04 0.01, 0.06 0.36ⴱⴱ 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.73ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱ Moderation Social competence Main 106.87 0.46 106 0.01 0.0, 0.05 ⫺0.04 0.22ⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.80ⴱⴱ 113.94 0.28 106 0.03 0.0, 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.73ⴱⴱ 0.79ⴱⴱ 0.02 0 276.30 0.03 234 0.04 0.01, 0.06 ⫺0.09 0.11 ⫺0.03 0.23ⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.80ⴱⴱ 271.56 0.05 234 0.04 0.01, 0.06 0.01 ⫺0.04 0.05 0.08 0.73ⴱⴱ 0.79ⴱⴱ Moderation Externalizing Main 105.26 0.50 106 0.0 0.0, 0.05 0.06 0.21ⴱ 0.70ⴱ 0.77ⴱ 116.71 0.22 106 0.03 0.0, 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.74ⴱⴱ 0.77ⴱⴱ 0 0.02 254.50 0.17 234 0.03 0.0, 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.21ⴱ 0.70ⴱⴱ 0.77ⴱⴱ 262.95 0.09 234 0.03 0.0, 0.05 0.10 ⫺0.17 0.07 0.05 0.75ⴱⴱ 0.78ⴱⴱ Moderation Internalizing Main Mother report Note. t1 ⫽ measured at Time 1; t2 ⫽ measured at Time 2; Cop ⫽ Coparenting behavior; DF ⫽ degrees of freedom; CI ⫽ confidence interval; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; ⌬R2 ⫽ additional proportion of variance of outcome variable, that is newly explained by moderation model compared to main model. The arrow, ¡, refers to the predictive direction, with variables on the left side of arrow indicating the predictors and variable on the right side of arrow indicating the predicted. Boldface values ⫽ Significant solutions. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⌬ p ⫽ .07. Father involvement in play Stability Fathert1¡t2 Childt1¡t2 Main effect Fathert1 ¡ childt2 Childt1 ¡ fathert2 Interaction effect Fathert1 ⫻ copt2 ¡ childt2 Childt1 ⫻ copt2 ¡ fathert2 Model fit ␹2 p DF RMSEA 90% CIs of RMSEA ⌬R2moderation model⫺main model Father involvement in caregiving Stability Fathert1¡t2 Childt1¡t2 Main effect Fathert1 ¡ childt2 Childt1 ¡ fathert2 Interaction effect Fathert1 ⫻ copt2 ¡ childt2 Childt1 ⫻ copt2 ¡ fathert2 Model fit ␹2 p DF RMSEA 90% CIs of RMSEA ⌬R2moderation model⫺main model Moderation Externalizing Main Teacher report Table 2 Model Fit and Standardized Solutions for the Main Effects and Moderation Effects Models This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FATHER INVOLVEMENT 853 JIA, KOTILA, AND SCHOPPE-SULLIVAN This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. .05; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ ⫺0.22 with 95% CIs between ⫺0.27 and ⫺0.16) as reported by their teachers 1 year later relative to their peers. However, when fathers were initially more frequently involved in caregiving activities, preschoolers displayed higher levels of internalizing behavior (␤ in FIML ⫽ 0.34, p ⬍ .01; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ 0.37 with 95% CIs between 0.18 and 0.57) reported by teachers 1 year later, relative to their peers. These results partially supported the parent-driven main effect hypotheses in predicting teacher-reported child behaviors. However, neither father involvement variable showed any significant crosslagged effects in predicting mother-reported child behaviors. Although father involvement in play did not significantly predict preschoolers’ internalizing behaviors reported by teachers at Time 2 as hypothesized, either, we found that when teachers reported greater child internalizing behavior at Time 1, these children experienced relatively less play involvement from fathers in the subsequent year (␤ in FIML ⫽ ⫺0.24, p ⬍ .05; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ ⫺0.14 with 95% CIs between ⫺0.18 and ⫺0.10). Also, when mothers reported higher child externalizing (␤ in FIML ⫽ 0.39, p ⬍ .05; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ 0.40 with 95% CIs between 0.35 and 0.46) or internalizing (␤ in FIML ⫽ 0.67, p ⬍ .05; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ 0.77 with 95% CIs between 0.68 and 0.86) behavior at Time 1, the children’s fathers were relatively more likely to be involved in caregiving at Time 2. These results partially supported the child-driven main effect hypotheses in predicting father involvement. No direct longitudinal links were found between father involvement in play or caregiving activities and teacher-reported social competence in either hypothesized direction. Supportive Coparenting as a Moderator of Links Between Father Involvement and Child Behavior Further analysis testing the moderating effect of supportive coparenting behaviors in the association between father involvement and child outcomes found two significant interaction effects (see Table 2). In particular, the interaction of father involvement in play and supportive coparenting behavior predicted preschoolers’ internalizing behavior (␤ in FIML ⫽ ⫺0.71, p ⬍ .01; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ ⫺0.41, with 95% CIs between ⫺0.27 and ⫺0.56) and social competence (␤ in FIML ⫽ 1.21, p ⬍ .01; mean ␤ in bootstrap ⫽ 1.24, with 95% CIs between 1.08 and 1.41) reported by their teachers at Time 2. Analysis of simple slopes showed when fathers reported more frequent involvement in play activities, children showed fewer internalizing behaviors (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.35, p ⬍ .01; Figure 3) and greater social competence (␤ ⫽ 0.42, p ⬍ .01; Figure 4) in school 1 year later relative to children whose fathers were less involved in play, but only when parents engaged in higher levels of supportive coparenting behavior. When parents showed lower levels of supportive coparenting, fathers’ involvement in play was not significant in predicting children’s internalizing behavior (␤ ⫽ 0.05, p ⫽ .72; Figure 3), but was associated with a relative decrease in children’s social competence reported by teachers (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.26, p ⬍ .05; Figure 4). Discussion Results of this study highlight the importance of considering father– child relations from a transactional, domain-specific per- Y = child internalizing behaviors (teacher report) 0.8 internalizing behaviors 854 0.6 0.4 Low positive coparenting, b = 0.05, p = 0.72 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 High positive coparenting, b = -0.35, p < 0.01 -0.6 -0.8 low father play 1 high father2 play Figure 3. Significant effects of father involvement in play on teacherreported child internalizing behaviors qualified by supportive coparenting behavior. b ⫽ unstandardized coefficient of simple slope. Low and high scores correspond to ⫺1 SD below and ⫹1 SD above the mean of that variable. spective and recognizing that the role of father involvement hinges on family system variables such as coparenting behavior. Father involvement in play was associated with relative decreases in child externalizing behavior in the school setting and with relative decreases in internalizing behavior and increases in social competence at school only when combined with supportive coparenting behavior; reciprocally, when children displayed initially high levels of internalizing behavior as perceived by teachers, fathers showed lower involvement in play 1 year later. Although father involvement in caregiving was associated with relative increases in child internalizing behaviors reported by teachers, this unexpected association may have been in part driven by children, as we also found that fathers were more involved in caregiving for children who had higher initial levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior perceived by mothers. Transactional Associations Between Father Involvement and Child Behavior As anticipated, greater father involvement in play was associated with relative decreases in preschoolers’ externalizing behavior in the school context and was also associated with relative decreases in internalizing behavior and relative increases in social competence as reported by teachers when accompanied by supportive coparenting behavior. This validated the notion that father– child play, likely characterized by reciprocity (Grusec & Davidov, 2010), mutual compliance (Lindsey et al., 2010), and horizontal in nature (Russell et al., 1998), sets the stage for the optimal socioemotional development of children (Bögels, & Phares, 2008; Mattanah, 2001; Roggman et al., 2004). Just as greater father involvement in play was linked to relative declines in teacher-reported child internalizing behaviors in the context of supportive coparenting behavior, fathers’ subsequent involvement in play was lower when their children had higher initial levels of teacherreported internalizing behaviors, which is consistent with transactional perspectives (Patterson, 2002; Sameroff, 1975). In our study, fathers of children higher in internalizing behavior may have been less attuned to their children’s requests for play or may have felt emotionally drained by interacting with children who are often emotionally negative and behaviorally withdrawn. As a result, these fathers may have become less motivated to initiate This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FATHER INVOLVEMENT Figure 4. Significant effects of father involvement in play on teacherreported child social competence qualified by supportive coparenting behavior. b ⫽ unstandardized coefficient of simple slope. Low and high scores correspond to ⫺1 SD below and ⫹1 SD above the mean of that variable. play with their children. Or, from the “person-environment fit” perspective (Bates & Pettit, 2007), fathers of children who are high in internalizing behaviors may adjust the intensity of playful interactions in response to children’s negative reactions to vigorous play. Unexpectedly, father involvement in caregiving appeared to be a “risk” for preschoolers’ adjustment, as evident by its prospective associations with greater internalizing behavior rated by teachers, regardless of the quality of parents’ coparenting behavior. This intriguing result is not implausible considering the “vertical” nature of this parenting domain (Grusec & Davidov, 2010; Russell et al., 1998). We speculate that if father involvement in caregiving often relies on power assertion and directiveness (Lindsey et al., 2010), resulting in greater potential for “over protection” or “over control,” children’s risk for problem behaviors may increase. However, this speculation cannot be verified in the current study because of the quantitative, but not qualitative, nature of the father involvement measure (see Lindsey et al. for a study that measured the quality of father involvement in caregiving). It is also possible that father involvement in caregiving is accompanied by other family processes such as maternal depression (Mezulis, Hyde, & Clark, 2004), maternal gatekeeping (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008), marital conflict (Bonney, Kelley, & Levant, 1999), or family stress (Mitchell & Cabrera, 2009), which were not measured in this study but could explain caregiving’s positive associations with child internalizing behaviors. For instance, if fathers do more (but lower quality) caregiving when mothers are depressed and if maternal depression is associated with child internalizing behavior, then a positive association between father involvement in caregiving and child internalizing behavior might be explained by maternal depression. Whether the unexpected effect of father involvement in caregiving was partially driven by the malfunctioning of depressed mothers or other factors should be investigated in the future. The positive association between father involvement in caregiving and child internalizing behavior may also have been driven by children. Indeed, analysis of reciprocal effects from child adjustment to father involvement showed that mother-reported child externalizing and internalizing behaviors were prospectively associated with relative increases in fathers’ involvement in caregiving, supporting our hypothesis that fathers would increase their care- 855 giving involvement in response to child problem behaviors. Consistent with our findings, some studies have shown that children with a genetically driven tendency to exhibit problem behaviors could evoke parents’ greater involvement (Larsson, Viding, Rijsdijk, & Plomin, 2008). That father involvement in caregiving was sensitive to mothers’ but not teachers’ ratings of child behavior may be because the problematic behaviors of preschoolers were more salient in the home than in school. This evocative effect of children’s difficulties on father involvement in caregiving may be a feature of two-parent community families like those studied here, and additional research is needed to determine whether fathers in other populations (e.g., nonresident, low socioeconomic status fathers) show the same pattern of relative increase in involvement in the face of child behavior problems. The Moderating Role of Supportive Coparenting Behavior Consistent with the important roles attributed to coparenting in relation to fathering (Sobolewski & King, 2005) and child adjustment (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010), our results indicated that fathers’ involvement in play only protected children from internalizing behavior and deficits in social competence at school when parents demonstrated supportive coparenting behavior. In families where parents rarely showed support of each other’s parenting efforts, greater father involvement in play was even associated with relative decreases in preschoolers’ social competence. Perhaps unsupportive coparenting behavior caused emotional tension and insecurity in children (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2007), which may have “cancelled out” benefits of father involvement in play, or, in families with low observed coparenting support but high levels of father– child play, children may be exposed to “covert” coparenting processes (McHale, 1997) in which one parent disparages the other parent in that parent’s absence. It is not hard to imagine how such interactions could compromise the child’s development of appropriate social skills. Overall, the cooperative and coordinated involvement of both parents seems to play an important role in the extent to which fathers’ involvement in play equips children with the skills they need to approach the social world more successfully. In contrast to the moderating effect of supportive coparenting behavior in prospective associations from father involvement to child behavior, fathers’ adjustments in involvement in response to child behaviors were independent of the quality of parents’ coparenting relationship. This may be because, as a genetically informed study found, parents’ effects on subsequent child behaviors were mainly via environmental mechanisms (Larsson et al., 2008). The current study showed that supportive coparenting behavior is an important environmental mechanism that moderates parentdriven effects. In contrast, children’s problem behaviors that evoke subsequent parental involvement were mainly genetically influenced (Larsson et al., 2008), reflected as, in the current study, the relative independence of the child-driven effects on father involvement from coparenting behavior. Future research should test the coparenting moderation hypothesis in families of lower socioeconomic status or with nonresident fathers, in which fathers’ involvement may be more closely tied to the coparenting relationship (Sobolewski & King, 2005). In addition to this study’s numerous strengths, including a longitudinal design that allowed for examination of reciprocal JIA, KOTILA, AND SCHOPPE-SULLIVAN This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 856 associations between father involvement and child adjustment, observational assessment of supportive coparenting behavior, and inclusion of perspectives on child adjustment from within and outside of the family, several limitations should be noted. The use of a sample of mostly European American families headed by college-educated, married parents may limit generalizability of this study’s findings. In addition, because we did not observe dyadic father– child interactions, we could not directly ascertain the quality of father involvement. Moreover, although we perceived the use of fathers’ reports of their own involvement with their children as a strength given greater predictive validity (Hernandez & Coley, 2007), our study could have been further strengthened by the inclusion of mothers’ reports of father involvement. Finally, this study’s short term longitudinal design and focus on preschool-age children leaves open the question of whether the bidirectional patterns found here would change as children mature and gain greater independence. Conclusion and Implications In sum, we found that the associations between father involvement and child adjustment are reciprocal in play and caregiving domains. Father involvement in play protects children from problem behaviors and facilitates children’s social competence, especially when parents have a supportive coparenting relationship. On the other hand, fathers reduced their play with children perceived by teachers as high in internalizing behaviors. Although father involvement in caregiving was associated with more child internalizing behaviors (regardless of coparenting behavior), further tests found that this link may be part of a process driven by children. That is, children (perceived by their mothers) as high in externalizing and internalizing behaviors evoked more father involvement in caregiving activities. One of the most obvious implications of this set of findings is the importance of the inclusion of fathers in the treatment of child adjustment difficulties (Bögels & Phares, 2008). Because father involvement in play appears to protect children from externalizing and internalizing behavior and foster their competence, identifying those aspects of father– child playful interactions that are most facilitative of development and incorporating them in intervention programs may be of practical value. That some of the benefits of fathers’ play depended on the presence of supportive coparenting behavior reminds us that interventions for child adjustment problems should take into account interparental relationships within a developmental framework (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). Finally, knowing that fathers appear to shift their efforts from play to caregiving involvement in response to higher levels of problem behaviors in their children, who then potentially become more vulnerable as a result, could be informative in advancing theory about father– child relationships and designing interventions aimed at breaking coercive father– child cycles. References Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2000). Child behavior checklist for ages 1 [1/2]–5. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. Barry, A. A., Smith, J. Z., Deutsch, F. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2011). Fathers’ involvement in child care and perceptions of parenting skill over the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1500 – 1521. doi:10.1177/0192513X11406229 Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2007). Temperament, parenting, and socialization. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (2nd ed.; pp. 153–177). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bögels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 539 –558. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.011 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley. Bonney, J., Kelley, M., & Levant, R. (1999). A model of fathers’ behavioral involvement in child care in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401– 415. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.401 Cabrera, N. J., Ryan, R. M., Shannon, J. D., Vogel, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Vogel, C., Raikes, H., . . . Cohen, R. (2004). Low-income fathers’ involvement in their toddlers’ lives: Biological fathers from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study. Fathering, 2, 5–36. doi: 10.3149/fth.0201.5 Cassano, M., Adrian, M., Veits, G., & Zeman, J. (2006). The inclusion of fathers in the empirical investigation of child psychopathology: An update. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 583– 589. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3504_10 Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132–147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007 .00989.x Cowan, C., & Cowan, P. (1996). Schoolchildren and Their Families Project: Description of co-parenting style ratings. Unpublished coding scales, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. Crockenberg, S., & Leerkes, F. (2003). Infant negative emotionality, caregiving, and family relationships. In A. C. Crouter, & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 57–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crouter, A., & Booth, A. (Eds.). (2003). Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Culp, R. E., Schadle, S., Robinson, L., & Culp, A. M. (2000). Relationships among paternal involvement and young children’s perceived selfcompetence and behavioral problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 27–38. doi:10.1023/A:1009455514587 Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349 –371. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.349 Easterbrooks, M. A., & Goldberg, W. A. (1984). Toddler development in the family: Impact of father involvement and parenting characteristics. Child Development, 55, 740 –752. doi:10.2307/1130126 Feldman, R. (2003). Infant-mother and infant-father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 1–23. doi:10.1002/imhj.10041 Frascarolo, F. (2004). Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25, 509 –521. doi:10.1002/ imhj.20023 Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2007). Impact of father involvement: A closer look at indirect effects models involving marriage and child adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 221–225. doi:10.1080/10888690701762126 Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2010). Integrating different perspectives on socialization theory and research: A domain-specific approach. Child Development, 81, 687–709. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01426.x Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256. doi:10.1177/ 109442819923002 Hawkins, D., Amato, P., & King, V. (2007). Nonresident father involvement and adolescent well-being: Father effects or child effects? Amer- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FATHER INVOLVEMENT ican Sociological Review, 72, 990 –1010. doi:10.1177/ 000312240707200607 Hernandez, D., & Coley, R. (2007). Measuring father involvement within low-income families: Who is a reliable and valid reporter? Parenting, 7, 69 –97. doi:10.1080/15295190709336777 Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87–96. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.87 Jia, R., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Relations between coparenting and father involvement in families with preschool-age children. Developmental Psychology, 47, 106 –118. doi:10.1037/a0020802 Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Prisco, T., & Adams, E. (2008). Mother-child and father-child mutually responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of influence. Child Development, 79, 30 – 44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01109.x Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 333–359. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.333 LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3 to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369 –377. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.369 Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Larsson, H., Viding, E., Rijsdijk, R., & Plomin, R. (2008). Relationships between parental negativity and childhood antisocial behavior over time: A bidirectional effects model in a longitudinal genetically informative design. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 633– 645. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9151-2 Lindsey, E. W., Cremeens, P. R., & Caldera, Y. M. (2010). Mother-child and father-child mutuality in two contexts: Consequences for young children’s peer relationships. Infant and Child Development, 19, 142– 160. doi:10.1002/icd.645 Lindsey, E. W., Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mutuality in parent-child play: Consequences for children’s peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 523–538. doi:10.1177/ 0265407597144007 Manlove, E., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2002). Caring for infant daughters and sons in dual-earner households: Maternal reports of father involvement in weekday time and tasks. Infant and Child Development, 11, 305–320. doi:10.1002/icd.260 Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (Eds.). (1996). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluations of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300. Mattanah, J. (2001). Parental psychological autonomy and children’s academic competence and behavioral adjustment in late childhood: More than just limit-setting and warmth. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 355– 376. doi:10.1353/mpq.2001.0017 McBride, B. A., Schoppe, S. J., & Rane, T. R. (2002). Child characteristics, parenting stress, and parental involvement: Fathers versus mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 998 –1011. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2002.00998.x McHale, J. P. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36, 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00183.x Mezulis, A. H., Hyde, J. S., & Clark, R. (2004). Father involvement moderates the effect of maternal depression during a child’s infancy on child behavior problems in kindergarten. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 575–588. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.575 857 Mitchell, S., & Cabrera, N. (2009). An exploratory study of fathers’ parenting stress and toddlers’ social development in low-income African American families. Fathering, 7, 201–225. doi:10.3149/fth.0703.201 Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193–219. doi: 10.1159/000078723 Pardini, D. A. (2008). Novel insights into longstanding theories of bidirectional parent-child influences: Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 627– 631. doi:10.1007/ s10802-008-9231-y Patterson, G. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and the Oregon model for intervention (pp. 25– 44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10468-002 Pleck, J. H., & Hofferth, S. (2008). Mother involvement as an influence on father involvement with early adolescents. Fathering, 6, 267–286. doi: 10.3149/fth.0603.267 Roggman, L., Boyce, L., Cook, G., Christiansen, K., & Jones, D. (2004). Playing with Daddy: Social toy play, Early Head Start, and developmental outcomes. Fathering, 2, 83–108. doi:10.3149/fth.0201.83 Russell, A., Pettit, G., & Mize, J. (1998). Horizontal qualities in parentchild relationships: Parallels with and possible consequence for children’s peer relationships. Developmental Review, 18, 313–352. doi: 10.1006/drev.1997.0466 Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human Development, 18, 65–79. doi:10.1159/000271476 Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systemic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153–158. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S., & Frosch, C. (2001). Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers’ externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 526 –545. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G., Cannon, E., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sokolowski, M. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 389 –398. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.389 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., & Sokolowski, M. S. (2007). Goodness-of-fit in family context: Infant temperament, marital quality, and early coparenting behavior. Infant Behavior & Development, 30, 82–96. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.11.008 Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422– 445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 Sobolewski, J., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196 –1212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Impact of hostility and withdrawal in interparental conflict on parental emotional unavailability and children’s adjustment difficulties. Child Development, 77, 1623–1641. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00963.x Teubert, D., & Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 286 –307. doi:10.1080/15295192.2010.492040 Received March 26, 2012 Revision received August 19, 2012 Accepted August 22, 2012 䡲
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: THE ROLE OF FATHER’S IN THE SOCIOEMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1

The Role of Father’s in the Socioemotional Development
Name
Institution
Date

THE ROLE OF FATHER’S IN THE SOCIOEMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

2

The authors studied the contribution of the fathers to the socioemotional development of
the children. It helps show that fathers also have a role to play in the welfare of children, since
most studies have concentrated on the role of the mothers in forming...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags