Why Does Father Involvement Promote Child & Adolescent Development? Addressing an Under-Theorized Issue

1. Why Does Father Involvement Promote Child & Adolescent Development? Addressing an Under-Theorized Issue Joseph H. Pleck University of Illinois Father Involvement Research 2008 Conference

2. Growing evidence that father involvement has positive effects • but, why? • why ask “why?” • important to have theory underlying practice • one task in program evaluation: “surface” the underlying program theory • analysis of theory is a rarely-used lens through which to understand fathering and fathering research • objective: toward a theory of father influences

3. Father involvement • concept’s evolution since Lamb & Pleck (1985) • reshaping of the “engagement” component • addition of elements from authoritative parental style • father involvement, c. 2008 • engagement in positive activities and interaction • warmth & responsiveness • monitoring & control

4. Effects of father involvement: A recent research example • Ryan, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn (2006) • data: the Early Head Start study • observational measures  parental “supportiveness” • shows effect of father involvement controlling for mother involvement • outcome studied: Bayley Mental Development Index (BDMI) @ 24 & 36 mos.

5. F

6. F 3

7. the “5 point difference” F 3

8. 4 possible sources for a theory of father influences • attachment theory • “essential father” theory • ecological theory • social capital theory

9. I. Attachment theory

10. Attachment: A “big idea” in human development • secure attachment: affectional tie between infant & caregiver such that: 1. presence of attachment figure promotes toddler's exploration (“secure base”) 2. presence of attachment figure is comforting when infant is distressed • first major outcome/milestone in social development

12. firststudy of infant-father attachment: Kotelchuk (1967)

13. % of infants with varying patterns of father & mother attachment secure attach. tofather? secure att. tomother? source: Main & Weston (1985)

14. social responsiveness @ 36 months A B C D source: Main & Weston (1985)

15. Critique • implication: father involvement is important only in the earliest years • “early determinism” • the theory is controversial in developmental science • theory’s adherents are devoted, but small in number • just too narrow in: age period of effects, acceptance within human development

16. II. “Essential father” theory

17. Essential Father Theory • “surfaced” by Silverstein & Auerbach (1999), “Deconstructing the essential father” • fathers make a contribution to child development that is • essential • unique • uniquely male

18. 1. Essential contribution? • one counter-example is sufficient to invalidate • USA Today, Aug. 28, 2008 “Single Mom’s Sons Can Succeed, New Research Shows” (!!!)

19. 1. Essential contribution? • one counter-example is sufficient to invalidate • USA Today, Aug. 28, 2008 “Single Mom’s Sons Can Succeed, New Research Shows” (!!!)

20. 2. Unique contribution? • evidence most often cited: comparison of child outcomes in families with/without resident fathers • limitations of this comparison A. the two kinds of families differ in many other respects besides father residence • when these are taken into account, differences in child outcomes reduced, if not eliminated

21. B. The father presence/absence comparison confounds • absence of a resident father • number of resident parents • to isolate effect of presence/absence of a male parent, need to compare • single father & single mother families • better: 2-parent heterosexual families & 2-parent lesbian families • results • Wainright, Russell, & Patterson (2004, 2006, 2007)

22. C. Broader shift in developmental thinking • rather than view a particular influence as an all-determining factor • instead view it as a risk/support factor

24. Fathering as risk/support, rather than as all-determinative • a more realistic and accurate view • does not diminish the importance of fathering • analogous to how other influences on health and development operate

25. 3. Uniquely male contribution? • on the one hand, we know that many fathers have found this idea to be inspirational • on the other hand… • assumes complete non-overlap in fathers’ and mothers’ behavior

28. 1997 Child Development Supplement:Engagement time, children aged 3-5 *companionship **also includes household & social activities Pleck calculation from Yeung et al. (2001)

29. In addition to assuming complete non-overlap… • ignores heterogeneity among fathers • entails many other assumptions about who fathers are (and who fathers are not) • simple test: “we should support ______ to be more involved because they make a uniquely male contribution to development” • gay/bi/trans fathers • fathers who do not engage in rough & tumble play • fathers who are not good at sports • etc.

30. Essential, unique, male contribution? • an idea many believe, & and have found inspirational • but, not supported by the evidence • sounds good in the abstract, but falls down when we “plug in” the diversity of fathers • can be harmful

31. The alternative • instead of “essential,” “unique,” “male”… • fathers make a vitally important contribution, in varying forms • theoretical basis • Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development • social capital theory

32. III. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, & “proximal process” • Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (1979) • textbook presentations emphasize multiple ecological levels, nested within each other • microsystem • mesosystem • exosystem • macrosystem • chronosystem

34. Equally or more important:“Proximal process” Human development…takes place through a process of progressively more complex, reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving,biopsychological human organism and the persons in his or her microsystems…Such enduring forms of interaction…are referred to as ‘proximal processes.’” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 1641)

35. Provides a basis for understanding paternal influences • positive activity engagement • progressively more complex, reciprocal interaction • warmth & responsiveness • responsive = reciprocal • warmth: basis for control being effective • monitoring & control • reciprocal interaction here model also provides basis for understanding how ecological factors influence fathering

36. Negative forms offather involvement • our work: not just promoting positive involvement • also reducing/preventing negative forms of involvement • harsh, punitive fathering • child abuse and neglect by fathers

37. IV. Social capital theory • James Coleman: parents provide • financial capital • social capital • family social capital: • cognitive-social development • school readiness • educational aspirations • community social capital (from parents): • advocacy • network sharing • knowledge sharing

38. Links to father involvement • family social capital • transmitted, in part, by the 3 components of father involvement (positive engagement, warmth-responsiveness, control-monitoring) • model puts father involvement/family social capital in the context of other ways that fathers can foster development • financial capital (= economic support) • community social capital (advocacy, networks, and knowledge sharing)

39. An integrated “ecological-parental capital” theory of father influence • the fatherhood field has needed a more explicit view of why and how father involvement has positive effects • attachment theory and essential father theory are not adequate

40. Best theoretical basis for father work • Bronfenbrenner’s characterization of “proximal process” interaction • promotes “family social capital” • supplement with Coleman’s analysis of parents’ provision of community social capital • advocacy, networks, knowledge sharing

41. let us proceed with our work with fathers in the knowledge that we know why the behaviors in fathers we work so hard to promote should, and do, have the good effects that we strive for