Handbook of Parenting: Volume 3: Being and Becoming a Parent, Third Edition [3 ed.] 1138228710, 9781138228719

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Preface to the Third Edition
About the Editor
About the Contributors
Part I The Parent
1 Parenting and Family Systems
2 Mothering
3 Fathers and Families
4 Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems
5 Parental Gatekeeping
6 Adolescent Parenting
7 Grandparenting
8 Single Parenthood
9 Divorced and Remarried Parenting
10 Lesbian and Gay Parenthood
11 Sibling Caregiving
12 Nonparental Caregiving
Part II Becoming and Being a Parent
13 Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting
14 Parenting and Contemporary Reproductive Technologies
15 Transition to Parenthood
16 Stages of Parental Development
17 Well-Being in Parenting
18 Parenting and Emotions
19 Parenting Self-Efficacy
20 Parenting Cognitions
21 Parental Attributions
22 Parent Socialization and Children’s Values
23 Personality and Parenting
24 Psychoanalysis and Parenthood
Index

Citation preview

HANDBOOK OF PARENTING

This highly anticipated third edition of the Handbook of Parenting brings together an array of field-leading experts who have worked in different ways toward understanding the many diverse aspects of parenting. Contributors to the Handbook look to the most recent research and thinking to shed light on topics every parent, professional, and policymaker wonders about. Parenting is a perennially “hot” topic. After all, everyone who has ever lived has been parented, and the vast majority of people become parents themselves. No wonder bookstores house shelves of “how-to” parenting books, and magazine racks in pharmacies and airports overflow with periodicals that feature parenting advice. However, almost none of these is evidence-based. The Handbook of Parenting is. Period. Each chapter has been written to be read and absorbed in a single sitting, and includes historical considerations of the topic, a discussion of central issues and theory, a review of classical and modern research, and forecasts of future directions of theory and research. Together, the five volumes in the Handbook cover Children and Parenting, the Biology and Ecology of Parenting, Being and Becoming a Parent, Social Conditions and Applied Parenting, and the Practice of Parenting. Volume 3, Being and Becoming a Parent, considers a large cast of characters responsible for parenting, each with her or his own customs and agenda, and examines what the psychological characteristics and social interests of those individuals reveal about what parenting is. Chapters in Part I, on The Parent, show just how rich and multifaceted is the constellation of children’s caregivers. Considered first are family systems and then successively mothers and fathers, coparenting and gatekeeping between parents, adolescent parenting, grandparenting, and single parenthood, divorced and remarried parenting, lesbian and gay parents and, finally, sibling caregivers and nonparental caregiving. Parenting also draws on transient and enduring physical, personality, and intellectual characteristics of the individual. The chapters in Part II, on Becoming and Being a Parent, consider the intergenerational transmission of parenting, parenting and contemporary reproductive technologies, the transition to parenthood, and stages of parental development, and then chapters turn to parents’ well-being, emotions, self-efficacy, cognitions, and attributions as well as socialization, personality in parenting, and psychoanalytic theory. These features of parents serve many functions: they generate and shape parental practices, mediate the effectiveness of parenting, and help to organize parenting. Marc H. Bornstein holds a BA from Columbia College, MS and PhD degrees from Yale University, and honorary doctorates from the University of Padua and University of Trento. Bornstein is President of the Society for Research in Child Development and has held faculty positions at Princeton University and New York University as well as academic appointments in Munich, London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Bamenda, Seoul, Trento, Santiago, Bristol, and Oxford. Bornstein is author of several children’s books, videos, and puzzles in The Child’s World and Baby Explorer series, Editor Emeritus of Child Development and founding Editor of Parenting: Science and Practice, and consultant for governments, foundations, universities, publishers, scientific journals, the media, and UNICEF. He has published widely in experimental, methodological, comparative, developmental, and cultural science as well as neuroscience, pediatrics, and aesthetics.

HANDBOOK OF PARENTING Volume 3: Being and Becoming a Parent Third Edition

Edited by Marc H. Bornstein

Third edition published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Marc H. Bornstein to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Laurence Erlbaum Associates 1995 Second edition published by Taylor and Francis 2002 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-22871-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-22872-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-43321-4 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For Marian and Harold Sackrowitz

CONTENTS

Preface to the Third Edition About the Editor About the Contributors

x xv xvii

PART I

The Parent

1

  1 Parenting and Family Systems Patricia K. Kerig

3

 2 Mothering Lynne Murray, Martin P. M. Richards, and Julie Nihouarn-Sigurdardottir

36

  3 Fathers and Families Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

64

  4 Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

137

  5 Parental Gatekeeping Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

167

  6 Adolescent Parenting M. Ann Easterbrooks, Rachel C. Katz, and Meera Menon

199

 7 Grandparenting Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

232

vii

Contents

  8 Single Parenthood Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

271

  9 Divorced and Remarried Parenting Lawrence H. Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, and Caroline Sanner

311

10 Lesbian and Gay Parenthood Charlotte J. Patterson

345

11 Sibling Caregiving Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

372

12 Nonparental Caregiving Helen Raikes, Abbie Raikes, Jan Esteraich, Amy Encinger, Aileen S. Garcia, Sukran Ucus, and Elsa Escalante

409

PART II

Becoming and Being a Parent

441

13 Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

443

14 Parenting and Contemporary Reproductive Technologies Susan Golombok

482

15 Transition to Parenthood Rebecca M. Ryan and Christina M. Padilla

513

16 Stages of Parental Development Jack Demick

556

17 Well-Being in Parenting S. Katherine Nelson-Coffey and Diamond Stewart

596

18 Parenting and Emotions Esther M. Leerkes and Mairin E. Augustine

620

19 Parenting Self-Efficacy Carlo Schuengel and Mirjam Oosterman

654

20 Parenting Cognitions George W. Holden and Margaret M. Smith

681

21 Parental Attributions Daphne Blunt Bugental and Randy Corpuz

722

viii

Contents

22 Parent Socialization and Children’s Values Joan E. Grusec and Maayan Davidov

762

23 Personality and Parenting Peter Prinzie, Amaranta de Haan, and Jay Belsky

797

24 Psychoanalysis and Parenthood Bertram J. Cohler and Susan Paul

823

Index861

ix

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

Previous editions of the Handbook of Parenting have been called the “who’s who of the what’s what.” This third edition of this Handbook appears at a time that is momentous in the history of parenting. The family generally, and parenting specifically, are today in a greater state of flux, question, and re-definition than perhaps ever before. We are witnessing the emergence of striking permutations on the theme of parenting: blended families, lesbian and gay parents, teen versus fifties first-time moms and dads, genetic versus social parents. One cannot but be awed on the biological front by technology that now renders postmenopausal women capable of childbearing and with the possibility of parents designing their babies. Similarly, on the sociological front, single parenthood is a modern-day fact of life, adult child dependency is on the rise, and even in the face of rising institutional demands to take increasing responsibility for their offspring parents are ever less certain of their roles and responsibilities. The Handbook of Parenting is concerned with all these facets of parenting . . . and more. Most people become parents, and everyone who ever lived has had parents, still parenting remains a mystifying subject. Who is ultimately responsible for parenting? Does parenting come naturally, or must parenting be learned? How do parents conceive of parenting? of childhood? What does it mean to parent a preterm baby, twins, or a child on the autistic spectrum? To be an older parent, or one who is divorced, disabled, or drug abusing? What do theories (psychoanalysis, personality theory, attachment, and behavior genetics, for example) contribute to our understanding of parenting? What are the goals parents have for themselves? for their children? What functions do parents’ cognitions serve? What are the goals of parents’ practices? What accounts for parents believing or behaving in similar ways? Why do so many attitudes and actions of parents differ so? How do children influence their parents? How do personality, knowledge, and world view affect parenting? How do social class, culture, environment, and history shape parenthood? How can parents effectively relate to childcare, schools, and their children’s pediatricians? These are many of the questions addressed in this third edition of the Handbook of Parenting . . . for this is an evidenced-based volume set on how to parent as much as it is one on what being a parent is all about. Put succinctly, parents create people. They are entrusted with preparing their offspring for the physical, psychosocial, and economic conditions in which their children eventually will fare and hopefully will flourish. Amid the many influences on each next generation, parents are the “final common pathway” to children’s development and stature, adjustment, and success. Human social inquiry—since before Athenian interest in Spartan childrearing practices—has always, as a matter x

Preface to the Third Edition

of course, included reports of parenting. Freud opined that childrearing is one of three “impossible professions”—the other two being governing nations and psychoanalysis. One encounters as many views as the number of people one asks about the relative merits of being an at-home or a working mother, about what mix of day care, family care, or parent care is best for a child, about whether good parenting reflects intuition or experience. The Handbook of Parenting concerns itself with different types of parents—mothers and fathers, single, adolescent, and adoptive parents; with basic characteristics of parenting—knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about parenting—as well as the practice of parenting; with forces that shape ­parenting—employment, social class, culture, environment, and history; with problems faced by ­parents—­handicap, marital difficulties, drug addiction; and with practical concerns of parenting— how to promote children’s health, foster social adjustment and cognitive competence, and interact with educational, legal, and religious institutions. Contributors to the Handbook of Parenting have worked in different ways toward understanding all these diverse aspects of parenting, and all look to the most recent research and thinking in the field to shed light on many topics every parent, professional, and policy maker wonders about. Parenthood is a job whose primary object of attention and action is the child. But parenting also has consequences for parents. Parenthood is giving and responsibility, and parenting has its own intrinsic pleasures, privileges, and profits as well as frustrations, fears, and failures. Parenthood can enhance psychological development, self-confidence, and sense of well-being, and parenthood also affords opportunities to confront new challenges and to test and display diverse competencies. Parents can derive considerable and continuing pleasure in their relationships and activities with their children. But parenting is also fraught with small and large stresses and disappointments. The transition to parenthood is daunting, and the onrush of new stages of parenthood is relentless. In the final analysis, however, parents receive a great deal “in kind” for the hard work of parenting—they can be recipients of unconditional love, they can gain skills, and they can even pretend to immortality. This third edition of the Handbook of Parenting reveals the many positives that accompany parenting and offers resolutions for its many challenges. The Handbook of Parenting encompasses the broad themes of who are parents, whom parents parent, the scope of parenting and its many effects, the determinants of parenting, and the nature, structure, and meaning of parenthood for parents. The third edition of the Handbook of Parenting is divided into five volumes, each with two parts: CHILDREN AND PARENTING is Volume 1 of the Handbook. Parenthood is, perhaps first and foremost, a functional status in the life cycle: Parents issue as well as protect, nurture, and teach their progeny even if human development is too subtle and dynamic to admit that parental caregiving alone determines the developmental course and outcome of ontogeny. Volume 1 of the Handbook of Parenting begins with chapters concerned with how children influence parenting. Notable are their more obvious characteristics, like child age or developmental stage; but more subtle ones, like child gender, physical state, temperament, mental ability, and other individual-differences factors, are also instrumental. The chapters in Part I, on Parenting across the Lifespan, discuss the unique rewards and special demands of parenting children of different ages and stages—infants, toddlers, youngsters in middle childhood, and adolescents—as well as the modern notion of parent-child relationships in emerging adulthood and adulthood and old age. The chapters in Part II, on Parenting Children of Varying Status, discuss common issues associated with parenting children of different genders and temperaments as well as unique situations of parenting adopted and foster children and children with a variety of special needs, such as those with extreme talent, born preterm, who are socially withdrawn or aggressive, or who fall on the autistic spectrum, manifest intellectual disabilities, or suffer a chronic health condition. xi

Preface to the Third Edition

BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF PARENTING is Volume 2 of the Handbook. For parenting to be understood as a whole, biological and ecological determinants of parenting need to be brought into the picture. Volume 2 of the Handbook relates parenting to its biological roots and sets parenting in its ecological framework. Some aspects of parenting are influenced by the organic makeup of human beings, and the chapters in Part I, on the Biology of Parenting, examine the evolution of parenting, the psychobiological determinants of parenting in nonhumans, and primate parenting and then the genetic, prenatal, neuroendocrinological, and neurobiological bases of human parenting. A deep understanding of what it means to parent also depends on the ecologies in which parenting takes place. Beyond the nuclear family, parents are embedded in, influence, and are themselves affected by larger social systems. The chapters in Part II, on the Ecology of Parenting, examine the ancient and modern histories of parenting as well as epidemiology, neighborhoods, educational attainment, socioeconomic status, culture, and environment to provide an overarching relational developmental contextual systems perspective on parenting. BEING AND BECOMING A PARENT is Volume 3 of the Handbook. A large cast of characters is responsible for parenting, each has her or his own customs and agenda, and the psychological characteristics and social interests of those individuals are revealing of what parenting is. Chapters in Part I, on The Parent, show just how rich and multifaceted is the constellation of children’s caregivers. Considered first are family systems and then successively mothers and fathers, coparenting, and gatekeeping between parents, adolescent parenting, grandparenting, and single parenthood, divorced and remarried parenting, lesbian and gay parents, and finally sibling caregivers and nonparental caregiving. Parenting also draws on transient and enduring physical, personality, and intellectual characteristics of the individual. The chapters in Part II, on Becoming and Being a Parent, consider the intergenerational transmission of parenting, parenting and contemporary reproductive technologies, the transition to parenthood, and stages of parental development, and then chapters turn to parents’ well-being, emotions, self-efficacy, cognitions, attributions, as well as socialization, personality in parenting, and psychoanalytic theory. These features of parents serve many functions: They generate and shape parental practices, mediate the effectiveness of parenting, and help to organize parenting. SOCIAL CONDITIONS AND APPLIED PARENTING is Volume 4 of the Handbook. Parenting is not uniform across communities, groups, or cultures; rather parenting is subject to wide variation. Volume 4 of the Handbook describes socially defined groups of parents and social conditions that promote variation in parenting. The chapters in Part I, on Social and Cultural Conditions of Parenting, start with a relational developmental systems perspective on parenting and move to considerations of ethnic and minority parenting among Latin Americans, African Americans, Asians and Asian Americans, Indigenous parents, and immigrant parents. The section concludes with the roles of employment and of poverty on parenting. Parents are ordinarily the most consistent and caring people in children’s lives. However, parenting does not always go right or well. Information, education, and support programs can remedy potential ills. The chapters in Part II, on Applied Issues in Parenting, begin with how parenting is measured and follow with examinations of maternal deprivation, attachment, and acceptance/rejection in parenting. Serious challenges to parenting—some common, such as stress, depression, and disability, and some less common, such as substance abuse, psychopathology, maltreatment, incarceration—are addressed as are parenting interventions intended to redress these trials. THE PRACTICE OF PARENTING is Volume 5 of the Handbook. Parents meet the biological, physical, and health requirements of children. Parents interact with children socially.

xii

Preface to the Third Edition

Parents stimulate children to engage and understand the environment and to enter the world of learning. Parents provision, organize, and arrange their children’s home and local environments and the media to which children are exposed. Parents also manage child development vis-à-vis childcare, school, the circles of medicine and law, as well as other social institutions through their active citizenship. Volume 5 of the Handbook addresses the nuts-and-bolts of parenting as well as the promotion of positive parenting practices. The chapters in Part I, on Practical Parenting, review the ethics of parenting, parenting, and the development of children’s self-regulation, discipline, prosocial and moral development, and resilience as well as children’s language, play, cognitive, and academic achievement and children’s peer relationships. Many caregiving principles and practices have direct effects on children. Parents indirectly influence children as well, for example, through relations they have with their local or larger communities. The chapters in Part II, on Parents and Social Institutions, explore parents and their children’s childcare, activities, media, schools, and healthcare and examine relations between parenthood and the law, public policy, and religion and spirituality. Each chapter in the third edition of the Handbook of Parenting addresses a different but central topic in parenting; each is rooted in current thinking and theory as well as classical and modern research on a topic; each is written to be read and absorbed in a single sitting. Each chapter in this new Handbook adheres to a standard organization, including an introduction to the chapter as a whole, followed by historical considerations of the topic, a discussion of central issues and theory, a review of classical and modern research, forecasts of future directions of theory and research, and a set of evidence-based conclusions. Of course, each chapter considers contributors’ own convictions and findings, but contributions to this third edition of the Handbook of Parenting attempt to present all major points of view and central lines of inquiry and interpret them broadly. The Handbook of Parenting is intended to be both comprehensive and state-of-the-art. To assert that parenting is complex is to understate the obvious. As the expanded scope of this third edition of the Handbook of Parenting also amply attests, parenting is naturally and intensely interdisciplinary. The Handbook of Parenting is concerned principally with the nature and scope of parenting per se and secondarily with child outcomes of parenting. Beyond an impressive range of information, readers will find passim typologies of parenting (e.g., authoritarian-autocratic, indulgent-permissive, indifferent-uninvolved, authoritative-reciprocal), theories of parenting (e.g., ecological, psychoanalytic, behavior genetic, ethological, behavioral, sociobiological), conditions of parenting (e.g., gender, culture, content), recurrent themes in parenting studies (e.g., attachment, transaction, systems), and even aphorisms (e.g., “A child should have strict discipline in order to develop a fine, strong character,” “The child is father to the man”). Each chapter in the Handbook of Parenting lays out the meanings and implications of a contribution and a perspective on parenting. Once upon a time, parenting was a seemingly simple thing: Mothers mothered. Fathers fathered. Today, parenting has many motives, many meanings, and many manifestations. Contemporary parenting is viewed as immensely time consuming and effortful. The perfect mother or father or family is a figment of false cultural memory. Modern society recognizes “subdivisions” of the call: genetic mother, gestational mother, biological mother, birth mother, social mother. For some, the individual sacrifices that mark parenting arise for the sole and selfish purpose of passing one’s genes on to succeeding generations. For others, a second child may be conceived to save the life of a first child. A multitude of factors influences the unrelenting advance of events and decisions that surround parenting—biopsychosocial, dyadic, contextual, historical. Recognizing this complexity is important to informing people’s thinking about parenting, especially informationhungry parents themselves. This third edition of the Handbook of Parenting explores all these motives, meanings, and manifestations of parenting.

xiii

Preface to the Third Edition

Each day more than three-quarters of a million adults around the world experience the rewards and challenges, as well as the joys and heartaches, of becoming parents. The human race succeeds because of parenting. From the start, parenting is a “24/7” job. Parenting formally begins before pregnancy and can continue throughout the lifespan: Practically speaking for most, once a parent, always a parent. Parenting is a subject about which people hold strong opinions, and about which too little solid information or considered reflection exists. Parenting has never come with a Handbook . . . until now. —Marc H. Bornstein

xiv

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Marc H. Bornstein holds a BA from Columbia College, MS and PhD degrees from Yale University, and honorary doctorates from the University of Padua and University of Trento. Bornstein was a J. S. Guggenheim Foundation Fellow, and he received a Research Career Development Award from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He also received the C. S. Ford Cross-Cultural Research Award from the Human Relations Area Files, the B. R. McCandless Young Scientist Award and the G. Stanley Hall Award from the American Psychological Association, a United States PHS Superior Service Award and an Award of Merit from the National Institutes of Health, two Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowships, four Awards for Excellence from the American Mensa Education & Research Foundation, the Arnold Gesell Prize from the Theodor Hellbrügge Foundation, the Distinguished Scientist Award from the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, and both the Distinguished International Contributions to Child Development Award and the Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Child Development Award from the Society for Research in Child Development. Bornstein is President of the Society for Research in Child Development and a past member of the SRCD Governing Council and Executive Committee of the International Congress of Infancy Studies. Bornstein has held faculty positions at Princeton University and New York University as well as academic appointments as Visiting Scientist at the Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie in Munich, Visiting Fellow at University College London, Professeur Invité at the Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale in the Université René Descartes in Paris, Child Clinical Fellow at the Institute for Behavior Therapy in New York, Visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo, Professeur Invité at the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Éducation de l’Enfant in the Sorbonne in Paris, Visiting Fellow of the British Psychological Society, Visiting Scientist at the Human Development Resource Centre in Bamenda, Cameroon, Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Psychology in Seoul National University in Seoul, South Korea, Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Cognitive Science in the University of Trento, Italy, Professor Visitante at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile in Santiago, Chile, Institute for Advanced Studies Benjamin Meaker Visiting Professor, University of Bristol, Jacobs Foundation Scholar-in-Residence, Marbach, Germany, Honorary Fellow, Department of Psychiatry, Oxford University, Adjunct Academic Member of the Council of the Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, and International Research Fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. Bornstein is coauthor of The Architecture of the Child Mind: g, Fs, and the Hierarchical Model of Intelligence, Gender in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, Development in Infancy (five editions), Development: xv

About the Editor

Infancy Through Adolescence, Lifespan Development, Genitorialità: Fattori Biologici E Culturali Dell’essere Genitori, and Perceiving Similarity and Comprehending Metaphor. He is general editor of The Crosscurrents in Contemporary Psychology Series, including Psychological Development From Infancy, Comparative Methods in Psychology, Psychology, and Its Allied Disciplines (Vols. I–III), Sensitive Periods in Development, Interaction in Human Development, Cultural Approaches to Parenting, Child Development and Behavioral Pediatrics, and Well-Being: Positive Development Across the Life Course, and general editor of the Monographs in Parenting series, including his own Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development and Acculturation and Parent-Child Relationships. He edited Maternal Responsiveness: Characteristics and Consequences, the Handbook of Parenting (Vols. I–V, three editions), and the Handbook of Cultural Developmental Science (Parts 1 and 2), and is Editor-in-Chief of the SAGE Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development. He also coedited Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook (seven editions), Stability and Continuity in Mental Development, Contemporary Constructions of the Child, Early Child Development in the French Tradition, The Role of Play in the Development of Thought, Acculturation, and Parent-Child Relationships, Immigrant Families in Contemporary Society, The Developing Infant Mind: Origins of the Social Brain, and Ecological Settings and Processes in Developmental Systems (Volume 4 of the Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science). He is author of several children’s books, videos, and puzzles in The Child’s World and Baby Explorer series. Bornstein is Editor Emeritus of Child Development and founding Editor of Parenting: Science and Practice. He has administered both Federal and Foundation grants, sits on the editorial boards of several professional journals, is a member of scholarly societies in a variety of disciplines, and consults for governments, foundations, universities, publishers, scientific journals, the media, and UNICEF. He has published widely in experimental, methodological, comparative, developmental, and cultural science as well as neuroscience, pediatrics, and aesthetics. Bornstein was named to the Top 20 Authors for Productivity in Developmental Science by the American Educational Research Association.

xvi

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Lauren E. Altenburger is a PhD candidate in Human Development and Family Science at The Ohio State University. She received her BS and MS in Human Development and Family Science from The Ohio State University. Altenburger’s research focuses on the contributions of family relationship quality to young children’s social and emotional development. In particular, she applies a family systems perspective to better understand predictors of fathers’ parenting quality as well as consequences for child adjustment. She is currently supported by a Presidential Fellowship from the graduate school at The Ohio State University. Mairin E. Augustine is a Carolina Consortium for Human Development postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Developmental Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Augustine received her BS and MS from Lehigh University and her PhD from Pennsylvania State University. She studies how parent-child interactions relate to varying socioemotional and self-regulatory outcomes for children of different temperament types. Jay Belsky is the Robert M. and Natalie Reid Dorn Professor of Human Development at the University of California, Davis. Belsky obtained his PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from Cornell University and was previously on the faculty of Pennsylvania State University and Birkbeck University of London, where he founded the Institute for the Study of Children, Families, and Social Issues. Belsky researches child development and family studies, with work focusing on effects of day care, parent-child relationships and other developmental experiences, and environmental exposures early in life on psychological and behavioral development, the transition to parenthood, the etiology of child maltreatment, and the evolutionary basis of parent and child functioning. Daphne Blunt Bugental is Distinguished Professor Emerita at the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Bugental was educated at the University of California, Los Angeles. She has been Associate Editor of Journal of Personality and Psychology and the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. She was the recipient of the Kurt Lewin Award. She is author of Thriving in the Face of Childhood Adversity. Deborah M. Capaldi obtained her PhD from the University of Oregon and is currently a Senior Scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Capaldi is a fellow of APA Division 43 (Family) and xvii

About the Contributors

the Association for Psychological Science. She has expertise in the development of psychopathology, including family and peer factors related to substance use and to associated risk behaviors such as conduct problems, depression, sexual risk behavior, and intimate partner violence. Her research currently centers on understanding intergenerational transmission of substance use and related behaviors within a dynamic developmental systems framework. To this end, she and colleagues are conducting a prospective three-generational study. Bertram J. Cohler was William Rainey Harper Professor of the Social Sciences, The College and The Committee on Human Development, The Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, and The Committee on General Studies in the Humanities at the University of Chicago. Cohler received his education at the University of Chicago and Harvard University and his psychoanalytic education at The Institute for Psychoanalysis (Chicago) in clinical and theoretical aspects of psychoanalysis. He was a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, The Gerontological Society, and past President of the American Orthopsychiatric Association. He was editor of Psychoanalytic Psychology. His research interests included parenthood and intergenerational relationships, the study of parents with chronic psychiatric illness and their offspring, and narrative methods and study of life history. He coauthored Mentally Ill Mothers and Their Children, Mothers, Grandmothers, and Daughters: Personality and Child Care in Three Generation Families, The Essential Other, and The Course of Gay and Lesbian Lives and coedited The Psychoanalytic Study of Lives Over Time. Marilyn Coleman is a Distinguished Curators’ Professor Emerita of Human Development and Family Science at the University of Missouri. Coleman is also an Affiliate Faculty Emerita with Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Missouri. She is a Fellow in the National Council on Family Relations. She has conducted research on stepfamilies focused on intergenerational family responsibilities following divorce and remarriage and the development and maintenance of step-­relationships over time. She coauthored 10 books and is a past editor of the Journal of Marriage and Family. Jeffrey T. Cookston is a Professor of Psychology at San Francisco State University. Cookston has researched family processes among separated and divorced families and is author of empirical and theoretical works on the social construction of the fathering role and the effects of divorce and separation on family dynamics and the implications of transitions on child adjustment in Asian, Latino, and European American groups. Randy Corpuz is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts. Corpuz received his PhD from the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, where he received a National Science Foundation fellowship. Maayan Davidov is a faculty member at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare and the Joseph J. Schwartz Graduate Program in Early Childhood Studies. Davidov completed her PhD studies at The University of Toronto. Her research focuses on parent-child relationships and children’s socioemotional development. She is particularly interested in how different aspects of parenting are linked to different child outcomes, in how the cultural context can influence socialization processes, and in the early development of empathy and prosociality in infancy and toddlerhood. Davidov served as a guest editor for special sections in Development and Psychopathology and Child Development. Amaranta de Haan is Assistant Professor of Pedagogical Sciences at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Psychology, Education & Child Studies. De Haan was educated at Utrecht University and was previously affiliated with Utrecht University, the Netherlands, and Ghent University, xviii

About the Contributors

Belgium. Her research interests are the interrelated development of the Big Five personality dimensions, maternal, and paternal parenting behaviors, and girls’ and boys’ externalizing adjustment problems between middle childhood and the end of adolescence. Jack Demick, a clinical and developmental psychologist, is currently a Research Fellow in the Psychology Department at Harvard University. Demick was trained at Yale University, Clark University, and the McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He has held research, teaching, and/or clinical appointments at Brown University, Clark University, Harvard University, and the University of Massachusetts Medical School where, as Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, he served as Research Director of the Center for Adoption Research and Policy. His research interests include life span cognitive and social development. He has coedited eight volumes and serves as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Adult Development. He is author of Toward Integrating Psychology: Holistic/SystemsDevelopmental Theory. M. Ann Easterbrooks is Professor in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development at Tufts University. Easterbooks received her PhD in Developmental Psychology from the University of Michigan and is a founder of the Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research Center. She focuses on supporting healthy family relationships, well-being, and resilience. Amy Encinger is a PhD student in the Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies specializing in Child Development/Early Childhood Education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Encinger’s foci of study include how household characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, family composition, food insecurity, and parent stress influence children’s developmental outcomes. Elsa Escalante is Assistant Professor at the Universidad del Norte, Colombia. Escalante Barrios holds MScs from the Universidad del Norte and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a PhD from the Universidad del Norte. Previously, she was an instructor for the Organization of American States, and she was awarded the Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant for Global Early Child Development by the Society for Research in Child Development. Her areas of professional experience focus on the design, strategic planning, coordination, and evaluation of intervention and education initiatives for families, children, and community members to promote policies and programs related to health, nutrition, education, protection, and children’s rights in national and international contexts. She is author of three books related to teacher professional development and early childhood education. Jan Esteraich is a PhD candidate at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She was a production assistant for Reading Rainbow, an educational television program created for PBS broadcast. Esteraich’s current focus of study includes quantitative and qualitative research on young children’s use of technology and mobile media, teachers’ professional development, and international approaches for early childhood education, specifically the Reggio Emilia Approach. Lawrence H. Ganong is a Chancellor’s Professor of Human Development and Family Science and Nursing at the University of Missouri. Ganong has coauthored 10 books. His primary research program focuses on what postdivorce family members, especially in stepfamilies, do to develop satisfying and effective relationships. He is a Fellow in both the National Council on Family Relations and the Gerontological Society of America. Aileen S. Garcia is Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling and Human Development at South Dakota State University. She holds a PhD in Child,Youth and Family Studies and a master’s xix

About the Contributors

in psychology, with concentration in developmental psychology, from Ateneo de Manila, Philippines. Her current research interests include the influence of culture on parenting and child development, and the effects of poverty on children’s socioemotional and academic outcomes. Susan Golombok is Professor of Family Research and Director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, and Professorial Fellow at Newnham College, Cambridge. Golombok took her first degree in Psychology at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, a MA in Child Development at the Institute of Education, University of London, and a PhD at the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London. At the City University, London, she founded the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre. Her research contributes to theoretical understanding of family influences on child development and addresses social and ethical issues that are of relevance to family life, including lesbian mother families, gay father families, single mothers by choice, and families created by assisted reproductive technologies including in vitro fertilization, donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. She is the author of Parenting: What Really Counts? and Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms and coauthor of Bottling it Up, Gender Development, Modern Psychometrics and Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. Joan E. Grusec is Professor Emerita of Psychology at the University of Toronto. Grusec was educated at the University of Toronto and Stanford University and previously was affiliated with Wesleyan University and the University of Waterloo. She has been an Associate Editor of Developmental Psychology and Chair of the Examination Committee of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. She is coauthor of Punishment and Social Development and coeditor of Parenting and Children’s Internalization of Values and the Handbook of Socialization. Tessa N. Hamilton is a PhD student in School Psychology at Northeastern University. Hamilton completed her undergraduate training at the University of Arizona and master’s degree and Certificate of Advanced Study at Harvard University. As a licensed school social worker, Hamilton has provided clinical assessment, prevention, and intervention services to children and families through Boston-area public schools. Her research is aimed at fostering positive prosocial relationships among siblings through the More Fun With Sisters and Brothers Program. George W. Holden is Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Holden’s research interests are in the area of social development, with a focus on parent-child relationships. His work, into the determinants of parental social cognition and behavior, discipline, and positive parenting, and the causes and consequences of family violence, has been supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, the Guggenheim Foundation, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, the Timberlawn Research Foundation and, most recently, the U.S. State Department. He is the author or editor of five books. Holden was President of the Society for Research in Human Development. Rachel C. Katz is a PhD candidate in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development at Tufts University. She received a BA in Psychology from Bates College. She works on the Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation, a randomized controlled trial of an intervention for young parents focused on promoting positive life course trajectories for mothers and children, supporting positive parenting, reducing child maltreatment, and enhancing maternal well-being. Katz’s research focuses on exploring the influence of children’s early experiences on developmental outcomes, including how development can be modified by factors such as childcare, caregiver-child relationships, and adversity. xx

About the Contributors

Rebecca Kaufman is the Senior Research Coordinator for the Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. Kaufman received both her MA and MSW degrees from Temple University. Patricia K. Kerig is a Professor and the Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. Kerig completed her undergraduate work at the University of California at Irvine and received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. She is Codirector of the Center for Trauma Recovery and Juvenile Justice. She serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Traumatic Stress and is the author of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Childhood and Adolescence, Developmental Psychopathology, Child Maltreatment: A Developmental Psychopathology Perspective, and Adolescence and Beyond: Family Processes in Development. David C. R. Kerr is Associate Professor in the School of Psychological Science at Oregon State University, a Research Scientist at Oregon Social Learning Center, and a licensed clinical psychologist. Kerr received his undergraduate degree at Willamette University and completed his PhD and postdoctoral fellowship at University of Michigan. His research interests concern intergenerational transmission of parenting and problem behavior, including substance abuse, and suicide risk and prevention among adolescents. Laurie Kramer is Professor of Applied Psychology and Director of the University Honors Program at Northeastern University. Kramer is also Emerita Professor of Applied Family Studies at the University of Illinois. She earned her PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Illinois and performed her residency at Northwestern University Medical School and the Family Institute of Chicago. She was the founding Director of the Family Resiliency Center at the University of Illinois. Her research focuses on the mechanisms by which young children develop positive relationships with their siblings. She has coedited special sections or issues on children’s sibling relationships in the Journal of Family Psychology, Child Development Perspectives, and New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Esther M. Leerkes is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Associate Dean for Research in the School of Health and Human Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Leerkes received her BA from the State University of New York at Potsdam and her PhD from the University of Vermont. She has served on the editorial boards for Infancy, Parenting: Science and Practice, Family Relations, and the International Journal of Behavioral Development and is a Consulting Editor for Child Development. She studies biological, contextual, and psychological predictors of maternal sensitivity, particularly in response to infant distress, and its impact on children’s socioemotional development. James P. McHale is Executive Director of the USF St. Petersburg Infant-Family Mental Health Center at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital and directs the USFSP Family Study Center. He is a Professor and Founding Chair of USF St. Petersburg’s Department of Psychology and past Director of Clinical Training at Clark University. His area of expertise is coparenting in diverse family systems, and his books include Coparenting: A Conceptual and Clinical Examination of Family Systems and Charting the Bumpy Road of Coparenthood: Understanding the Challenges of Family Life. Meera Menon is a PhD student in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development at Tufts University. Menon received a BS in Human Development at Cornell University. She works at Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. Her research interests include the creation and evaluation of programs and policies that support parents and caregivers in promoting childhood health and well-being. xxi

About the Contributors

Lynne Murray is Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Reading, U.K., and honorary Professor at the Departments of Psychology at the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Murray was educated at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and was previously affiliated to the University of Cambridge, U.K. Her work has focused on parenting and the development of children growing up in conditions of adversity, including maternal postnatal depression and anxiety, socioeconomic adversity and congenital disorder. She is past president of the Marcé Society and is a Fellow of the British Academy. She is cofounder and codirector of a charity to support parenting and child development in conditions of adversity, The Mikhulu Trust, principally through book sharing. She is the author of The Social Baby and The Psychology of Babies: How Relationships Support Development From Birth to Two and Coeditor of Postpartum Depression and Child Development. S. Katherine Nelson-Coffey is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee. Nelson-Coffey earned her BS in Psychology from the University of Mary Washington and her MA and PhD in Psychology from the University of California, Riverside. Her research focuses on what leads people to live happy and fulfilling lives, with a specific focus on family life. Julie Nihouarn-Sigurdardottir is a PhD researcher within the Centre for the Developing Brain at King’s College London. She completed a MSC in Neuroscience from University College London and further postgraduate qualifications in Development and Psychopathology at the University of Reading. Nihouarn-Sigurdardottir investigates the impact of maternal medical and psychological health during pregnancy on the brain development of the fetus and longitudinally into infanthood. Mirjam Oosterman is Associate Professor at the section of Clinical Child and Family Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Oosterman obtained her MA degree in Clinical Psychology at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, and her PhD in Educational Science at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on parenting, mental health, attachment (disturbances), stress-reactivity, and regulation. Christina M. Padilla is a PhD candidate in the Psychology Department at Georgetown University. Padilla received a MPP from Georgetown University and BA in Psychology from Johns Hopkins University. She was previously affiliated with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, where she completed an Intramural Research Training Award with the Section on Child and Family Research. Ross D. Parke is Distinguished Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of California, Riverside. Parke was educated at the Universities of Toronto and Waterloo and previously was affiliated with the Universities of Wisconsin and Illinois and the Fels Research Institute. His is a past President of the Society for Research in Child Development and the Developmental Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. He has been editor of Developmental Psychology and the Journal of Family Psychology. Parke is author of Fathers, Future Families: Diverse Forms, Rich Possibilities and coauthor of Child Psychology, Social Development, and Throwaway Dads. Charlotte J. Patterson is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and Chair of the Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality at the University of Virginia. Patterson is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science as well as of the American Psychological Association and a past President of the Society for Psychological Research on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. She was also the recipient of APA’s Distinguished Contributions to Research in Public Policy Award and xxii

About the Contributors

served as a member of the United States Institute of Medicine Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities. Susan Paul received a BA from Beloit College, MA, from the School of Social Service Administration of The University of Chicago, and PhD from the Committee on Human Development, The University of Chicago. Peter Prinzie is Professor of Pedagogical Sciences at the Erasmus University. Prinzie obtained his PhD in Pedagogical Sciences from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. He was previously affiliated with Leiden University and Utrecht University. His research spans the field of developmental psychopathology, personality psychology, and developmental psychology in questions of how parent and child factors influence parental behavior, how personality develops from early childhood into emerging adulthood, and how the dynamic interplay between parenting and personality predicts (mal)adaptation. Abbie Raikes is Assistant Professor at the College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and a Fellow at the Buffett Early Childhood Institute. Raikes’s PhD is from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and MPH is from Columbia University. Her work focuses on improving early childhood programs and policies in low- and middle-income countries. Helen Raikes is Willa Cather Professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Raikes received a PhD from Iowa State University and MS from the University of California, Davis. She was a Society for Research in Child Development Executive Policy Fellow, Consultant for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Research Director of the Donald O. Clifton Child Development Center at the Gallup Organization. Her area of study is early childhood education, focused on research to inform outcomes and opportunities for low-income children before school begins. She is author of two books, including a Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development. Martin P. M. Richards was Professor of Family Research and Director of the Centre of Family Research at Cambridge University, U.K. Richards received his education at Cambridge University. He has researched a number of aspects of child development and family life including divorce, family change, and the impact of pediatric and obstetric practice for families and children, including issues related to the separation of parents and children and relevant sociolegal issues. He also works on social and bioethical aspects of the use of assisted reproduction and on the development of children conceived in this way. He coedited the Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families, Reproductive Donation: Practice, Policy, and Bioethics, and Regulating Reproductive Donation, Birth Rites and Rights and Regulating Autonomy: Sex, Reproduction and Families. Rebecca M. Ryan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Georgetown University. Ryan earned a PhD in Developmental Psychology from Columbia University. Her research explores how the home environment shapes child development and asks what public policies can do to enhance the quality of those environments. She has published on how family structure, family socioeconomic status, and fathers’ involvement are associated with the nature of parenting behavior and child and family well-being. Caroline Sanner is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at the University of Missouri. Sanner received her PhD in Family Science from the University of Missouri. She explores postdivorce relationships and stepfamily dynamics. Her research xxiii

About the Contributors

agendum focuses on understanding the processes through which divorced and stepfamily members make meaning of their roles, develop and maintain familial ties, and negotiate relationships in complex kinship networks. She is also interested on the influence of gendered expectations on role construction and enactment, particularly for women in stepfamilies. Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan is Professor of Psychology at Ohio State University. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Northwestern University and her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Schoppe-Sullivan’s research focuses on how parents manage their parenting roles and responsibilities together—or coparenting—and the roles of fathers in families. She is particularly interested in the implications of coparenting and father-child relationships for child and family functioning and the development of these relationships across the transition to parenthood. She is a Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations and her research has been funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Science Foundation. Schoppe-Sullivan is deputy editor of the Journal of Marriage and Family, and serves on the editorial boards of Parenting: Science and Practice, the Journal of Family Psychology, and the Journal of Family Theory and Review. She has also received numerous awards recognizing the high quality of her teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students, including Ohio State University’s Alumni Award for Distinguished Teaching. Carlo Schuengel is Professor of Special Education, leading the section of Clinical Child and Family Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Schuengel obtained his MS and PhD in Educational Science at University of Leiden, The Netherlands. He is Associate Editor of Attachment and Human Development and Child Development. He focuses on parenting, attachment, mental health, and disabilities from the perspective of preventive and promotive interventions. Yana Segal Sirotkin is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology at USF St. Petersburg and Research Coordinator for an NIH-funded randomized controlled trial examining efficacy of a Focused Coparenting Consultation for unmarried parents. She received her MA in Developmental Psychology from the University of Haifa in Israel and her PhD in Applied Developmental Psychology from George Mason University. Sirotkin is also a coinvestigator for a study of coparenting and toddler development profiles at the USFSP Infant-Family Center at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Margaret M. Smith is a clinical psychology PhD student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Smith received her BA in Psychology at the University of Texas in Austin. Her research interests include evidence-based parenting interventions and emerging positive parenting programs. Clinically, her interests include providing evidence-based therapy and psychodiagnostic assessments for at-risk children and adolescents in community mental health and juvenile detention settings. Peter K. Smith is Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, U.K. He received his BSc at the University of Oxford and his PhD from the University of Sheffield. He was Head of the Unit for School and Family Studies in the Department of Psychology at Goldsmith’s and is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, the Association of Psychological Sciences, and the Academy of Social Sciences. He has published 28 authored and edited books, including The Psychology of Grandparenthood: An International Perspective, Childhood Social Development, Understanding Children’s Development, Understanding School Bullying: Its Nature and Prevention Strategies, and Adolescence: A Very Short Introduction.

xxiv

About the Contributors

Diamond Stewart earned her BA from the University of the South. Stewart is now a student at Savannah Law School, with a specific focus on Entertainment Law. Sukran Ucus is Assistant Professor at Ahi Evran University. Ucus received her BS, MS, and PhD degree from Hacettepe University, Ankara-Turkey. She worked for the Ministry of Education in Turkey as a teacher, Child-Friendly City project expert, and curriculum specialist. Her area of study is early childhood education, largely focused on research and teaching children’s rights and child welfare, creativity, and creative thinking for young children, parent involvement in early childhood education, and social studies for young children. Marsha Weinraub is the Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University. Weinraub received her BA from Brandeis University and her PhD from the University of Michigan. Her interests focus on the effects of early childcare, single parenting, and maternal employment on parent-child relationships and child development. She was a principal investigator on a the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Lauren G. Wild is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cape Town. Wild holds an MA in Research Psychology from the University of Cape Town and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. Her research interests center on family processes and developmental psychopathology as well as grandparental involvement, caregiving, and child adjustment in the context of family stress, and risk-taking behavior in adolescence.

xxv

PART I

The Parent

1 PARENTING AND FAMILY SYSTEMS Patricia K. Kerig

Introduction Family systems theory provides a rich conceptual framework and body of research devoted to understanding the larger relational context in which parenting takes place. Although in some ways inherent to research on parenting more broadly, family systems thinking also stands apart as an independent body of thought. Indeed, given that the term “family” inherently refers to a constellation including parents and children, it might be thought that all parenting theory and research concerns the family system. However, family systems theory stands apart from mainstream parenting research and provides an umbrella for a group of theoretical perspectives that, although diverse in some respects, share a number of assumptions that can be best summed up as “the effect of relationships on relationships” (Emde, 1988, p. 354). For example, a distinction can be made between family-related variables that affect children and their parents (e.g., poverty, community violence, adversity) and family systemic processes that affect the entire system of interrelationships within the family, including their structure, patterns, and reciprocal transactions (Cowan and Cowan, 2006; Kerig, 2016) To this end, this chapter reviews key theoretical propositions underlying the family systems approach, describes the research and interventions that have derived from this perspective, and discusses future directions in the field.

Fundamental Concepts Underlying Family Systems Theories Holism The concept of holism is central to all family systems theory, expressed pithily in the adage that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 55). Moreover, as Wynne (1984/2004, p. 2) expressed it, Systems theory begins with the observation that nature can be viewed in a hierarchically arranged continuum, with the more complex, larger units superordinate to the less complex, smaller units. . . . Each level needs to be regarded as an organized whole, with distinctive properties and characteristics that are altered by interchange with other levels, but with no level reducible to simpler levels. Thus, organs are more than simple aggregates of cells,

3

Patricia K. Kerig

the person is more than an aggregate of organs, and the family is more than an aggregate of persons. One implication of holism is that families are systems that have properties that are not reducible to the individual characteristics of their members (Kerig, 2001a). Thus, in family systems theory as applied to clinical work, it is families, and not just individuals, who are seen as the sources of pathology; for example, Minuchin’s (1974) observations of the dysfunctional family interactions among eating-disordered clients led him to posit the existence of an “anorexic family.” Systemic processes affect individuals’ behavior, such as when parents move from dyadic couple interactions to triadic relationships that include their children. Family interactions involving two parents and the child add a new level of complexity in that they require the simultaneous coordination of three different relationships—mother-child, father-child, and the couple—each of which has specific role demands (e.g., parent versus intimate partner) that need to be synchronized and balanced (Kerig, 2016). It is in coordinating these different roles, as Gjerde (1986, p. 297) put it, that “the parent-child dyad is transformed into a family system.” In turn, each of these relationships can have an effect on the others; for example, when interparental tensions “spill over” differentially onto mother-child versus father-child relationships. Parents also may act in ways that affects the relationship of the other parent with a child, such as by excluding the partner from their emotionally close bond with the child, or by covertly encouraging a child’s disrespect or misbehavior toward the partner (Parke, 1990). One point of contention in the family systems literature has been whether families can be summed up using holistic constructs, such as terming a family as an “enmeshed” or “disengaged” system. In particular, descriptions of pathological family relationships often involve one enmeshed relationship (e.g., between a mother and child) that creates imbalances among other family subsystems (e.g., by increasing disengagement between the mother and father; Cowan and Cowan, 1990). In this regard, McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, and Lauretti (2001) offered a helpful distinction between these abstract whole-family constructs and observable processes that take place when family members are considered as a group, which they term family-level variables. Family-level processes do not require the presence of all family members simultaneously; for example, covert coparenting conflict can occur when, in his or her absence, one parent denigrates the other to the child (McHale, 1997), just as coparenting cooperation can be demonstrated by the ways in which parents support or validate one another when they are alone with their children (Kerig, 2001a). Therefore, family dynamic processes have been proposed as a more inclusive term, which refers to “those interactions that have implications for family-level functioning even when they do not take place in the presence of all family members” (Kerig, 2001a, p. 10). As Belsky, Putnam, and Crnic (1996, p. 46) summed up this idea, “[Family] dynamics include events and processes that involve all family members together or a family subsystem (parent-child or husband-wife) that affects and is affected by the other subsystems in the family.”

Interdependency A second key family systemic idea is that of interdependency: that relationships have effects on other relationships (Emde, 1988). Thus, in contrast to other parenting perspectives that focus on how parenting relationships affect the child, family systems theory proposes that relationships affect other relationships in the family system (Gjerde, 1986): “Thus the family is viewed as an interrelated web in which perturbations in one strand send reverberations along the threads interconnecting other parts of the system” (Kerig, 2016, p. 587). One example of such interrelatedness of relationships is the concept of compensatory processes (Engfer, 1988; Kerig, Cowan, and Cowan, 1993) in which unhappiness in the couple relationship, for example, leads to a compensatory overly close relationship between a

4

Parenting and Family Systems

parent and child that imbalances the family system (Kerig, 2005) and potentially leads to heightened tensions and loyalty conflicts for the child (Grych, Raynor, and Fosco, 2004).

Circularity The term “circularity” refers to the notion that cause-and-effect in family systems is not unidirectional but rather reciprocal and bidirectional. For example, negativity in parenting relationships increases child misbehavior, which, in turn, increases parenting stress and negativity. In the larger developmental psychopathology literature, the term used to refer to circularity is that of “transactions” (Kerig, Ludlow, and Wenar, 2012; Sameroff, 1995, 2010), which refers to the processes by which individuals in a family shape one another’s behavior over time. Research supports the idea that there are reciprocal effects among couple, parenting, and parent-child relationships. For example, behavioral analyses have shown that conflicts between parents are followed by increases in parentchild interactions, just as conflicts between fathers and children are associated with subsequent interparental conflict (Almeida, Wethington, and Chandler, 1999).

Homeostasis “Homeostasis” refers to the fact that the regulatory processes that keep a family system intact tend to keep the system consistent over time, for better or for worse. On the positive side, homeostasis is “a way in which normal families maintain constancy and predictability in the face of constantly changing environmental demands . . . [and] maintain a sense of regularity in the presence of everyday stresses and changes” (Wagner and Reiss, 1995, p. 697). On the problematic side, as family therapists have long noted ( Jackson, 1965), homeostasis can stubbornly return a family system to its set-point in ways that do not allow for adaptive change.

Organization and Coherence The systemic perspective also posits that the interrelationships among family members are organized by the larger family system in ways that confer coherence and lawful continuity across contexts (P. Minuchin, 1985; Sroufe and Fleeson, 1988). This overall coherence in family structure means that there are ways in which the behavior and development of members of the system are constrained by the larger family organizational framework; for example, in an enmeshed family, achieving independence is more challenging for children. Just as with homeostasis, however, this organizational property of the family could have benefits or deficits for its members. Whereas negative characteristics, such as high levels of family conflict, increase the risk for psychopathology in all members of the family system, “adaptive family functioning confirms positive benefits that radiate outward from the individual and enhance the capacity for all family members, and the system itself, to thrive” (Kerig, 2016, p. 589).

Boundaries, Subsystems, and Boundary Dissolution Inherent in family systems theory is also the idea that the larger whole is composed of subsystems that are demarcated, ideally, by clear boundaries (Kameguchi, 1996; Minuchin, 1974): “Like the membrane of a cell, boundaries need to be permeable enough to allow communication and emotional contact to traverse the divide while at the same time being firm enough to ensure the integrity of each separate unit” (Kerig, 2016, p. 589). For most family theorists, the heart of the family system is the couple relationship, and the boundary demarcating it as distinct from the parent-child and sibling

5

Patricia K. Kerig

relationships is the key to adaptive family functioning (Kerig, 2005). Dissolution of these boundaries can take a number of forms, which are described next:

Enmeshment In contrast to family cohesion, which connotes a level of healthy closeness among all members of a family (Barber and Buehler, 1996), enmeshment refers to relationships in which family members are overly involved with and highly emotionally reactive to one another (Minuchin, 1974). Enmeshment may take place at the level of the whole family (when all relationships are overly close) or at the level of a particular dyad in the family (when a parent is overly involved in the life of his or her child). Research has linked enmeshed relationships in the family to negative child outcomes, particularly internalizing disorders ( Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, and Hitchens, 2004; Jewell and Stark, 2003; Kerig, 2005) and attachment insecurity (Allen and Hauser, 1996). However, a caution is needed here, in that cultural construals of what is adaptive and typical regarding family members’ closeness come into play. In contrast to the negative associations between parent-child enmeshment and child outcomes in societies that prize independence, such as the United States, such findings are not always seen in samples drawn from more interdependent societies ( Jackson, Raval, Bendikas-King, Raval, and Trivedi, 2016; Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, and Scabini, 2006).

Parentification Parentification, also termed “role reversal,” refers to a child stepping into—or being pressed to take on—developmentally inappropriate tasks, such as nurturing a parent, acting as a companion, or providing adult-like forms of instrumental support (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973; Jacobvitz and Bush, 1996; Jurkovic, 1997; Kerig, 2005; MacFie, Houts, McElwain, and Cox, 2005). Consistent with family systems theory, problems in the couple relationship increase the likelihood that children will be parentified by one parent or the other (Kerig, 2005). Moreover, perhaps because children often cannot successfully fulfill these roles, and thus are disappointing to an emotionally needy parent, parentification often coincides with parental maltreatment of children (MacFie et al., 1999). Two caveats are in order regarding the research on this construct, however. First, some construals of parentification include dynamics that may not confer the same risk for child maladaptation. For example, a subtype of parentification, termed “adultification” (Kerig, 2005), refers to a parent forming an egalitarian relationship with the child, either by acting like the child’s peer (the childlike parent) or by promoting the child to adult status (the adultlike child). Particularly for adolescents, adultification may combine some potential deficits (e.g., “I need to stay home on Saturday nights to keep my father company.”) with some potential perceived benefits (e.g., “My dad and I are best friends and I love feeling so important to him.”). Further, just as with enmeshment, concepts involving parentification need to be culturally informed and to take into account norms and values regarding familism (Gibbs and Huang, 2003), parent-child mutuality (Anderson, 1999), and interdependence (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005). Particularly in economically disadvantaged families (Boyd-Franklin, 2003), children may routinely be assigned responsibilities, such as helping to rear younger siblings or helping with the family finances. Termed “filial responsibilities,” these tasks have been shown to be associated with child distress only when they are perceived as unfair or the child is not adequately trained or supported in carrying them out ( Jurkovic, Kuperminc, Sarac, and Weisshaar, 2005).

Spousification Another construct that is sometimes subsumed under parentification is that of “spousification,” the elevation of the child to the role of intimate partner. Sroufe and Ward (1980) coined this term to 6

Parenting and Family Systems

describe their observations of “seductive” behavior by mothers who were effusively affectionate and flirtatious toward their young children, mostly sons. Subsequent research by Sroufe and his team found that mother-child spousification is associated with negative behavioral and emotional outcomes throughout childhood and adolescence (Carlson and Sroufe, 1995; Jacobvitz and Sroufe, 1987; Shaffer and Egeland, 2011), above and beyond other negative family and parenting variables (Shaffer and Sroufe, 2005). In one of the only studies to investigate spousification by fathers, Rowa, Kerig, and Geller (2001) found that such relationships were more prevalent among young women with eating disorders than among controls.

Intrusiveness Intrusive parenting, also termed “psychological control,” is a form of boundary dissolution that involves “parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachments to parents” (Barber, 2002, p. 15). Psychologically controlling behaviors may be overt, such as threatening a child with a loss of the parent’s love, or more covert and subtle, such as inculcating guilt to gain a child’s compliance. A large body of cross-cultural research has demonstrated that intrusive parenting is associated with negative child outcomes (Bean, Barber, and Crane, 2006; Barber, Stolz, and Olson, 2005; Bean and Northrup, 2009; Kerig, 2005).

Families as Open Systems The flip side to homeostasis, which lends continuity and stability to families, is the systemic conceptualization of families as open systems that are capable of change, whether that change is driven by forces within or outside the family (Cox and Paley, 2003): According to family systems theory, the family unit is an open system in which family perturbations and stressors (e.g., parent psychopathology, relationship disturbances, disruptive family events) may provoke subsequent reorganizations in family functioning and function as architects of interdependencies between family subsystems. (Davies, Cummings, and Winter, 2004, p. 775)

A Brief Historical Walk Through the Development of Family Systems Theories Early Architects of Family Systems Theory In a reaction against the prevailing psychoanalytic perspective of the 1950s, a number of clinically oriented theorists began to promote the family as the unit of analysis and treatment For example, Ackerman (1958) pioneered working conjointly with parents and children in therapy, and Lidz and his colleagues (Lidz, Cornelison, Fleck, and Terry, 1957) also pushed the envelope by including fathers in their sessions, making important observations about the centrality of the couple relationship for understanding childhood emotional and behavioral problems. Key concepts introduced by Lidz’s group include marital schism, characterized by high levels of overt conflict, or marital skew, involving covert forms of conflict, such as verbal agreement accompanied by subtle signs of invalidation. Simultaneously, Wynne and his colleagues (Singer and Wynne, 1965; Wynne, Ryckoff, Day, and Hirsch, 1958) were conducting observations of individuals with schizophrenia that showed their thinking and behavior were more disordered when they were interacting with family members than when they were alone, suggesting that what was disordered was not the patient but the family system. 7

Patricia K. Kerig

Bowen Family System Theory One of the first fully fleshed family systemic theories to emerge during this era was that of Bowen (1961, 1978), who originated many of the concepts important to modern family systems perspectives, especially those related to enmeshment or, as he termed it, the family “undifferentiated ego mass.” Bowen also contributed important ideas regarding the role of triangulation in disturbed family processes (Bowen, 1978; Kerr and Bowen, 1988). Like a stool with two legs, Bowen believed that a system composed of only two persons was inherently unstable and inclined toward inveigling a third, especially when the members of the system are undifferentiated and anxious about any conflicts or “overheated” closeness that might arise. An example of this process is the child who misbehaves as a way of drawing parents’ attention—and away from their conflicts. Consequently, Bowen viewed “detriangling” as “probably the most important technique in family systems therapy” (p. 150). Like many of the theorists of his day, Bowen also incorporated psychodynamic concepts into his understanding of pathological family processes, such as family projection, in which parents deflect attention from their couple conflicts by projecting the problem onto the child.

Mental Research Institute (MRI) The MRI group brought together a number of innovative thinkers in the fields of social work (Satir), anthropology (Bateson), psychiatry ( Jackson), and communications theory (Haley, Weakland, and Watzlawick). The latter perspective had an important influence on the group’s key proposition: that distorted communication patterns in the family were responsible for the development of schizophrenia. A resulting concept was that of the “double bind,” literally a form of “crazy-making” in which family members confronted one another with irreconcilably contradictory messages. Some of the longest lasting contributions of this group to the family systems pantheon were the theoretical contributions made by Bateson, incorporating Bertalanffy’s (1973) general systems theory (e.g., the family as an organized system), cybernetics (e.g., the role of homeostasis), and game theory. Bateson’s theorizing laid the groundwork for a number of approaches to family therapy, including Haley’s (1963) Strategic Family Therapy and the work of the Milan group in Italy (Palazzoli, Cecchin, Prata, and Boscolo, 1978).

Borzormenyi-Nagy’s Contextual Theory Another important early theorist in family systems thinking is Borzormenyi-Nagy (BoszormenyiNagy and Framo, 1965; Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973), who focused on the concept of parentification, “the subjective distortion of a relationship as if one’s partner or even children were his parent” (p. 151). Although such dynamics might reflect or precipitate problems in the family, Borzormenyi-Nagy and Spark emphasized that they were normative relational processes that were not necessarily associated with maladaptation. Borzormenyi-Nagy and Spark viewed parentification as implicated in pathological family processes, and in psychopathologies that were passed on intergenerationally. Adults who were parentified, and thus did not have their legitimate childhood needs met by their own parents, were likely to turn to their own children to fulfill unmet needs: “In effect, this ‘account due’ or ‘debit’ perspective suggests that a parent who was deprived of nurturance in childhood will feel entitled to balance the ledger by extracting those provisions from the emotional stores of their own offspring” (Kerig, 2016, p. 583).

Minuchin’s Structural Family Theory One of the most influential clinicians from the family systems perspective is Salvador Minuchin (1967, 1974), who established the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic as a beacon of family systems 8

Parenting and Family Systems

clinical training. Building on the work of Bowen (1978) and Haley (1976) regarding the importance of healthy boundaries in the family, Minuchin elaborated on the roles of the subsystems that those boundaries should define. In particular, he posited, the parental subsystem, which defines the executive team in the family, should be clearly demarcated from the hierarchical and nonreciprocal role that each partner plays in parent-child subsystems as well as from the egalitarian sibling subsystem shared by the children. These boundaries, in Minuchin’s view, should be clear and yet not rigid: For proper family functioning, the boundaries of subsystems must be clear. Boundaries must be defined well enough to allow subsystem members to carry out their functions without undue interference, but they must allow contact between the members of the subsystem and others. (p. 54) Minuchin also described the different pathological family forms that might emerge when boundaries are not maintained, which he referred to as rigid triangles. One such triangle involves a coalition in which one parent forms an overly close relationship with a child that excludes the other parent. A second form, which he called triangulation, involves each parent attempting to form such a coalition, putting the child in the middle of their conflicts. Third, detouring involves parents distracting attention from their couple problems by reframing the problem as the child—whether supportive (e.g., that the child is ill or in need of special attention and care) or attacking (e.g., that the child is scapegoated, rejected, or blamed). Detouring in particular can serve an essential function to the family by creating an “identified patient” who allows the family to remain intact and preserve its homeostasis.

The Social Learning Perspective Subsequent to the 1980s, social learning theory gained a major foothold in academic psychology. A principal contributor to incorporating family systems thinking into this new zeitgeist was Patterson (1975, 1982), the founder of the Oregon Social Learning Center. One of Patterson’s important contributions was the recognition of—and development of observational strategies to study—­reciprocal processes in the family, and the ways that mothers, fathers, and children affect one another. Patterson introduced the seminal construct of the coercive family process in which parents and children inadvertently reinforce one another for aversive behavior. Children with conduct problems, the Patterson team observed, were twice as likely as other children to persist in negative behavior even when their parents attempted to set limits. Even though these parents tended to respond initially to children’s misbehavior in ways that were harsh and punitive, they ultimately were ineffective. Not only did these parents not follow through on their commands but also, as their children’s misbehavior escalated, the parents were likely to simply give in and abandon the effort to assert discipline. Thus, children learned a valuable lesson in the power of negative reinforcement: By ceasing their aversive behavior only when their parents ceased attempting to set limits, children had reinforced their parents for backing down. Correspondingly, parents had reinforced their children’s misbehavior by rewarding it with their own compliance. The Parent Management Training Oregon (PMTO) model, as it is now called, not only provides a stand-alone effective model of family intervention, but also has been enfolded into other evidence-based treatments targeting a wide range of childhood and adolescent problems, including aggression (Bank, Rains, and Forgatch, 2004; Patterson, Chamberlain, and Reid, 1982), substance use (Dishion, Patterson, and Kavanagh, 1992), conflict in foster (Eddy, Whaley, and Chamberlain, 2004) and stepfamilies (Forgatch, Patterson, DeGarmo, and Beldavs, 2009), and families in diverse cultures (Domenech Rodríguez, Baumann, and Schwartz, 2011; Ogden and Hagen, 2008; Tremblay, McCord, Boileau, and Charlebois, 1991). 9

Patricia K. Kerig

Subsequent Developments in Family Systems Theory In the most recent decades, the most significant developments in the family systems field have not been in the creation of new “grand theories” so much as in the strengthening of the evidence base supporting family treatments for various forms of psychopathology. In part, this trend reflects the fact that many major theoreticians and architects of the field worked in clinical settings and private institutes outside of academic psychology, in which their focus was the application of their methods to clients and the training of new clinicians rather than theory building or empirical research. Nonetheless, in this context, a number of specific schools of family systems thought have compiled especially strong evidence bases and have become widely disseminated interventions.

Multisystemic Therapy Multisystemic Therapy (MST; Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, and Cunningham, 2009) is one of the best empirically supported interventions for child and adolescent conduct problems, with an impressive and rigorous body of carefully controlled clinical trials. Grounded in family systems theory, this intensive home-based intervention targets the family system of relationships but does so in a way which is flexible, individualized, and also addresses the many different systems that are implicated in the development of antisocial behavior, including schools, neighborhoods, and peer relationships. Parent training is an important component of the model, with the goal to get parents back “in charge” and able to more effectively set limits and provide support for their child. Evidence has shown the effectiveness of MST in intervening with some of the most severe forms of youth problem behavior, including chronic violence and sexual offending, with follow-up measures evidencing improvements in family communication and reductions in parent-child and interparental conflict, with some studies showing treatment effects maintained over periods as long as 5 years.

Functional Family Therapy The Functional Family Therapy (FFT; Alexander and Parsons, 1982; Alexander, Robbins, Waldron, and Neeb, 2013) is unique for combining a family systemic perspective with interpersonal theory. FFT posits that the key to understanding and addressing youth behavior problems is to understand the relational functions that they are designed to serve, whether those concern a drive for greater autonomy versus greater connection. FFT also is concerned with relational functions related to hierarchy in the family but, unlike many other family systems, does not assume that the ideal hierarchy in every family is one in which parents are “in charge” (Kerig and Alexander, 2013). A diversity of family forms may be adaptive, including those in which relational functions of family members are met through asymmetrical relationships in which children are “one-up” on their parents and assume an executive position in the family. The tasks of the therapist are to diagnose and uncover the relational functions that problem behavior might be attempting to fulfill (e.g., a connection-seeking youth who acts out because that is the only way she or he can gain the attention of an autonomous father), to reframe these behaviors with family members in ways that detoxify their attributions about one another, and to help family members find more adaptive ways of seeking the means to their relational ends. FFT also has compiled an impressive empirical dossier, including clinical trials carried out in a wide variety of cultures and geographic regions (Robbins, Alexander, Turner, and Hollimon, 2016).

Multidimensional Family Therapy Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT; Liddle, 2002) is another well-established evidencebased family systems intervention, which has especially targeted adolescents with problems related 10

Parenting and Family Systems

to substance abuse. The multiple components of the intervention include working directly with the adolescent to redirect a drug-using antisocial lifestyle to a healthier developmental course by enhancing positive identity, improving prosocial peer relationships, and encouraging positive bonding with school and social institutions. Interventions with the parents focus on repairing lost motivation and emotional investment, improving parenting skills and communication with their adolescent, and attending to their own emotional needs. The therapist then joins with the parent(s) and adolescent together for family sessions to help them to experience more positive interactions with one another, and then, as needed, builds on additional components that incorporate interventions with other family members or important systems outside of the family. Randomized controlled trials have evidenced the effectiveness of the treatment among families of adolescent substance abusers for as long as a year following the end of treatment (Liddle, Rowe, Dakof, Henderson, and Greenbaum, 2009).

Empirical Investigations of the Association Between Family Systems and Parenting Whole-Family Constructs Cohesion One of the best studied whole-family constructs is that of family cohesion, the idea that family members experience a positive sense of emotional bond and unity. Along with flexibility and communication, cohesion is a key dimension of the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell, 1979). Implicit in the construct is that cohesion is uniform across the dyads and triads in the family and, therefore, that there is an absence of the kinds of unbalanced coalitions or triangles that are associated with pathological family structure in structural family theory (Minuchin, 1974). A large body of research has confirmed the positive benefits of living in a cohesive family system for both adults and children (Favez et al., 2012; Leary and Katz, 2004; Olson, 2011). As might be expected, family cohesion is low in families with high levels of interparental conflict; moreover, episodes of conflict between parents result in reduced family cohesion as well as unbalanced alliances (Kitzmann, 2000). By contrast, family cohesion can buffer children against the negative impact of interparental conflict (Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, and Cummings, 2002). Lindahl, Malik, Kaczynski, and Simons (2004) found that negative family processes, such as low family cohesion and cross-generational coalitions, were more strongly associated with internalizing problems among European American than Latin American children, perhaps because of the greater availability of extended family support systems in Latin culture.

Hierarchical Organization Another tenet of family systems theory is that well-functioning families are characterized by a hierarchical structure in which parents are in leadership and executive positions, rather than children running the show (Haley, 1976; Minuchin and Fishman, 1975). Lack of a clear hierarchy of family roles—confusion over who is the parent and who is the child (Kerig, 2005)—is characteristic of clinically distressed families (Howes, Cicchetti, Toth, and Rogosch, 2000; Shaw, Criss, Schonberg, and Beck, 2004). Again, however, cultural norms may come into play in that too rigid an authoritarian hierarchy is associated with behavior problems among European American youth, whereas an overly permissive absence of hierarchy is associated with externalizing problems among Latin American youth (Lindahl and Malik, 1999). 11

Patricia K. Kerig

Family Structural Types Minuchin’s (1974) typology of family triangular types was validated in a study that specified the distinct and discriminable forms that rigid triangles might take in the family system. One such investigation (Kerig, 1995) elicited self-reports from mothers, fathers, and children about their perceptions of the family structure using a revised version of Cooper, Holman, and Braithwaite’s (1983) Family Cohesion Index. Parents and children who described their families as consistent with Minuchin’s “triangulation” type rated their families as highest in interparental conflict and negative affect. Children in families typologized as “detouring” were highest in self-blame, anxiety, and depression, whereas children in “disengaged” families demonstrated the most externalizing problems. In a second study, Fivaz-Depeursinge, Lopes, Python, and Favez (2009) found evidence for three of Minuchin’s rigid triangular types in families with toddlers: Detouring, in which parents shifted their conflicts onto the child and children engaged in parentified behaviors; triangulation, in which parents each vied to form a coalition with the child and children either became go-betweens or withdrew during family interactions; or families in which one parent formed a stable coalition with the child. From a somewhat different conceptual framework, Davies et al. (2004) used observational and self-report measures to typologize families into one of four clusters: (1) cohesive (high in interparental affection and acceptance of children; low in interparental conflict, inconsistent discipline, and psychological control); (2) enmeshed (moderate levels of interparental affection and parental acceptance with very high levels of interparental conflict, inconsistent discipline, and psychological control); (3) disengaged (low levels of interparental affection and parental acceptance along with moderately high levels of the other variables); and (4) adequate (similar to cohesive families except for demonstrating high levels of psychological control). Family disengagement predicted children’s emotional insecurity, which, in turn, predicted increased internalizing symptoms over the course of a year. In contrast, family enmeshment was associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems in children, suggesting that diffuse boundaries in enmeshed families allow for greater spillover of interparental conflicts onto children, thus potentiating their negative effects.

Spillover of Couple Relationships Onto Parenting and Family Process Although a large body of research has documented the ways in which couple conflict spills over onto parent-child dyadic relationships, only a smaller set of studies has examined these processes in the context of whole-family interactions (Buehler and Gerard, 2002). In one observational study, Katz and Gottman (1996) found that hostility between parents was related to increased parental rejection of children during triadic family interactions, which was, in turn, predictive of increased aggression among boys. Similarly, Margolin, Gordis, and John (2001) found that hostility between parents was associated with increased hostility toward children during observed family interactions, which, in turn, was associated with child withdrawal, anxiety, and behavior problems.

Triangulation Apart from studies that have investigated Minuchin’s “types” of rigid triangles in families, other studies have conceptualized triangulation as a variable lying along a continuum. In particular, research deriving from Grych and Fincham’s (1990) cognitive contextual model operationalized triangulation as the child’s perception of being implicated or caught in the middle of parents’ quarrels (Grych, Harold, and Miles, 2003; Grych, Raynor, and Fosco, 2004; Kerig, 1998). Such appraisals are evidently not only perceptions of children; interparental conflict increases the likelihood that parents form cross-generational coalitions with children and involve them in discussions of couple issues (Christensen and Margolin, 1988; Lindahl, Clements, and Markman, 1997). In turn, children who become 12

Parenting and Family Systems

involved in such coalitions are at increased risk for the development of behavior problems (Davis, Hops, Alpert, and Sheeber, 1998). Lindahl and colleagues (2004) demonstrated the interrelations among interparental discord, whole-family processes, and child adjustment. These authors found in a multiethnic sample that a latent construct of family functioning (composed of observed cohesion, triangulation, and crossgenerational boundary violations) fully mediated the association between couple conflict and child behavior problems. This study points to the value of understanding the family as an organized system in which the parts are inextricably interrelated with one another. As the authors noted, “In the language of structural family systems theory, conflicts that erode the solidity of the marital subsystem can create fault lines in the family structure, affecting dyadic, triadic, and whole-family subsystem relationships as well as child functioning” (p. 625).

Coparenting and Family Process Whereas couple conflict refers to anger or disagreements that are focused on the intimate relationship between adult partners, coparenting conflict refers to parents’ disagreements related to the shared tasks of parenting (McHale, 1997; McHale and Sirotkin, 2019). The construct of coparenting follows from the structural family tenet that healthy family functioning requires that parents form a united front within the parental subsystem that is clearly demarcated from the child/sibling subsystem. Thus, coparenting is a whole-family process that concerns how parents coordinate with one another in relation to their child. Coparenting warmth and cooperation are associated with positive couple and parent-child relationships as well as child well-being (McHale, Kuersten, and Lauretti, 1996). In contrast, hostile-competitive coparenting is associated with couple dissatisfaction and increased interparental violence as well as internalizing and externalizing problems among children (Leary and Katz, 2004; McConnell and Kerig, 2002; McHale and Rasmussen, 1998). Similarly, hostile-detached coparenting, characterized by a combination of couple anger and withdrawal, has been associated with negative child outcomes (Katz and Low, 2004; Katz and Woodin, 2002). In addition, longitudinal research has shown that coparenting conflict and negativity contribute to the development of child behavior problems over and above measures of the quality of the couple relationship itself (McHale and Rasmussen, 1998). Coparenting also seems to have effects that radiate throughout the family system, affecting the quality of parenting in individual mother-child and father-child relationships. For example, supportive parenting by one coparent may decreases the likelihood of harsh parenting by the other coparent (Conger, Schofield, and Neppl, 2012).

Boundary Dissolution in the Family System Jacobvitz and colleagues (Hazen, Jacobvitz, and McFarland, 2005; Jacobvitz and Bush, 1996; Jacobvitz, Riggs, and Johnson, 1999; Jacobvitz and Sroufe, 1987) carried out a series of studies examining boundary dissolution in the context of the family system. For example, in a study that followed children from 2 to 7 years of age, Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, and Hitchens (2004) observed mothers, fathers, and children interacting together and found that blurred parent-child boundaries were associated with negative child outcomes, with enmeshed patterns particularly related to inattentiveness among boys and depression among girls. Boundary dissolution in the family also has been related to the spillover of couple tensions onto children. “When clear boundaries exist between the couple and the parent-child subsystem, spouses have their own separate adult relationship, and also are available to meet the needs of their children. Without clear boundaries, conflict from the couple relationship may intrude on the parent-child relationship and alter the nature of that relationship” (Margolin, Gordis, and Oliver, 2004, p. 754). For example, in observational studies, Margolin and colleagues (2004) found that among interparentally 13

Patricia K. Kerig

violent versus nonviolent families, hostility within the couple were likely to leak into parent-child relationships, taking the form of reduced empathy among fathers and increased negative affect among mothers. In another study of emerging adults exposed to interparental conflict, Kerig and Swanson (2010) found that maternal intrusiveness and parentification, as well as both maternal and paternal hostile spousification, acted as mediators of the association between interparental conflict and maladjustment, including the intergenerational transmission of aggression toward romantic partners.

Gender Dynamics in Family Systems Fathering and Spillover Although long neglected in psychological research, fathers make a unique contribution to the family system that deserves recognition (Lamb, 2010; Parke and Cookston, 2019). Some research on the spillover of couple conflict has suggested that fathering behavior is particularly vulnerable to the disruptive effects of an unhappy couple relationship. For example, couple conflict is associated more strongly with fathers’ behavior than that of mothers when whole-family interactions are observed (Katz and Gottman, 1996; Lindahl and Malik, 1999). Specifically, fathers in distressed couples evidence higher levels of observed withdrawal, rejection, and lack of support. One explanation proposed for these gender differences in parental behavior is that mothers are prototypically considered the parenting “experts” in the family, and, therefore, fathers look to their partners to be the “architects” of family process and to model how to interact with their children; consequently, if the interparental relationship is conflictual or distant, so will the father-child relation be (Cowan, Cowan, and Kerig, 1993; McHale et al., 2004).

Variations in Family Systemic Processes by Child Gender It has been pointed that “parents” and “children” each come in different genders and are more accurately identified as mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters (Cowan et al., 1993); therefore, it might be expected that family processes would be enacted differently depending on the genders of the parties involved. However, the empirical research on gender differences and family systems is largely inconsistent and resists firm conclusions (Davies and Lindsay, 2004). For example, some studies have shown that interparental conflict differentially affects the mother-son relationship (Osborne and Fincham, 1996), whereas other studies find the father-daughter relationship to be more vulnerable (Kerig, Cowan, and Cowan, 1993), and yet others find neither to be the case (Erel and Burman, 1995). In still other research, gender effects emerge across all other-gender dyads in the family (Cox, Paley, and Harter, 2001). In one such study involving a sample of emerging adults, Kerig and Swanson (2010) found that interparental discord was associated with parents’ denigration of their partner’s gender role characteristics, which was, in turn, associated with denigration of those characteristics in their child; moreover, children whose parents viewed their gender-role characteristics in a negative light demonstrated higher levels of emotional distress. A more developmentally sensitive way in which gender may affect family process relates to societal expectations that girls orient toward relationships in general and caregiving in the family in particular. As Davies and Lindsay (2004) also pointed out, girls’ relational tendencies are intensified during the teenage years when consolidation of their gender role emerges as an important stagesalient task for adolescents. This interpersonal orientation may offer a potential source of strength and resilience for girls in general. However, when levels of family stress such as interparental conflict are high, an interpersonal orientation may confer a heightened risk for involvement in intergenerational boundary violations, such as compelling girls to become mediators between warring parents, confidantes, or simply “worriers” who feel responsible for but unable to assist their emotionally 14

Parenting and Family Systems

distressed parents (Kerig, Fedorowicz, Brown, Patenaude, and Warren, 1998). These risks also may be heightened in the case of mothers and daughters. For example, research on maternal depression points to a particular sensitivity that girls display to their mothers’ affect, which may intensify in the teenage years (Sheeber, Davis, and Hops, 2002). Not only may adolescent daughters increasing cognitive and interpersonal capacities lead them to feel obligated or even equipped to take on the burden of caring for mothers who are depressed or maritally distressed, but unhappy mothers also may tend to perceive their nearly adult daughters as potential sources of companionship, solace, and emotional ­support. . . . As has been pointed out, although daughters and mothers may both report finding such “special” bonds to be gratifying, and they even may be associated with high levels of apparent competence, there may be hidden costs related to the burden of providing friendship or parenting to a parent . . . and being a “pleasing” child at the expense of one’s own childhood. (Kerig, 2016, p. 620) What about boys? Some research findings suggest a higher level of competition among distressed couples who are parenting a son. For example, McHale (1995) found that conflictual parents of sons were differentially likely to engage in hostile-competitive coparenting, each vying for an alliance with the child. In contrast, fathers of daughters were more likely to simply withdraw from the interaction when couple conflict was high. In contrast, Jouriles and Norwood (1995) found evidence that conflictual parents were more likely to involve sons than daughters in interactions that were characterized by scapegoating or detouring patterns. Moreover, this transfer of couple hostility onto sons was posited as an explanation for their finding that boys were more likely than girls to act out behaviorally in reaction to interparental conflict.

Other Studies of Parenting in the Context of the Family System As Bornstein (2016) suggested, “In family systems theory, what transpires in parenting is governed not only by the characteristics of the individual child but also by patterns of transaction between the parents and others” (p. 215). In this regard, it is notable that research shows that mothers and fathers behave differently toward children when interactions take place in the whole-family context than when parents are alone with the child (e.g., Cox and Paley, 2003). Moreover, some parental influences may be mediated through one parent’s influence on the other parent (Walker and McGraw, 2000). An example of this kind of family is “gatekeeping,” in which one parent shapes, regulates, and interprets the other parent’s behavior with the child (Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, and SchoppeSullivan, 2008; Fagan and Cherson, 2017). Akin to cross-generational alliances in the context of conflictual coparenting relationships, one parent may discourage, bar, or block the other parent’s involvement or emotional closeness with the child (Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins, 2010); in contrast, in a positive family climate, one parent may encourage and foster the other parents’ relationship with the child (Schoppe-Sullivan, Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, and Sokolowski, 2008). Although gatekeeping most often has been studied as a process by which mothers act as architects of the family and either enhance or constrain parenting by fathers, a recent study examining diverse family types found that gatekeeping behaviors also were prevalent among men in same-sex relationships; beyond gender and sexual orientation, low levels of work-related autonomy, ambivalence about the relationship, and perceptions of superior parenting skills relative to the partner increased the likelihood that a parent would regulate and limit the involvement of the other parent in childcare (Sweeney, Goldberg, and Garcia, 2017). 15

Patricia K. Kerig

Theoretical and Empirical Challenges to Family Systems Theory “Where’s Poppa?” One of the features of family systems research that sets it apart from much of the work on parentchild relationships is the importance it places on including all members of the family system into its frame. One such member who has been much-neglected in the majority of psychological research is the father, as Phares (1992) pointed out in her works entitled, “Where’s Poppa?” and “Still Looking for Poppa” (Phares, Fields, Kamboukos, and Lopez, 2005). Despite the challenges of recruiting fathers into psychological research, this is a necessary and important effort to understanding the reciprocal, complementary, and mutual influences of couple, father-child, mother-child, and father-motherchild relationships on the dynamics of the family (Lamb, 2013). An example of the important role that fathers play in the family system comes from Vakrat, Apter-Levy, and Feldman’s (2017) research on the role of family processes in maternal depression. Following a cohort of depressed mothers and community controls from the time of the birth of their child to that child’s sixth year of life, the investigators’ observations showed that maternal depression was associated with a number of negative parenting qualities displayed by both parents, including insensitivity and intrusiveness, and children evidenced low levels of social engagement with their parents. However, the quality of the father-child relationship moderated the influence of the mother’s depression on the family process. Although in families in which fathers were low in sensitivity and high in intrusiveness the family system was rated as low in cohesion, there was no association between maternal depression and family process when fathers were high in sensitivity, low in intrusiveness, and encouraging of child engagement. These findings point to an important protective role that father-child relationships can play in the family system and suggest that fathers are an overlooked but critical family component to be included by researchers and by clinicians intervening with families at high risk for psychopathology such as those characterized by maternal depression.

Cultural and Ethnic Diversity Another challenge to family systems theories has been to demonstrate that its models of family adaptation and psychopathology, many of which were developed in the context of clinicians working with White, middle class, U.S. dominant culture families, are relevant across a range of cultural and ethnic groups (McGoldrick, Giordano, and Garcia-Preto, 2005). Cultural and ethnic differences are important to consider in that family-level processes may affect children differently depending on the larger social context in which they are enacted. For example, overarching cultural values of familism may confer different meanings on family processes that have been defined in individualistic Western culture as suggestive of enmeshment or boundary dissolution (Lindahl and Malik, 1999). Similarly, the expectations for and valuing of children’s ongoing familial obligations to their parents and siblings in some cultures may make presumably problematic family processes such as parentification, in fact, normative and benign ( Jurkovic et al., 2005). Kağıtçıbaşı (2007) proposed that any attempt to understand the family system must situate itself within the context of the larger culture in which families operate. Culture provides a sense of purpose that guides the family, informs parents’ socialization goals, and provides continuity in family practices and rituals. In particular, the larger social context informs family members about what is expected of them, and parents then interpret, operationalize, and convey norms, customs, and values to their children (Bornstein and Cheah, 2006). For example, Kağıtçıbaşı differentiates between cultural expectations that promote autonomy versus closeness and those that promote interpersonal distance versus and relatedness. In turn, these two dimensions of culture promote distinct family

16

Parenting and Family Systems

interaction patterns that influence parents’ socialization goals. The family pattern of independence, characterized as high in autonomy and low in relatedness, and is typical among families in urbanized Western societies. The accompanying socialization goals of parents are to help their children to develop attributes of autonomy and self-reliance. To achieve those goals, parents in independent families interact with children in an egalitarian fashion, whereas the family structure is defined by clear interpersonal boundaries that foster the development of a separate sense of self. In contrast, the family pattern of interdependence is one that is high in relatedness and low in autonomy. Such families are typically hierarchical with parents adopting an authoritarian parenting style and discouraging the autonomy of children, who are expected to remain both emotionally and materially supportive of their parents throughout their lives. Kağıtçıbaşı further proposed an additional, and typically overlooked, family form, characterized by psychological interdependence, combining high levels of relatedness with high promotion of autonomy. Often seen in modernizing societies, parents in psychologically interdependent families strive to achieve culturally appropriate goals of preparing children to function independently in material context to but to remain emotionally connected with the family. Consequently, psychologically interdependent parents engage in authoritative parenting, combining structure with warmth, to foster both a sense of relationality and independence in their children (Bond et al., 2004; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005; Kağıtçıbaşı and Ataca, 2005).

Social and Historical Changes Affecting the Family System Yet another challenge to family systems theory is to ensure the relevance of models derived during the 1950s to how families operate and are construed today. For example, a marked change in family systems over the last decades in the United States has been the rising rates of divorce and resulting single-parent families. According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), only 67% of children in the United States currently live with both biological parents; thus, the mother-fatherchild nuclear family is far from universal. Single-parenting may introduce new vulnerabilities as well as sources of resilience for family systems (Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, and Stephens, 2001). Moreover, families in which only one biological parent is present may take divergent forms, including three generation families, nonmarried cohabitating partners, and shared living arrangements among multiple families. At the same time, there are changing norms among some subcultures regarding the role of fathers, with an increasing expectation that men will be actively involved in the lives of their children whether they remain in an intimate relationship with the child’s mother (Lamb, 2013). Another change that is fairly recent in mainstream U.S. culture is the definition of the phase of childhood deemed adolescence, which now extends into the mid-20s, an age that in other eras would have been considered to be part of adulthood (Easterbrooks, Katz, and Menon, 2019). A lack of clarity about when the adolescent period ends and adulthood begins also is reflected in recent writings about developmental psychopathology and the stage-salient tasks involved in the transitions between childhood and adolescence, and between adolescence and adulthood. As Kerig and Schulz (2012) observed, developmental tasks, such as achieving individuation and psychological independence from parents, are listed variously by stage theorists as emerging during the early, mid-, or late adolescent period, just as leaving the family home and assuming responsibility for independent decision-making are variously associated with late adolescence and emerging adulthood (Arnett and Tanner, 2006; Micucci, 2009). In fact, the changing economic prospects for middle-class youth in the United States mean that fleeing the family nest and living independently are developmental goals that remain only aspirational well into their 20s. We know little about how these changing norms affect family systems and the extent to which there is consensus or conflict across the generations when grown children continue to cohabit with their parents, and thus in some ways do, and in other ways do not, achieve the social accouterments associated with the developmental status of adulthood.

17

Patricia K. Kerig

Diversity in Family Structures and Composition A frequent criticism of classic family systems theories is that they are based on a stereotypical “nuclear” notion of what constitutes a family whereas, across cultures, families always have taken a diversity of forms (Ganong, Coleman, and Sanner, 2019). Therefore, to be universally relevant, family systems theory must rise to the challenge of recognizing and understanding the wide range of diverse family forms, including those constituted by single parents (Murry et al., 2001), same-gender parents (Farr and Patterson, 2013), multigenerational households ( Jones and Lindahl, 2011), nevermarried “fragile” families (Carlson and Högnäs, 2011), blended/stepfamilies (Burton and Hardaway, 2012), and sibling-headed households (Richter and Desmond, 2008). Each of these represents a legitimate family form, and in virtually all of these kinds of families, the same sorts of processes arise as do in two-parent families, requiring the coordination of relationships across multiple boundaries (e.g., parent-child, child-sibling, sibling-parent) as well as synchronization among those involved in coparenting the child (Kerig, 2016). Moreover, as Cicchetti and Howes (1991, p. 274) pointed out, “it may be important to take into account family members who are absent as well as those who are present.” For example, bereaved families, or those in which a biological parent maintains no relationship with the child, still engage in family-level process in which that absent parent is implicated, such as “in how the resident parent permits or disallows [the absent parent’s] emotional presence in the life of the child and in the defining parameters of who is ‘family’ ” (Kerig, 2016, p. 604).

Extended Family and Fictive Kin Another neglected category of family member includes those who play a familial role not because of genetics but because of choice. They include extended family members (e.g., cousins, aunts, uncles) who are often viewed as members of the proximal family unit in certain cultural and ethnic groups, such as African American families groups ( Jones and Lindahl, 2011). Unmarried romantic partners also often play a role in parenting one another’s children, particularly in low-income families (Burton and Hardaway, 2012). In addition, close friends (who may be referred to as “aunts” and “uncles”) are identified as contributing to the parenting of their children by the majority of African American single mothers ( Jones, Shaffer, Forehand, Brody, and Armistead, 2003). In other groups, such as Latino families, there are culturally defined family roles for other adults that involve important parenting functions, such as godparents (Luna et al., 1996). Thus, [t]he meaning of the term “family” in and of itself also is a subjective and diversely defined one, in that among some subcultures and individuals, the term refers not to blood relations only—or even at all—but rather to those who are perceived to be one’s core source of support, emotional intimacy, protection, and identity. (Kerig, 2016, p. 604) Although the term “fictive kin” is applied to these nonbiologically related individuals in the research on family systems, seeming to suggest that their role is peripheral, their importance may be significant even if unexamined. Because the role of fictive kin is largely unexamined, it raises many interesting questions for future research. For example, it is possible that the role of fictive kin in a child’s life may change with age, as adolescents become increasingly able to select their own interpersonal environments and harness their own support systems (Becker-Blease and Kerig, 2016; Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, and Plomin, 2000; Scarr, 1992). By the same token, seeking support outside the family system may provide youth with a source of either protection or risk. Although access to a prosocial support system, whether composed of biological or fictive kin, can be a source of resilience, research shows that troubled youth tend to gravitate toward peers and adults who 18

Parenting and Family Systems

reinforce maladaptive patterns of thinking and behaving (van der Zwaluw et al., 2009). For example, gang-involved youth often identify the gang as a “family” and fellow gang members as “brothers” and “sisters” (Kerig, Wainryb, Twali, and Chaplo, 2013).

Three-Generational Families Particularly among economically disadvantaged families, a not-uncommon family form is that of parents, or a single parent, living in their own parents’ home, resulting in a three-generational family (Goodman and Silverstein, 2006). Even when grandparents and parents do not live in the same home, for many single mothers, especially in the African American community, children’s grandparents are their chief coparenting partners ( Jones et al., 2011). The three-generational family is one that raises to a new level the question of “who is the parent and who is the child” (Kerig, 2005) in that mothers and fathers are simultaneously in the roles of parents and children in the same household. The challenges of navigating these multiple roles are not well understood. As Pittman, Wakschlag, ChaseLansdale, and Brooks-Gunn (2012) stated in their work on single-parent African American mothers in three-generational households: Grandmothers who support the young mothers’ independence while remaining emotionally available facilitate their daughters’ assumption of adult roles, [however] the specific dimensions of a supportive relationship between mothers and grandmothers that are linked to positive parenting have not been well-delineated. (p. 183) In one of the few studies to examine this family form in depth, these authors found a clear pattern of intergenerational continuity in that grandmothers’ support for mothers’ individuation predicted the mother’s own authoritative parenting and a balance between emotional responsiveness and appropriate parental control. Moreover, in a demonstration of reciprocal effects, the children of mothers whose grandmothers supported individuation demonstrated both independent problem-solving skills and responsivity to maternal direction.

Grandparent-Headed Households In addition to three-generational families just described in which parents, children, and grandparents live together, family systems theory also needs to accommodate family forms in which the parents themselves are absent and the household is headed by a grandparent (Smith and Wild, 2019). Although little empirical research is available on this family form, there are a number of ways in which grandparents, even when playing a parental role, might not be interchangeable with parents. Because their role as executives in the family is not fully socially sanctioned, grandparents may not feel fully enfranchised to make decisions and interface authoritatively with schools and social welfare agencies. In particular, sometimes the placement of grandchildren in their grandparents’ custody is an informal and not legally codified one, lending an additional level of insecurity for both grandparent and grandchildren (Boyd-Frankin, 2003). A developmental perspective on family systems also suggests that grandparents are in a time of life when they may be winding down their investment in childrearing tasks to meet their own existential tasks as their near the end of life (McGoldrick and Carter, 2003). Thus, the parenting of young grandchildren can be a source of strain, especially for elderly grandparents or those who are facing health challenges. Nevertheless, as Jones and Lindahl (2011) pointed out, grandparent-headed households have long existed, particularly among minority communities, and have been found over the course of many generations to rise to the challenge and provide adaptive context for children’s development. 19

Patricia K. Kerig

Adolescent Fathers Studies of nontraditional family forms to date have generally focused on teenage mothers to the exclusion of teenage fathers (Easterbrooks et al., 2019). Young fathers rarely coreside with their child’s mother, and these couple relationships are highly fragile and subject to dissolution, after which many teen fathers disengage from parenting (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Easterbrooks et al., 2019). However, as Florsheim and Moore (2012, p. 201) noted, Not all young fathers fail as relationship partners nor as parents; some are in fact able to manage the frustration, anxiety, and demands that accompany the monumental responsibility of parenthood and maintain (or establish for the first time) positive relations with both their partners and children. In this light, a small but informative body of work has investigated the factors that allow adolescent fathers to successfully establish a coparenting relationship with their child’s mother (Carlson and McLanahan, 2006; Florsheim et al., 2003) and to engage positively with their children and play an ongoing parenting role in their lives (Fagan, Palkovitz, Roy, and Farrie, 2009). In addition, research from a family systems perspective has begun investigating reciprocal relations between these coparenting and father-child dynamics in teen-parent families (Florsheim et al., 2003; McHale and Sirotkin, 2019; Moore and Florsheim, 2008). As might be expected, positive relationships with the child’s mother are one of the best predictors of adolescent fathers’ continued involvement with their biological children (Gavin et al., 2002). However, given the frequency with which unwed teenage mothers reside with their own parents, the influence of grandparents on these processes needs to be understood. For example, Krishnakumar and Black (2003) found that teen mothers enjoyed better relationships with their baby’s father if their own mothers were more affiliative with both teenagers.

The Neglect of Development in Family Systems Theory Given that the term “family” connotes parents together with their children, family system theory might be expected to be inherently concerned with child development. However, surprisingly, family systems theory has not consistently attended to developmental factors. In fact, many early systemic theory builders based their observations on families of adult children, or lumped into the category of “child” infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school-agers, adolescents, and emerging adults without giving due consideration to how family processes might relate differently to parents with children at different developmental stages. Nonetheless, considerations of developmental differences are essential to our understanding of how family processes might contribute to psychopathology or resilience, in that what comprises an adaptive family process at one stage of development may be maladaptive at another (Barnett, Manly, and Cicchetti, 1993; Cicchetti and Toth, 2005). For example, the kind of close parental emotional attunement that is critical for the fostering of a secure attachment in infancy could take on tones more suggestive of enmeshment if demonstrated by a parent of an adolescent. By a similar token, the high level of autonomy granting that promotes positive adolescent development might smack more of adultification if allotted to a preschooler. There are at least seven ways in which parenting within a family systems framework might be affected by developmental processes (Kerig, 2005, 2016). First, the stage-salient issues that rise to the fore at each epoch of a child’s life require the family system to respond in ways that support those developmental tasks. Some family system dynamics might present challenges to parents’ ability to support those stage-salient developmental needs; for example, an enmeshed family might have 20

Parenting and Family Systems

difficulty supporting the differentiation of self that is the key stage-salient task of the toddler years, just as families in which children are triangulated in their parents’ conflicts might interfere with the achievement of autonomy in the adolescent period. Second, and related, as children’s developmental needs change over the course of childhood and adolescence, parents must adapt and change their parenting practices to accommodate these changing developmental needs, a process that may be complicated or constrained by whole-family processes. For example, enmeshed families provide a level of warmth and closeness that is highly conducive to young children’s security, whereas that same quality can become a source of strain in emerging adulthood if now-grown children seek to extricate themselves from the family nexus. Third, over time, children’s advancing cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal capacities allow them to become increasingly active agents in the family process, participating in transactions in which they reciprocally influence their parents, their parents’ relationship with one another, their siblings, and associations among these subsystems in the family (Becker-Blease and Kerig, 2016; Cummings and Schermerhorn, 2003). Age also opens up opportunity for children to select their own interpersonal niches, which may include extricating themselves from the family to transfer their attention and attachments to agemates or extrafamilial adults. Although this agency can serve as a source of risk when troubled youth gravitate toward others who are troubled, it also proffers a potential source of protection when youth can find prosocial sources of support in their expanding interpersonal environments. In particular, and most related to family systems theory, over the course of development, children demonstrate increases in what Fivaz-Depeursinge and Corboz-Warner (1999) term “triangular capacity”: The child’s ability to coordinate and participate in the three-way interaction between mother, father, and child. Although this is a capacity that to date has been studied only in young children (McHale, Fivaz-Depeursinge, Dickstein, Robertson, and Daley, 2008), we would expect that, over development, this is a capacity too that becomes more sophisticated and allows children to enter into—or extricate themselves from—family conflicts or problematic interactions in increasingly complex ways. Fourth, observations of family systems processes need to be guided by an understanding of how expressions of those processes are transformed over the course of development (Sroufe, 1990). Triangulation of an infant in interparental conflict, for example, may take a very different form from triangulation of an emerging adult, just as the behavioral patterns representing spousification of children have been found to differ across early childhood to adulthood (Shaffer and Sroufe, 2005). Fifth, by the same token, the ways in which parents meet a given socialization goal may involve different family systems processes over the course of a child’s development. For example, highly interdependent families may engage in intrusive parenting behaviors to limit differentiation of young children but utilize more cognitively sophisticated forms of autonomy limiting, such as psychologically controlling and guilt-inducing strategies, with adolescents. Related to this, some family systems processes may, in fact, be developmental antecedents of others; for example, enmeshment in the early years might be a key developmental precursor to role reversal, increasing children’s vulnerability to feeling exquisitely sensitive to and responsible for taking care of the emotional needs of their parents. Sixth, parents and families themselves go through stages of development in which different familylevel stage-salient issues successively come to the fore. As McGoldrick and Carter (2003) suggested, the first stage of the family life cycle involves the formation of a couple, whose tasks are to establish a new partnership and redefine themselves in relation to their respective families of origin. The second stage is ushered in by the birth of a child, dramatically reorganizing the family system and requiring major renegotiations of the roles within the couple subsystem. The developmental tasks of the family cross paths with the developmental tasks of adolescence when children begin moving out into the world and families must shift their emphasis from providing protection and safety to accommodating autonomy and exploration. In the next stage of the family life cycle, families again must realign to 21

Patricia K. Kerig

embrace new members, as emerging adult children develop relationships with their own intimate partners and those partners’ families of origin. In the final stage mid-adulthood, parents are typically able to celebrate their adult children’s independent status while at the same time they are confronted with new responsibilities for caring for their own aging parents.

Future Directions and Growth Points for Research on Family Systems and Parenting Family Resilience As P. Minuchin, Colapinto, and S. Minuchin (2007) noted, the focus of most of the research and clinical attention to families has been on the “dark side” and the ways in which family systems act as sources of risk for psychopathology; however, there is indeed a bright side involving the ways that families can serve protective functions and foster resilience. Even among the most distressed families, they argued, characteristics such as loyalty, connection, affection, and shared identification serve as potential sources of strength. Although family factors research has identified a number of characteristics that bolster resilience, such as economic advantage, social support, and cultural engagement (Masten and Powell, 2003; see Kerig, Ludlow, and Wenar, 2012), few of these reflect a family systemic perspective. However, Walsh (2006) articulated a model of resilience from a family systems perspective that is promising, if not yet empirically validated. Walsh proposed that familial adaptation in the face of stress involves three key domains of resilience: Organizational patterns, which refer to the family’s clarity of structure, capacity for flexibility, and ability to mobilize resources; communication and problem-solving, including clear communication, open emotional expression, and collaboration; and belief systems that allow for meaning-making, hopefulness, and harnessing spirituality. An intriguing empirical investigation of the importance of meaning-making is illustrated by Fivush, Bohanek, and Duke’s (2005) “naturally occurring experiment” in which they recorded participant families’ conversations around the dinner table before and after the events of September 11, 2001. The youth who were most resilient to the negative repercussions of the terrorist attacks were growing up in families whose narratives depicted a shared history of facing adversities and overcoming them. The researchers characterized the legacy of this type of family narrative as promoting an “intergenerational self ”—the perception that one is “part of something bigger” in the grand scheme of things (Fivush, Bohanek, and Zaman, 2011). Yet another promising future direction might be to incorporate Rutter’s (1990) ideas regarding protective processes into family systems research. Rutter proposed that these processes provide important insights by uncovering the underlying mechanisms by which protective factors exert their positive effects, and these concepts can be applied readily to resilience in the family system (Kerig, 2016). For example, Rutter’s protective process of reduction of risk impact may be observed in families that provide children with a sense of safety, warmth, and security that buffers children from the effects of external stressors; for example, a family with a shared positive ethnic identity may protect children from the harmful effects of racial discrimination. Rutter’s concept of interruption of negative chain reactions may be observed when positive transactions between family members shift interactions from conflict to cooperation, such as when one family member intervenes to diffuse tensions between the others. Rutter’s third protective mechanism, self-efficacy and coping, may be observed when family members make meaning of adverse events in ways that leave them with a shared sense of hopefulness and affirmation of the family’s strengths (Walsh, 2006). Last, Rutter’s concept of opening of opportunities may be observed when family members are receptive to, supportive of, and even grow as a function of validating one another’s attempts differentiation, risk-taking, and extrafamilial explorations, such when a family is actively supportive of and engaged with a sexual minority status member (Kerig, 2016, p. 599). 22

Parenting and Family Systems

Reciprocal and Transactional Processes An important feature of the transactional perspective underlying the family systems model is the idea that children are not passive recipients of parental behaviors but rather that both parents and children are active agents in the family process (Cummings and Schermerhorn, 2003; Kerig, 2001a). For example, a distinction can be made between family processes that are child driven versus parent driven (Kerig, 2001b). For example, in some families, parents may drive the process of triangulation by putting their children directly in the middle of their conflicts, such as by asking the child to side with them against the other parent. Alternatively, some children may volunteer for that role unbidden by parents; whether overtly, such as walking into the room during an argument and attempting to referee, or covertly, such as causing a disturbance that distracts their parents’ attention from the argument. Similarly, parentification may be a process that arises when adults turn to their children for nurturance and care or could occur as a function of children attempting to care for their parents (Kerig, 2005). The transactional nature of these dynamics is such that they may reinforce each other (Kerig, 2016); for example, children who have been socialized to be responsive to their parents’ emotional needs may begin anticipating those needs and offering such care without prompting. Children also influence in the family system in other ways, such as through the characteristics they bring to family dynamics. Some child characteristics may confer sources of risk; for example, parents have been found to be differentially vulnerable to coparenting conflicts when they have a temperamentally difficult child (McHale et al., 2004). Other child characteristics may be protective; for example, children with high physiological self-regulation capacities may be relatively protected from family stress. Leary and Katz (2004) found that hostile-withdrawn coparenting was predictive of poor peer relationships only for children with low vagal tone and poor abilities to regulate their emotional state. Further, the concept of resilience suggests that children who have characteristics that represent valued family attributes (e.g., academic prowess, social skill, athleticism) might bring sources of esteem back to the family from extrafamilial contexts (e.g., positive reports from teachers, sporting or academic accolades, social contacts with prosocial peers and their parents), which buffer not only the child but the family itself from discord, thereby conferring upon all family members a more harmonious home life. (Kerig, 2016, p. 610)

Dynamic Systems Approaches The study of transactional, reciprocal, and complex dynamics in family systems has taken a major step forward with the development of the theory and methods involved in dynamic systems (DS) theory. As defined by Granic and Hollenstein (2003), DS is a metatheoretical framework for understanding how systems emerge, stabilize, form, and change as a function of their own internal feedback processes. A key to understanding these complex interrelations is the mathematical modeling of nonlinear parameters that allow for the analysis of complex patterns of behavior as these emerge and are shaped by each partner, and the interactions between them, over time (Granic, Hollenstein, and LichtwarckAschoff, 2016; van Geert, 1998). Consistent with the family systems constructs of holism, homeostasis, and organization, DS posits that patterns of behavior act as attractors that draw the system in the direction of continuity, limiting the degrees of freedom available for variation and requiring more significant effort to wrest new patterns from the orbit of old ones. Thus, participants in family systems influence each other in transactional fashion: the daily interactive experiences of mother and child lead, over time, to the emergence of relatively few but enduring behavioral 23

Patricia K. Kerig

patterns, or order parameters, that are characteristic of their relationship. In turn, these patterns modulate their ongoing interactions, channeling them to approximate what they have been in the past, thereby maintaining the relationship across time. (Dumas, Lemay, and Dauwalder, 2001, p. 318) Another way in which systems form and consolidate themselves is through the coupling of interactional partners’ emotions, appraisals, and behavior. In this way, patterns of interaction are not only behavioral but also inextricably woven into the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of each participant in the relationship. The resulting tendency again is toward continuity and even rigidity when family members fall into a repetitive and narrowly defined set of behavioral repertoires (Granic and Patterson, 2006). Moreover, these patterns tend toward increasing escalation over time: For example, past experience with negative transactions leads family members to become sensitized to even subtle signs that the cycle is beginning (e.g., a huff of exasperation, a roll of the eyes) and to respond to these mild provocations with a level of intensity that matches the increasingly hostile exchange they anticipate coming. (Kerig, 2016, p. 611) One example of the insights that can be drawn from DS analyses of family interactions comes from Dumas and colleagues’ (2001) work on mother-child dyadic interactions in clinically distressed versus normative families. After conducting careful minute-by-minute coding of maternal controlling, positive, and aversive behaviors, as well as child compliance, noncompliance, positive, and aversive behaviors, the investigators studied the phase transitions that took place during these interactions. Their analyses showed that, despite the interaction being initiated in a positive way, mothers and children in the clinical group repeatedly ended up in coercive cycles in which mothers commanded and children refused to comply. Thus, negative processes appeared to have dominated the organization of the family system in ways that mothers and children could not extricate themselves even with the best intentions. In contrast to the nonclinical families, in which children tended to respond positively to their mothers’ requests and instructions, among the clinically referred families, mothers and children engaged in repeated cycles in which mothers’ directions were followed by child ­noncompliance—as the investigators termed it, these mothers seemed to “spin their wheels” (p. 328) in fruitless attempts to get their children to comply. Another example of a DS analysis of mother-child interactions, this one focused on the adolescent period, comes from Crowell and colleagues’ (2017) observations of self-harming girls engaged in discussing an area of disagreement with their mothers. The researchers coded the interactions moment to moment for indicators of emotionally positive versus aversive (e.g., hostile, angry, violent) behaviors. In addition, during this interaction, mother and daughters were both connected to psychophysiological monitoring equipment that assessed during each of these moments any changes in their electrodermal activity, an index of sympathetic nervous system activation indicating inhibition and anxiety, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia, an index of parasympathetic nervous activity indicating self-regulation. Analyses of these data examined patterns in cross-lagged relationships between mothers’ and daughters’ behavior and psychophysiology to investigate who was “driving” the interaction. Among the self-harming girls, mothers’ aversiveness negatively affected the behavior and psychophysiological reactivity of their daughters, but daughters had no such influence on their mothers. In contrast, among the healthy controls, neither mother nor daughter appeared to “drive” the behavior of the other. These results were interpreted as consistent with multidimensional theories of the origins of self-harming and dysregulated behavior among adolescents, which implicate not only aversive and invalidating family environments, but also a biological vulnerability in which affected girls have a heightened sensitivity to these pathological contexts (Crowell, Beauchaine, and Linehan, 2009). 24

Parenting and Family Systems

To date, most of the work utilizing DS in family systems research has focused on exchanges in parent-child dyads. However, an important contribution to our conceptualization of dynamical systems from a whole-family perspective is offered by Schermerhorn and Cummings (2008). Their proposed model of transactional family dynamics is designed to capture complex processes involving mutual influences and transactions among larger systems of family relationship. In a 3-year longitudinal investigation starting when children were in kindergarten, Schermerhorn, Cummings, and Davies (2008) used this model to demonstrate transactional associations among children’s representations of interparental, mother-child, and father-child relationships. Over time, children’s representations of interparental hostility predicted exacerbations in their reactivity to those conflicts which, in turn, were associated with increasingly insecure representations of their relationships with mothers and fathers. Moreover, evidence of bidirectional processes among interparental conflict, child behavior, and child adjustment were found in a subsequent investigation from this laboratory: Over a 3-year period, interparental conflict led to increasing child negative emotional reactivity, which, in turn, led to increased behavioral reactivity (Schermerhorn, Cummings, DeCarlo, and Davies, 2007). Moreover, children had an effect on the family system of relationships in that when children’s behavioral reactions took the form of attempting to intervene in interparental conflicts, such as by trying to distract, comfort, or help parents achieve a resolution, their parents’ conflict tended to decrease. In contrast, when children’s reactions took the form of dysregulated and acting-out behavior, their parents’ conflicts tended to increase, as did child maladjustment.

Incorporation of Biological Processes Into Family System Theory Another future direction for family systems theory will be to incorporate all of the dimensions of the biopsychosocial perspective that is becoming increasingly mainstream in psychology. In the biopsychosocial perspective, childhood adaptation and maladaptation are viewed as arising from complex interactions among biological, cognitive, interpersonal, and emotional developmental processes, as these take place within the context of the family system, and the larger societal context that guides, shapes, and constrains family relationships: “The biopsychosocial model assumes that illness in one family member affects the psychological health and relationships of other members, and, in turn, that the reactions of these members affect the functioning of the person with the illness” (Miklowitz, 2004, p. 669). Among the biological approaches that are beginning to be integrated into research on family systems are behavioral genetic, molecular genetic, and epigenetic perspectives (Beach and Whisman, 2013). For example, gene-environment correlations have been found to play a role in the development of externalizing disorders (Harold et al., 2013), whereas evocative gene-environment associations have been found to account for the associations between family process such as interparental conflict and poor parenting, and consequent child behavior problems (Brody et al., 2013; Ulbricht et al., 2013). An important idea in this area of research is that of differential sensitivity to context, which suggests that biological characteristics may render some children more vulnerable to negative environmental influences than others (Hartman and Belsky, 2016). For example, individual differences in the oxytocin receptor and serotonin transporter genes have been found to increase family members’ reactivity to interparental conflict (Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, Davies, and Suor, 2012). Another promising development for family systems theory is the integration of biological processes into observational studies of transactional processes in the family. For example, Mills-Koonce and colleagues (2007) found that biological characteristics of children, specifically, child polymorphism in the dopamine receptor gene, could have an evocative effect on parents’ behavior. First, children with this polymorphism elicited lower levels of sensitivity from their parents. Further, over time, presence of this characteristic also moderated the association between maternal sensitivity and 25

Patricia K. Kerig

the development of childhood depression, such that children with the polymorphism evidenced heightened vulnerability to the effects of an insensitive caregiving environment.

Translational Research on Family Systems An important new development in the field of clinical psychology is the move toward translational research—that is, the translation of research into clinical applications, and the back-translation of clinical findings into theory and research that help us to refine and advance our understanding of abstract concepts in real-world contexts in ways that can positively affect the lives of others (Cicchetti and Gunnar, 2009; O’Connor, 2013; Spoth, 2008). A preeminent example of translational research in family systems theory is the body of work that has emerged utilizing the PMTO model originated by Patterson. This research team has used the insights gathered from their observations of family process to advance both research and theory, particularly in regard to developing models and methods for understanding families as dynamic systems (Granic and Patterson, 2006). One of the ways in which the PMTO model exemplifies translational research is through investigations that test the underlying theory regarding the “key ingredients” by which the treatment has its effects (Chamberlain, Fisher, and Moore, 2002; DeGarmo and Forgatch, 2004; Patterson, Forgatch, and DeGarmo, 2010). In an iterative process, the findings of this research are used to further refine the underlying theory and, in turn, to modify and improve the intervention (Patterson, 2005). For example, research findings from clinical trials with families involved in PMTO have provided such insights as the added value of targeting parental attributions for child behavior (Bugental and Corpuz, 2019; Snyder, Cramer, Afrank, and Patterson, 2005), increasing family members’ emotion regulation skills (Leerkes and Augustine, 2019; Stoolmiller and Snyder, 2004), attending to sibling interactions (Bank, Rains, and Forgatch, 2004), and focusing on the role of deviant peer associations (DeGarmo and Forgatch, 2004).

Conclusion Family systems perspectives have both a long historical pedigree and contemporary relevance to the study of parenting and child development. Although there remain a number of lively debates in the field, such as the relative utility of whole-family constructs for capturing the complexity of the interrelations among multiple family members and their generationally differentiated subsystems, a number of family systems variables have demonstrated have received strong empirical validation in this rich literature. Family systems constructs of cohesion, boundary dissolution, triangulation, and coparenting conflict and cooperation have proven particularly valuable for understanding the ways in which family dynamics affect parenting and, in turn, child development. Family systems theory also promises to enjoy a new resurgence, with the emergence of sophisticated dynamic systems observational, methodological, and statistical procedures that allow for the modeling of complex processes such as transactions and reciprocal effects among family members as they interact and influence one another over time. On the other hand, challenges remain for the field, in that stereotypical definitions of the “family” as a nuclear, father-headed household must give way to a more accurate appreciation of the diversity of family forms that are represented in culturally diverse societies. Nevertheless, important and encouraging strides are being taken to employ family systems constructs in the service of generating translational research that promises to inform effective interventions for parents and their children.

References Ackerman, N. W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York: Basic Books. Alexander, J. F., and Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional family therapy. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

26

Parenting and Family Systems Alexander, J. F., Robbins, M., Waldron, H., and Neeb, A. (2013). Functional family therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Allen, J. P., and Hauser, S. T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of young adults’ states of mind regarding attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 8(4), 793–809. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007434 Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., and Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49–61. Anderson, L. P. (1999). Parentification in the context of the African American family. In N. D. Chase (Ed.), Burdened children (pp. 154–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Arnett, J. J., and Tanner, J. L. (2006). Emergent adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bank, L., Burraston, B., and Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 99–125. Barber, B. K. (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Barber, B. K., and Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433–441. Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., and Olson, J. A. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control. Boston, MA: Blackwell. Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., and Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment: The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti, S. L. Toth, and I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Child abuse, child development, and social policy (pp. 7–73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Beach, S. R. H., and Whisman, M. A. (2013). Genetics and epigenetics in family context. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 1–2. Bean, R. A., Barber, B. K., and Crane, D. R. (2006). Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth the relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27(10), 1335–1355. Bean, R. A., and Northrup, J. C. (2009). Parental psychological control, psychological autonomy, and acceptance as predictors of self-esteem in Latino adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(11), 1486–1504. Becker-Blease, K., and Kerig, P. K. (2016). Child maltreatment: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Belsky, J., Putnam, S., and Crnic, K. (1996). Coparenting, parenting, and early emotional development. New Directions in Child Development, 7, 45–56. Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development applications. New York: Braziller. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K., de Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., . . . Lewis, J. R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570. Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology Vol. 4: Risk, resilience, and intervention (3rd ed., pp. 180–270). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bornstein, M. H., and Cheah, C. S. L. (2006). The place of “culture and parenting” in the ecological contextual perspective on developmental science. In K. H. Rubin and O. B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–34). New York: Taylor and Francis. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., and Framo, J. (Eds.). (1965). Intensive family therapy: Theoretical and practical aspects. New York: Harper and Row. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., and Spark, G. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy. New York: Harper and Row. Bowen, M. (1961). Family psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31, 40–60. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson. Boyd-Franklin, N. (2003). Black families in therapy. New York: Guilford. Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, Y. F., Kogan, S. M., Evans, G. W., Windle, M., . . . Philibert, R. A. (2013). Supportive family environments, genes that confer sensitivity, and allostatic load among rural African American emerging adults: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 22–29. Brown, G. L., Cannon, E. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 389–398. Buehler, C., and Gerard, J. M. (2002). Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s and adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 78–92. Bugental, D. B., and Corpuz, R. (2019). Parental attributions. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 722–761). New York: Routledge.

27

Patricia K. Kerig Burton, L. M., and Hardaway, C. R. (2012). Low-income mothers as “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51(3), 343–359. Carlson, E., and Sroufe, L. A. (1995). Contribution of attachment theory to developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Vol. I: Theory and methods (pp. 581–617). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carlson, M. J., and Högnäs, R. S. (2011). Coparenting in fragile families: Understanding how parents work together after a nonmarital birth. In J. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 81–103). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Carlson, M. J., and McLanahan, S. S. (2006). Strengthening unmarried families: Could enhancing couple relationships also improve parenting? Social Service Review, 80(2), 297–321. Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. S., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45(2), 461–488. Chamberlain, P., Fisher, P. A., and Moore, K. J. (2002). Multidimensional treatment foster care: Applications of the OSLC intervention model to high-risk youth and their families. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, and J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children: Developmental theories and models for intervention (pp. 203–218). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Christensen, A., and Margolin, G. (1988). Conflict and alliance in distressed and nondistressed families. In R. A. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Clarendon. Cicchetti, D., and Gunnar, M. (2009). Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Meeting the challenge of translational research in child psychology (Vol. 35). New York: John Wiley Sons. Cicchetti, D., and Howes, P. W. (1991). Developmental psychopathology in the context of the family: Illustrations from the study of child maltreatment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23(3), 257–281. Cicchetti, D., and Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 409–438. Conger, R. D., Schofield, T. J., and Neppl, T. K. (2012). Intergenerational continuity and discontinuity in harsh parenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12(2–3), 222–231. Cooper, J. E., Holman, J., and Braithwaite, V. A. (1983). Self-esteem and family cohesion: The child’s perspective and adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 153–159. Cowan, P. A., and Cowan, C. P. (1990). Becoming a family: Research and intervention. In I. E. Sigel and G. H. Brody (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects. Vol. I: Normal families (pp. 1–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cowan, P. A., and Cowan, C. P. (2006). Developmental psychopathology from family systems and family risk factors perspectives: Implications for family research, practice, and policy. In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Vol. I: Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 530–587). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., and Kerig, P. K. (1993). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in family formation and parenting style. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. Hansen, A. Skolnick, and G. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family research (pp. 165–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cox, M. J., and Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. Cox, M. J., Paley, B., and Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent-child relationships. In J. H. Grych and F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Child development and interparental conflict (pp. 249–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crowell, S. E., Beauchaine, T. P., and Linehan, M. M. (2009). A biosocial developmental model of borderline personality: Elaborating and extending Linehan’s theory. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3), 495. Crowell, S. E., Butner, J. E., Wiltshire, T. J., Munion, A. K., Yaptangco, M., and Beauchaine, T. P. (2017). Evaluating emotional and biological sensitivity to maternal behavior among self-injuring and depressed adolescent girls using nonlinear dynamics. Clinical Psychological Science, 5(2), 272–285. doi:10.1177/2167702617692861 Cummings, E. M., and Schermerhorn, A. C. (2003). A developmental perspective on children as agents in the family. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics of parent-child relations (pp. 91–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davies, P. T., Cummings, E. M., and Winter, M. A. (2004). Pathways between profiles of family functioning, child security in the interparental subsystem, and child psychological problems. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 525–550. Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., and Cummings, E. M. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(270). Davies, P. T., and Lindsay, L. L. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: Why does gender moderate early adolescent vulnerability? Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 160–170.

28

Parenting and Family Systems Davis, B. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., and Sheeber, L. (1998). Child responses to parental conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 163–177. DeGarmo, D. S., and Forgatch, M. S. (2004). Putting problem solving to the test: Replicating experimental interventions for preventing youngsters’ problem behaviors. In R. D. Conger, F. O. Lorenz, and K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., and Kavanagh, K. A. (1992). An experimental test of the coercion model: Linking theory, measurement, and intervention. In J. McCord and R. Tremblay (Eds.), The interaction of theory and practice: Experimental studies of intervention (pp. 253–282). New York: Guilford. Domenech Rodríguez, M., Baumann, A., and Schwartz, A. (2011). Cultural adaptation of an evidence based intervention: From theory to practice in a Latino/a community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 170–186. Dumas, J. E., Lemay, P., and Dauwalder, J-P. (2001). Dynamic analyses of mother–child interactions in functional and dysfunctional dyads: A synergetic approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(4), 317–329. Easterbrooks, M. A., Katz, R. C., and Menon, M. (2019). Adolescent parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 199–231). New York: Routledge. Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., and Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious male juvenile offenders: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 2–8. Emde, R. N. (1988). The effect of relationships on relationships: A developmental approach to clinical intervention. In R. A. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 354– 364). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship. In R. A. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104–118). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Erel, O., and Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 108–132. Fagan, J., and Cherson, M. (2017). Maternal gatekeeping: The associations among facilitation, encouragement, and low-income fathers’ engagement with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 633–653. Fagan, J., Palkovitz, R., Roy, K., and Farrie, D. (2009). Pathways to paternal engagement: Longitudinal effects of risk and resilience on nonresident fathers. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1389–1405. Farr, R. H., and Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84(4), 126–1240. Favez, N., Lopes, F., Bernard, M., Frascarolo, F., Lavanchy Scaiola, C., Corboz-Warnery, A., and Fivaz-­ Depeursinge, E. (2012). The development of family alliance from pregnancy to toddlerhood and child outcomes at 5 years. Family Process, 51(4), 542–556. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., and Corboz-Warner, A. (1999). The primary triangle: A developmental systems view of mothers, fathers, and infants. New York: Basic Books. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Lopes, F., Python, M., and Favez, N. (2009). Coparenting and toddler’s interactive styles in family coalitions. Family Process, 48(4), 500–516. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01298.x Fivush, R., Bohanek, J. G., and Duke, M. (2005). The intergenerational self: Subjective perspective and family history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fivush, R., Bohanek, J. G., and Zaman, W. (2011). Personal and intergenerational narratives in relation to adolescents’ well-being. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 131, 45–57. Florsheim, P., and Moore, D. R. (2012). Young fathers and the transition to parenthood: An interpersonal analysis of paternal outcomes. In P. K. Kerig, M. S. Schulz, and S. T. Hauser (Eds.), Adolescence and beyond: Family processes and development (pp. 200–223). New York: Oxford University Press. Florsheim, P., Sumida, E., McCann, C., Winstanley, M., Fukui, R., Seefeldt, T., and Moore, D. (2003). The transition to parenthood among young African American and Latino couples: Relational predictors of risk for parental dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 65–79. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., Degarmo, D. S., and Beldavs, Z. G. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 637. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and Sanner, C. (2019). Divorced and remarried parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 311–344). New York: Routledge. Gavin, L. E., Black, M. M., Minor, S., Abel, Y., Papas, M. A., and Bentley, M. E. (2002). Young, disadvantaged fathers’ involvement with their infants: An ecological perspective. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(3), 266–276. Gibbs, J. T., and Huang, L. N. (2003). Children of color: Psychological interventions with culturally diverse youth (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29

Patricia K. Kerig Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The interpersonal structure of family interaction settings: Parent-adolescent relations in dyads and triads. Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 297–304. Goodman, C. C., and Silverstein, M. (2006). Grandmothers raising grandchildren: Ethnic and racial differences in well-being among custodial and coparenting families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(11), 1605–1626. Granic, I., and Hollenstein, T. (2003). Dynamic systems methods for models of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15(3), 641–669. Granic, I., Hollenstein, T., and Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2016). A survey of dynamic systems methods for developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. I: Theory and method (3rd ed., pp. 717–759). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Granic, I., and Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113(1), 101–131. Grych, J. H., and Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267–290. Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., and Miles, C. J. (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74(4), 1176–1193. Grych, J. H., Raynor, S. R., and Fosco, G. M. (2004). Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 649–665. Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Stratton. Haley, J. (1976). Double bind. New York: Grune and Stratton. Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Elam, K. K., Thapar, A., Neiderhiser, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., . . . Reiss, D. (2013). The nature of nurture: Disentangling passive genotype-environment correlation from family relationship influences on children’s externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 12–21. Hartman, S., and Belsky, J. (2016). An evolutionary perspective on family studies: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Family Process, 55(4), 700–712. doi:10.1111/famp.12161 Hazen, N., Jacobvitz, D., and McFarland, L. (2005). Antecedents of boundary disturbances in families with young children: Intergenerational transmission and parent-infant caregiving patterns. In P. K. Kerig (Ed.), Implications of parent-child boundary dissolution for developmental psychopathology (pp. 85–110). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., and Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Howes, P. W., Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. L., and Rogosch, F. A. (2000). Affective, organizational, and relational characteristics of maltreating families: A systems perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 95–110. Jackson, D. D. (1965). The study of the family. Family Process, 4(1), 1–20. Jackson, E. F., Raval, V. V., Bendikas-King, E. A., Raval, P. H., and Trivedi, S. S. (2016). Cultural variation in reports of subjective experience of parent–child boundary dissolution among emerging adults. Journal of Family Issues, 37(5), 671–691. Jacobvitz, D., Riggs, S., and Johnson, E. (1999). Cross-sex and same-sex family alliances: Immediate and long-term effects on sons and daughters. In N. D. Chase (Ed.), Burdened children (pp. 34–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jacobvitz, D. B., and Bush, N. F. (1996). Reconstructions of family relationships: Parent-child alliances, personal distress, and self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 732–743. Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., Curran, M., and Hitchens, K. (2004). Observations of early triadic family interactions: Boundary disturbances in the family predict depressive and anxious symptoms in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 577–592. Jacobvitz, D. B., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). The early caregiver–child relationship and attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity in kindergarten: A prospective study. Child Development, 58(6), 1496–1504. Jewell, J. D., and Stark, K. D. (2003). Comparing the family environments of adolescents with conduct disorder or depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(1), 77–89. Jones, D. J., and Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Coparenting in extended kinship systems: African American, Hispanic, Asian heritage, and Native American families. In J. P. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 61–80). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jones, D. J., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Brody, G., and Armistead, L. P. (2003). Coparent conflict in single motherheaded African American families. Behavior Therapy, 34(2), 259–272. Jouriles, E. N., and Norwood, W. D. (1995). Physical aggression toward boys and girls in families characterized by the battering of women. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(1), 69–78. Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). Lost childhoods: The plight of the parentified child. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Jurkovic, G. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Sarac, T., and Weisshaar, D. (2005). Role of filial responsibility in the post-war adjustment of Bosnian young adolescents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(4), 219–235.

30

Parenting and Family Systems Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kagitcibasi, C., and Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology, 54(3), 317–337. Kameguchi, K. (1996). Chaotic states of generational boundaries in contemporary Japanese families. In M. Cusinato (Ed.), Research on family resources and needs across the world (pp. 235–242). Milan: Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto. Katz, L. F., and Gottman, J. M. (1996). Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 74, 57–76. Katz, L. F., and Low, S. M. (2004). Marital violence, co-parenting and family-level processes, and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 372–382. Katz, L. F., and Woodin, E. M. (2002). Hostility, hostile detachment, and conflict engagement in marriages: Effects on child and family functioning. Child Development, 73(2), 636–652. Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family circle: Effects of family structure on marriage, parenting, and child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(1), 28–43. Kerig, P. K. (1998). Gender and appraisals as mediators of adjustment in children exposed to interparental violence. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 345–363. Kerig, P. K. (2001a). Conceptual issues in family observational research. In P. K. Kerig and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kerig, P. K. (2001b). Children’s coping with interparental conflict. In J. H. Grych and F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development (pp. 213–245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerig, P. K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. In P. K. Kerig (Ed.), Implications of parent-child boundary dissolution for developmental psychopathology (pp. 5–42). New York: Haworth. Kerig, P. K. (2016). Family systems approaches to developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. I: Theory and Method (3rd ed., pp. 580–630). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kerig, P. K., and Alexander, J. F. (2013). Family matters: Integrating trauma treatment into Functional Family Therapy with delinquent youth. In P. K. Kerig (Ed.), Psychological trauma and juvenile delinquency (pp. 122– 140). London: Routledge. Kerig, P. K., Cowan, P. A., and Cowan, C. P. (1993). Marital quality and gender differences in parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 931–939. Kerig, P. K., Fedorowicz, A. E., Brown, C. A., Patenaude, R. L., and Warren, M. (1998). When warriors are worriers: Gender, appraisals, and children’s strategies for coping with interparental violence. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(2), 89–114. Kerig, P. K., Ludlow, A., and Wenar, C. (2012). Developmental psychopathology: From infancy through adolescence (6th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Kerig, P. K., and Schulz, M. S. (2012). The transition from adolescence to adulthood: What lies beneath and what lies beyond. In P. K. Kerig, M. S. Schulz, and S. T. Hauser (Eds.), Adolescence and beyond: Family processes in development (pp. 3–12). New York: Oxford University Press. Kerig, P. K., and Swanson, J. A. (2010). Ties that bind: Triangulation, boundary dissolution, and the effects of interparental conflict on child development. In M. S. Schulz, M. K. Pruett, P. K. Kerig, and R. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development (pp. 59–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kerig, P. K., and Wainryb, C., Twali, M. S., and Chaplo, S. D. (2013). America’s child soldiers: Toward a research agenda for studying gang-involved youth in the US. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 22(7), 1–23. doi:10.1080/10926771.2013.813883 Kerr, M. E., and Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: W. W. Norton. Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family interactions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36, 3–13. Krishnakumar, A., and Black, M. M. (2003). Family processes within three-generation households and adolescent mothers’ satisfaction with father involvement. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 488–498. Lamb, M. E. (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lamb, M. E. (2013). The changing faces of fatherhood and father-child relationships: From fatherhood as status to father as Dad. In M. A. Fine and F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach (pp. 87–103). New York: Routledge.

31

Patricia K. Kerig Leary, A., and Katz, L. F. (2004). Coparenting, family-level processes, and peer outcomes: The moderating role of vagal tone. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 593–608. Leerkes, E. M., and Augustine, M. E. (2019). Parenting and emotions. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 620–654). New York: Routledge. Liddle, H. A. (2002). Troubled teens: Multidimensional family therapy: New York: W. W. Norton. Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., and Greenbaum, P. E. (2009). Multidimensional family therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 12–25. doi:10.1037/a0014160 Lidz, T., Cornelison, A., Fleck, S., and Terry, D. (1957). The intrafamilial environment of the schizophrenic patient. II: Marital schism and marital skew. American Journal of Psychiatry, 114(3), 241–248. Lindahl, K. M., Clements, M., and Markman, H. (1997). Predicting marital and parent functioning in dyads and triads: A longitudinal investigation of marital processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 139–151. Lindahl, K. M., and Malik, N. M. (1999). Observations of marital conflict and power: Relations with parenting in the triad. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 320–330. Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., Kaczynski, K., and Simons, J. S. (2004). Couple power dynamics, systemic family functioning, and child adjustment: A test of a mediational model in a multiethnic sample. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 609–630. Luna, I., de Ardon, E. T., Lim, Y. M., Cromwell, S. L., Phillips, L. R., and Russell, C. K. (1996). The relevance of familism in cross-cultural studies of family caregiving. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 18(3), 267–283. MacFie, J., Houts, R. M., McElwain, N. L., and Cox, M. J. (2005). The effect of father-toddler and mothertoddler role reversal on the development of behavior problems in kindergarten. Social Development, 14(3), 514–531. MacFie, J., Toth, S. L., Rogosch, F. A., Robinson, J., Emde, R. N., and Cicchetti, D. (1999). Effect of maltreatment on preshoolers’ narrative representations of responses to relieve distress and of role reversal. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 460–465. Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., and Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 673–689. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., and John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3–21. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., and Oliver, P. H. (2004). Links between marital and parent-child interactions: Moderating role of husband-to-wife aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 753–771. Masten, A. S., and Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1–25). New York: Cambridge University Press. McConnell, M. C., and Kerig, P. K. (2002). Assessing coparenting in families of school-age children: Validation of the coparenting and family rating system. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34(1), 44–58. McGoldrick, M., and Carter, B. (2003). The family life cycle. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 460– 489). New York: Guilford. McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., and Garcia-Preto, N. (2005). Ethnicity and family therapy (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 985–996. McHale, J. P. (1997). Overt and covert coparenting processes in the family. Family Process, 36(2), 183–210. McHale, J., Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Dickstein, S., Robertson, J., and Daley, M. (2008). New evidence for the social embeddedness of infants’ early triangular capacities. Family Process, 47(4), 445–463. McHale, J. P., Kazali, C., Rotman, T., Talbot, J., Carleton, M., and Lieberson, R. (2004). The transition to coparenthood: Parents’ prebirth expectations and early coparental adjustment at 3 months postpartum. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 711–733. McHale, J. P., Kuersten, R., and Lauretti, A. (1996). New directions in the study of family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 74, 5–26. McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., and Lauretti, A. (2001). Evaluating coparenting and family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood: The coparenting and family rating system. In P. K. Kerig and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems (pp. 151–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McHale, J. P., and Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Coparental and family group-level dynamics during infancy: Early family precursors of child and family functioning during preschool. Development and Psychopathology, 10(1), 39–59. McHale, J. P. and Sirotkin, Y. (2019). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 137–166). New York: Routledge.

32

Parenting and Family Systems Meteyer, K., and Perry-Jenkins, M. (2010). Father involvement among working-class, dual-earner couples. Fathering, 8(3), 379–403. Micucci, J. (2009). Adolescents in family therapy: Harnessing the power of relationships. New York: Guilford. Miklowitz, D. J. (2004). The role of family systems in severe and recurrent psychiatric disorders: A developmental psychopathology view. Development and psychopathology, 16(3), 667–688. Mills-Koonce, W. R., Propper, C. B., Gariepy, J., Blair, C., Garrett-Peters, P., and Cox, M. J. (2007). Bidirectional genetic and environmental influences of mother and child behavior: The family system as the unit of analyses. Development and psychopathology, 19(4), 1073–1087. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. doi:www.jstor.org/stable/1129720 Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J., and Minuchin, S. (2007). Working with families of the poor. New York: Guilford. Minuchin, S. (1967). Families of the slums. New York: Basic Books. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minuchin, S., and Fishman, H. C. (1975). Family therapy techniques. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Moore, D., and Florsheim, P. (2008). Interpersonal process and risk for child abuse among young mothers and fathers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 463–475. Murry, V. M., Bynum, M. S., Brody, G. H., Willert, A., and Stephens, D. (2001). African American single mothers and children in context: A review of studies of risk and resilience. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), 133–155. O’Connor, T. (2013). Editorial: Translational research in practice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(11), 1153–1154. Ogden, T., and Hagen, K. A. (2008). Treatment effectiveness of parent management training in Norway: A randomized controlled trial of children with conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 607. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., and Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3–28. Olson, D. H. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37(1), 64–80. Osborne, L. N., and Fincham, F. D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships, and child adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 48–75. Palazzoli, M. S., Cecchin, G., Prata, G., and Boscolo, L. (1978). Paradox and counterparadox: A new model of the family in schizophrenic transaction. New York: Aronson. Parke, R. D. (1990). In search of fathers: A narrative of an empirical journey. In I. E. Sigel and G. H. Brody (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects. Vol. I: Normal families (pp. 153–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Parke, R. D., and Cookston, J. T. (2019). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 64–136). New York: Routledge. Patterson, G. R. (1975). Families: Applications of social learning to family life. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process: A social learning approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R. (2005). The next generation of PMTO models. The Behavior Therapist, 28(2), 27–33. Patterson, G. R., Chamberlain, P., and Reid, J. B. (1982). A comparative evaluation of parent training procedures. Behavior Therapy, 13, 638–651. Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., and DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 22(04), 949–970. Phares, V. (1992). Where’s Poppa? The relative lack of attention to the role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology. American Psychologist, 47(5), 656–664. Phares, V., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D., and Lopez, E. (2005). Still looking for Poppa. American Psychologist, 60(7), 735–736. Pittman, L. D., Wakschlag, L. S., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). “Mama, I’m a person, too!” Individuation and young African-American mothers’ parenting competence. In P. K. Kerig, M. S. Schulz, and S. T. Hauser (Eds.), Adolescence and beyond: Family processes in development (pp. 177–199). New York: Oxford University Press. Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hetherington, E. M., and Plomin, R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richter, L. M., and Desmond, C. (2008). Targeting AIDS orphans and child-headed households: A perspective from national surveys in South Africa, 1995–2005. AIDS Care, 20(9), 1019–1028. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Turner, C. W., and Hollimon, A. (2016). Evolution of Functional Family Therapy as an evidence-based practice for adolescents with disruptive behavior problems. Family Process, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/famp.12230

33

Patricia K. Kerig Rowa, K., Kerig, P. K., and Geller, J. (2001). The family and anorexia: Examining parent-child boundary problems. European Eating Disorders Review, 9, 97–114. doi:10.1002/erv.383 Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, and S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181–214). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sameroff, A. J. (1995). General systems theories and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Vol. I: Theory and methods (pp. 659–695). New York: Wiley. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22. Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63(1), 1–19. Schermerhorn, A. C., and Cummings, M. E. (2008). Transactional family dynamics: A new framework for conceptualizing family influence processes. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 187–250. Schermerhorn, A. C., Cummings, E. M., and Davies, P. T. (2008). Children’s representations of multiple family relationships: Organizational structure and development in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 89–101. Schermerhorn, A. C., Cummings, E. M., DeCarlo, C. A., and Davies, P. T. (2007). Children’s influence in the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 259–269. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. L., Cannon, E. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Sokolowski, M. S. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 389–398. Shaffer, A., and Egeland, B. (2011). Intergenerational transmission of familial boundary dissolution: Observations and psychosocial outcomes in adolescence. Family Relations, 60(3), 290–302. Shaffer, A., and Sroufe, L. A. (2005). The developmental and adaptational implications of generational boundary dissolution: Findings from a prospective, longitudinal study. In P. K. Kerig (Ed.), Implications of parent-child boundary dissolution for developmental psychopathology (pp. 67–84). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Shaw, D. S., Criss, M. M., Schonberg, M. A., and Beck, J. E. (2004). The development of family hierarchies and their relation to children’s conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 483–500. Sheeber, L., Davis, B., and Hops, H. (2002). Gender specific vulnerability to depression in children of depressed mothers. In S. H. Goodman and I. H. Gotlib (Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment (pp. 253–274). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Singer, M. T., and Wynne, L. C. (1965). Thought disorder and family relations of schizophrenics: IV. Results and implications. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12(2), 201–212. Smith, P.K., and Wild, L. G. (2019). Grandparenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 232–270). New York: Routledge. Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., and Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 30–41. Spoth, R. (2008). Translating family-focused prevention science into effective practice: Toward a translational impact paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 415–421. Sroufe, L. A. (1990). Considering normal and abnormal together: The essence of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 335–348. Sroufe, L. A., and Fleeson, J. (1988). The coherence of family relationships. In R. A. Hinde and J. StevensonHinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 27–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sroufe, L. A., and Ward, M. J. (1980). Seductive behavior of mothers of toddlers: Occurrence, correlates and family origins. Child Development, 51, 1222–1229. Stoolmiller, M., and Snyder, J. (2004). A multilevel analysis of parental discipline and child antisocial behavior. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 365–402. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80043-1 Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., Davies, P. T., and Suor, J. H. (2012). Differential susceptibility in spillover between interparental conflict and maternal parenting practices: Evidence for OXTR and 5-HTT genes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 431–442. Sweeney, K. K., Goldberg, A. E., and Garcia, R. L. (2017). Not a “mom thing”: Predictors of gatekeeping in same-sex and heterosexual parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(5), 521–531. Tremblay, R. E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., and Charlebois, P. (1991). Can disruptive boys be helped to become competent? Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 54(2), 148–161. Ulbricht, J. A., Ganiban, J. M., Button, T. M. M., Feinberg, M., Reiss, D., and Neiderhiser, J. M. (2013). Marital adjustment as a moderator for genetic and environmental influences on parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 42–52.

34

Parenting and Family Systems U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 census. MD: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/ 2010census/data/ Vakrat, A., Apter-Levy, Y., and Feldman, R. (2017). Fathering moderates the effects of maternal depression on the family process. Development and psychopathology, 1–12. doi:10.1017/S095457941700044X. Van Der Zwaluw, C. S., and Engels, R. C. (2009). Gene–environment interactions and alcohol use and dependence: Current status and future challenges. Addiction, 104(6), 907–914. van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review, 105(4), 634–677. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller, Inc. Wagner, B. M., and Reiss, D. (1995). Family systems and developmental psychopathology: Courtship, marriage, or divorce? In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. I: Theory and methods (pp. 696–730). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Walker, A. J., and McGraw, L. A. (2000). Who is responsible for responsible fathering? Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2), 563–596. Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford Press. Wynne, L. C. (1984/2004). The epigenesis of relational systems: A model for understanding family development. Family Process, 23(3), 297–318. Wynne, L. C., Ryckoff, I. M., Day, J., and Hirsch, S. I. (1958). Pseudo-mutuality in the family relations of schizophrenics. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 21, 205–220.

35

2 MOTHERING Lynne Murray, Martin P. M. Richards, and Julie Nihouarn-Sigurdardottir

Introduction It is a characteristic of our species that, as children, we have an extended period of dependency during which we require the care and attention of others for nurture, and indeed for survival (Konner, 2010). Our mothers give birth to us and typically play the major role in in our care, especially in the early months of our lives. Their role, first as progenitor and then as nurturer, gives mothers and mothering great symbolic and emotional power—think of the phrases used in our own society “mother love,” “mother tongue,” and “mother land” for the place where we grew up. Nevertheless, how much and what mothers do vary between individuals and across cultures. There are basic differences, for example, in how many children women have: In the United States and Europe, it is typically between one and two, whereas in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in general women have, on average, three children, with the number being five in sub-Saharan Africa (United Nations, 2015). The extent to which women have roles other than that of mother also varies widely between societies, even within high-income countries (HICs); for example, in the United Kingdom, only 33% mothers of children under 15 are in full-time paid employment, whereas this figure is over 70% in Denmark (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Family Database, 2016). If the amount of time mothers care for their children varies, so too does the way in which they do so, and, therefore, the experience of their infants and children. Consider two contrasting examples of infant worlds: One young infant in a sling in contact with their mother’s body, able to feed at her breast at will as the mother moves around doing her daily tasks. Another infant may spend much of the day and night in a crib, interspersed with periods for feeds, cuddles, nappy changes and talk, before being returned.Thus, although certain components of mothering are fundamental (e.g., lactation or infant feeding, provision of nurture, and core ways of relating), children nevertheless thrive in contexts that differ widely in the way their care is expressed (Feldman, 2015). A critical task for researchers is, therefore, to identify the key aspects of maternal care, and the tipping points where variability ceases to be just part of the “rich tapestry” of human experience, and becomes dysfunctional in terms of child development. There are often strong views about what mothers should or should not be doing. The values and norms will vary across cultures. Often, new parents will have a childcare manual to consult if in doubt (particularly in HICs), or perhaps a relative will be at hand to support and advise. Analyses of the contents of childcare manuals provide one kind of window on mothering.The historian Hardyment

36

Mothering

(2007) analyzed the advice given in childcare books over the last couple of centuries and identified changing trends: For example, the more restrictive and controlling advice of the 1930s—that picking up crying infants aside from their regular feed times will only “spoil” them and encourage crying and night waking—contrasts sharply with the more easygoing advice of the Spock era. Benjamin Spock’s Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care (1946) was outsold only by the Bible, and went through seven revised editions from 1946 to 1998, illustrating the influence of this respected childcare guru. Although the extent to which advice is evidence-based may vary, most contemporary gurus at least imply that it is important to do things in the right way to ensure the optimal development of the child. The evidence may, however, be complex: Thus, although research has now accumulated to inform parents about the effects of many different parenting practices on diverse aspects of child development (L. Murray, 2014), effects are not always simple. For example, although the claim that “breastfeeding is best” is well established for many child outcomes, it does not apply to all of them. Thus, a meta-analysis of worldwide data (Victora, Bahj, and Barros, 2016) has confirmed that, as far as child health is concerned, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months provides protection against child infections and malocclusions, and is associated with an increase in intelligence (IQ), and probably reductions in over weight and diabetes. For nursing mothers there are benefits too, with protections against breast cancer and improved birth spacing (Victora et al., 2016). Nevertheless, although it is also often assumed that breastfeeding has a positive effect on the mother-infant relationship, that particular claim is not supported by empirical evidence (Jansen, de Weerth, and Riksen-Walraven, 2008). The absence of a positive association between breastfeeding and the quality of the motherchild relationship may be related to the fact that the incidence and duration of breastfeeding vary widely across countries: For example, in the United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries, rates are particularly low, and the duration shorter than in resource-poor countries, and should be regarded as suboptimal (Victora et al., 2016). Although the reasons for this variation are not well understood, including the role of differing cultural values, it is likely that such factors moderate any association between breastfeeding and the quality of the mother-infant relationship. Such complexities point to an important role for scientists and those in the media to collaborate to ensure that the most balanced representations of research findings are made available to the public. The turn of the 20th century brought with it the beginning of a shift in how mothers and children were seen in Western societies. It was around this time that Sigmund Freud (1955) made the claim that there was no love like that of a mother. He stated that this relationship was the strongest of all relationships, enduring for a lifetime, and the root of future intimate relationships. His ideas led to the belief that mothers were crucial to the development of an emotionally stable and successful adult, with maternal satisfaction in the relationship with her son comprising “the most perfect, the freest from ambivalence of all human relationships” (S. Freud, 1933, p. 133). As the psychoanalyst and researcher Raphael-Leff (2010) has noted, the idealization of the mother-infant relationship on the part of early psychoanalysts excluded negative feelings, and instead equated the infant’s need to be mothered with the woman’s need to mother (Balint, 1939; RaphaelLeff, 2010). Since the time of Freud and his immediate followers, however, notions of motherhood and its significance have undergone several transformations, drawing on evidence concerning its physical as well as psychological characteristics. Views regarding the role played by maternal care in the development of children have also changed, with research on this topic increasing enormously. Evidence from a range of sources, including studies of the effects of severe institutional deprivation, throws light on the significance of mothering itself. Similarly, research on the impact on children of variations in maternal care that may occur when mothers experience clinical disorders, such as depression, has contributed to the understanding of which components of mothering are important for different child outcomes (Dix and Moed, 2019). This accumulation of clinical evidence has been accompanied by a similar surge in what is known from low-risk populations concerning the very

37

Lynne Murray et al.

different parenting functions subsumed under the term “mothering” and their effects on child development (Bornstein, 2015; L. Murray, 2014). In the first half of this chapter, we consider different accounts of the experience of becoming and being a mother, many of them influenced by psychoanalytic thinking, and its more recent developments in attachment theory and feminism. In the second half, we consider the effects of mothering on child development, including studies of maternal deprivation and of different facets of maternal behavior. For a number of reasons, we focus on the effects of mothering in the child’s first 2 years: First, this period, compared to when the child is older, is one when mothers are more likely to be present as the principal caregivers of their children and, therefore, exert a major influence in children’s lives. Second, this is a period when the core foundations for later child behavior and development are laid. Finally, child functioning has generally started to stabilize by age 2 years, and is a good predictor of subsequent functioning (see L. Murray, 2014, for a review of this research). Before our review of these findings on the effects of different aspects of mothering, however, an important note of caution is warranted, namely, that the clear majority of studies conducted on mother-child relationships have been carried out in what are referred to as “WEIRD” environments—that is, in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic Societies (Henrich, Hein, and Norenzayan, 2012; Tomlinson, Bornstein, Marlow, and Swartz, 2014). Given that the majority of the worldwide population of children do not live in such environments, and that the extremes of poverty and climate that are prevalent in non-WEIRD countries exert major influences on families, the findings emerging from the conclusions from the research published on parenting to date cannot necessarily be generalized to the wide range of parenting conditions that exist across the world.

Accounts of the Nature of Motherhood Psychologists have regarded conception as marking the beginning of a transformation from being a woman to being a mother and, with this, the taking on of a new female identity, one that is continuingly updated through the ongoing experience of motherhood (Pines, 1972). (But see Golombok (2019) and Patterson (2019) for diverse other groups enabled by advances in reproductive technologies to bear or rear children, including those who are infertile, or who are lesbian or gay). Pregnancy obviously changes women physically, altering the form and appearance of their bodies, as well as activating and altering a wider range of physiological functions, and these transformations are, in turn, accompanied by psychological changes.

Physiological Changes Childbearing, childbirth, and the subsequent postpartum adjustment to caring for the newborn carry substantial physical strain, with each phase being accompanied by important physiological changes. During pregnancy, a woman retains around half a liter of fluid, and has a blood volume increase of about 45%, as well as an increase in cardiac output by as much as 45–50% to adjust to the increased demand for uterine blood flow (Heidemann and McClure, 2003; Ouzounian and Elkayam, 2012; Sanghavi and Rutherford, 2014). Women also experience hormonal fluctuations that influence not only their metabolism, but also their mood and their ability to cope with stress, changes that they may be aware could affect the development of the fetus (Costantine, 2014; Reynolds, Labad, Buss, Ghaemmaghami, and Räikkönen, 2013). Additionally, factors such as age are relevant to physiological as well as psychological processes (Bornstein, Putnick, Suwalsky, and Gini, 2006; Bornstein and Putnick, 2007). Regarding physiology, for example, older mothers (>35 years) are more likely to incur complications during gestation and delivery (Cleary-Goldman

38

Mothering

et al., 2005). During gestation, they are at a higher risk of miscarriage and of developing gestational diabetes, and of the infant’s having chromosomal or congenital abnormalities; during labor, age older than 35 years increases the risk of complications that may require assisted delivery or cesarean section. Awareness of such risks, although they are low, may, in turn, alter the psychological experience of the pregnancy, for example, by raising levels of anxiety (Lampinen,VehviläinenJulkunen, and Kankkunen, 2009). Physiological changes continue during the postpartum period to return the body to its nonpregnant state. These changes can cause women to experience a transient period of heightened reactivity in the early days following the birth, when they may experience irritability, emotional liability and frequent, unprovoked crying (Miller, 2002). The mother’s energy levels become progressively depleted as she approaches the end of her pregnancy, and they continue to be low in the postpartum weeks and months because of her childcaring role, and the reduced time to rest (Tulman and Fawcett, 2003). Pregnancy also affects the brain, bringing about complex changes in the functioning of neuroendocrine systems (Feldman, 2015; Feldman, Weller, Sharon-Zagoory and Levine, 2007; Slade and Sadler, 2018). These include the oxytocin system that supports the mother’s feelings of connection and attachment to the infant; the HPA axis system, regulating stress responses; and dopaminergic changes that concern feelings of reward and pleasure. There is also evidence for structural brain alterations, lasting up to 2 years. Thus, imaging techniques have detected a loss of gray matter volume in areas involved in social judgment processing (the “Theory of Mind” network), which partially overlap with those that show stronger responses to images of a mother’s own versus an unfamiliar infant, and that correlate with measures of maternal attachment. Similarly, EEG studies show differentiated brain activity in first-time mothers’ responses to faces of their own, compared with those of unfamiliar infants (Bornstein, Arterberry, and Nash, 2013). Such findings have been hypothesized to reflect an adaptive prenatal fine-tuning of neural processes to prepare mothers to empathize, become attached to, and provide care for their newborn infants (Hoekzema et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2010).

Psychological Changes Intergenerational Identity Dynamics In general, women prepare to become the mothers of their children while they are still children of their own mothers (Pines, 1972). But even if the new mother’s own mother is no longer alive, it is still the case that she will bring to motherhood her internalized representations of childhood experiences of care (Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy, 1985). As Slade and Sadler (2018) noted, pregnancy invariably “reactivates” these internalized representations of early care, such that “thoughts, feelings and memories of [the new mother’s] relationship with her mother and/or other maternal caregivers that may have been quiescent for years are awakened at both a conscious and unconscious level” (p. 26). Managing this new alignment with the actual or remembered mother has often been seen as a core part of the developmental shift to motherhood. At a conscious level, new mothers may come to understand their own mothers from the perspective of another mother, creating a new level of relating. They may feel that they need to understand more about who their mothers are, what they represent to them, which aspects of their mothers they want to take on themselves, and how to incorporate the “ideal” mother images they have developed and carried within their own minds (Solchany, 2001). Unconscious processes may also come into play, with the transition to motherhood awakening what Fraiberg (1980) called “ghosts in the nursey” that may challenge the new mother’s psychological equilibrium.

39

Lynne Murray et al.

The corollary of the pregnant woman’s reworking of her relationship with her own mother is the establishment of her representation of her relationship with her infant. Some theorists have conceived this reworking as requiring a psychological reckoning with the babies that the mother has long-imagined throughout her development (Pines, 1972; Priel and Besser, 2001). Pines (1972, p. 336) summarized these processes by stating, “Motherhood is a three-generation experience.” In the last 30 years, a considerable body of research has been conducted within the framework of attachment theory (Main et al., 1985) that has largely confirmed these intergenerational links. Thus, using the Adult Attachment Interview, studies have consistently shown how a mother’s representation of her relationship with her own mother influences her responses to her infant and, in turn, the nature of the attachment her infant forms with her (Verhage et al., 2016). Those new mothers who have secure attachment representations appear to be better equipped to manage the range of emotions, including any negative feelings, provoked by pregnancy and the demands of infant care, than are mothers who recall their early relationship with their own mother as characterized by rejection. These latter women may struggle to keep the intensity of emotion normally provoked by pregnancy at bay, but to the extent that they succeed, they may later find it difficult to respond to their infant’s vulnerability and needs for closeness, and thereby risk perpetuating an intergenerational cycle of the avoidance of dependency. For mothers who have developed a preoccupied style of attachment representation in relation to their own mother, by contrast, pregnancy can be emotionally overwhelming, and produce a kind of “inchoate negativity” that can similarly transfer to her relationship with her infant (Slade and Cohen, 1996; Slade and Sadler, 2018). Finally, for mothers with unresolved/disorganized attachment representations, pregnancy can evoke early memories of trauma or abuse that risk being perpetuated with the next generation (Slade and Sadler, 2018). In summary, attachment theory and research show the influence of mothers’ representations of their own care on the care they provide for their infant and, in turn, the nature of their developing child’s attachment to them. Nevertheless, although such intergenerational patterns of relating have been consistently found, they are by no means inevitable, and other factors, such as the presence of clinical problems, may weaken such associations (Verhage et al., 2016). Some theorists, as described earlier, have focused on the new mother’s representations of her relationship with her mother as fundamental to her own identity as a mother; others, by contrast, have emphasized the transformation in self-identity that is catalyzed by motherhood as being principally bound up with the actual experience of caring for the infant. For example, one prominent psychoanalytic account by Benedek (1959) held that if the mother finds she can satisfy her infant’s needs, she experiences feelings of accomplishment, success, and competence; by contrast, if she is unable to satisfy her infant, feelings of failure and inadequacy are generated. Benedek called this “emotional symbiosis” and described it as the reciprocal interaction between mother and child which “creates structural change in each of the participants” (p 392). In other words, just as the infant’s experience with the mother affects the infant’s psychological processes, so the mother’s experience with her infant affects the mother’s psychological processes (Barnard and Solchany, 2002). Whether the experience is one of satisfaction or else frustration, according to Benedek, it becomes integrated into the personalities of both infant and mother and, when positive, the mother’s ego is fed and nurtured, whereas unsatisfying experiences in attempting to care for the infant may contribute to considerable strain and even clinically significant problems. Notably, this perspective receives empirical support from research showing that having an infant with good capacities to engage, even in the neonatal period (e.g., with good motor control such that they are able to hold their heads steady and make eye-to-eye contact with their mother), is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of maternal depression, whereas this risk

40

Mothering

is increased when infants are hard to engage, or are prone to become easily distressed and are harder to soothe (L. Murray, Stanley, Hooper, King, and Fiori-Cowley, 1996).

The Path to Motherhood Classical accounts of motherhood tended both to idealize the condition and to assume that its nature was uniform. Rubin (1984) noted, for example, that “enduring love, altruistic self-denial, and empathy are not exclusive to the maternal woman or to the mother-child relationship . . . yet comprise the characteristics of maternal behavior which are seen as the bottom line” (p. 2; cited by Barnard and Solchany, 2002, p. 8). Rubin herself was one of the most influential figures in theories of motherhood. On the basis of her nursing work with women through their pregnancies, conducted over many years, she fostered research on prenatal attachment and described the transition to motherhood as the “development of the capacity for mothering” (Rubin, 1967a, 1967b, 1977, 1984). She set out four fundamental tasks of pregnancy and the early postpartum period: (1) seeking safe passage for herself and her child through pregnancy, labor, and delivery; (2) ensuring the acceptance of her child by significant persons in the family; (3) “binding-in” to her unknown child and the idea of having a “real” child; and (4) learning to give of herself. “Seeking safe passage” included, in the first trimester, a concentration on personal well-being, with a concern about consumption and avoidance of toxins. By the second trimester, concern shifted to fetal well-being, and the impact on the fetus of environmental influences, along with a close monitoring of their activity. With the third trimester, the pregnant woman was seen to view herself as at “one” with her child, often developing fears about her infant and herself successfully navigating the delivery. Rubin saw the second task—“Ensuring the acceptance of the child” by others—as particularly important.This involved the mother developing both a physical and psychological space for the child within the family, and included adjusting bonds and relationships. Fantasies about the unborn child were ideally shared between family members as a way of preparing for, and ensuring, the infant’s acceptance, with any conditionality on their part (e.g., based on infant gender or normalcy) provoking the mother-to-be’s deep worry about the child’s possible rejection. “Binding-in,” the third task, was the process resulting in a bond between mother and infant being in place by the time of the birth. It started in the first trimester with the awareness of feelings of acceptance or rejection of the pregnancy. During the second and third trimesters, physical changes in the mother and the growing fetus’s activity and the sense of “life within her”, now vividly shown by ultrasound scans, made the mother more especially aware of her infant, and supported the process of representing them as a person. “Learning to give of oneself,” the fourth task, began in the first trimester, as the woman assessed the demands of pregnancy, with its changes in appearance, function, relationships, and lifestyle, and weighed what would be given up and what gained. In the second trimester, identification shifted to the child, and by the third, the realization of the commitment required was brought to the surface and processed. Rubin saw these tasks of pregnancy as preparing the woman for her continuing maternal role, a role characterized by the long-term giving of time and interest in the form of enduring love, altruism, self-denial, and empathy (cited in Barnard and Solchany, 2002, p. 8). Other researchers broadly followed this formulation of motherhood, and developed widely used questionnaires to assess the extent of maternal attachment to the child during pregnancy (Condon, 1993; Cranley, 1981). Nevertheless, as Slade noted, most of the studies adopting these formulations have been limited by using low-risk populations, and there has also been concern that the measures may actually reflect the expression of socially desirable attitudes (Slade and Sadler, 2018).

41

Lynne Murray et al.

Complexities of the Transition to Motherhood—Losses as Well as Gains In contrast to classical portrayals of motherhood, subsequent views have been more ready to consider the complexities of the experience. On the one hand, these accounts recognize that becoming a mother is, for many women, a much-wanted experience and the fulfillment of long-held desire to care for a significant and fragile human being (Priel and Besser, 2001). In similarly positive vein, the fact of having a child may also be associated with strengthening the woman’s relationship with her partner as they prepare for parenthood together (Nelson, 2017). Nevertheless, on the other hand, increasing prominence has been given to the major adjustments required in making the transition to motherhood, including accepting and working through intense feelings of loss and grief. This position has been an important plank of feminist writing, challenging the romanticized version of self-effacing motherhood (Bassin, Honey, and Kaplan, 1994; Benjamin, 1988; Chodorow, 1989; Dinnerstein, 1976; Raphael-Leff, 1980), and was particularly prominent in the work of scholars of motherhood in the decade around the turn of this century. Barclay and her colleagues, for example (1997), described women as going through a period of realization of “the overwhelming process of becoming a mother and the consequences this has on one’s life” (p. 721), and experiencing of a loss of sense of self, of how they used their time, of freedom and independence, and of their life as it used to be, a process that could breed feelings of conflict, ambivalence, hostility, regression, and negativity. Women were noted to grieve the changes in their bodies, their relationships, their professional lives, their activities, and the context in which they viewed and experienced life, and as needing to reconcile themselves to the fact that they would never again be women without children—even if their pregnancy tragically ended through miscarriage or fetal death—with their bodies and their lives forever altered (Solchany, 2001). In similar vein, Hartrick (1997) described the transition to motherhood as a period when “the taken for granted infrastructure” that women had, or had assumed they had, in their lives “is questioned and begins to crumble” (p. 271).

Managing Identity Changes If, in facing the psychological challenges identified earlier, and, as Trad described, motherhood is “a dynamic process in which change is virtually unceasing,” then “flexibility and the ability to deal with these transformations and concomitant losses are necessary traits of the adaptive mother” (Trad, 1990, p. 359). Hartrick (1997) described the resolution of the challenges of becoming a mother being achieved through a process of women reclaiming aspects of who they were, and of recognizing that they did, in fact, have choices. Such recognition would mean that the notion that motherhood had taken things away would then be reduced in force, with any loss taking on a different meaning if understood within the context of personal choice. This perspective, developed in response to an account of motherhood framed in terms of women’s disempowerment (Squire, 2009), thus elaborated a theory of motherhood that encompassed the complexities and diversities of women’s experience, and the possibilities for self-determination. Of course, the extent to which motherhood is experienced with a sense of either gain or loss is inextricably bound up with both the personal and the societal context in which the transition to motherhood occurs, including the value placed on the motherhood role by society, as feminist accounts make clear. Thus, on a personal level, mothers’ responses are likely to reflect the circumstances of the conception (a much-desired pregnancy, or a result of failed contraception, or even rape; and whether it follows previous miscarriages, stillbirth, or assisted reproduction). The wider societal context includes legal rights to retain a place in the workforce, whether promotion policies and practices accommodate time taken from paid work to care for children, as well as the degree to which the state provides financial support for those sharing childcare with the mother, paternity leave conditions being the most obvious. These arrangements vary 42

Mothering

widely between countries: For example, in Sweden, parents can share parental leave through the first year, and receive 80% pay during this period, funded by social security; in the United States, although there is a right to take the minimum period of 14 weeks of leave required by the 2000 Maternity Protection Convention, C 183, of the International Labour Organization, this leave is not statutorily funded. Overall, women in HICs, and particularly those in formal and standard jobs, benefit the most in terms of statutorily prescribed support and rights, whereas those in Africa and Asia benefit the least (International Labour Organization, 2014).

Diversity in Women’s Models of Motherhood One influential contemporary psychoanalytic theorist, Raphael-Leff (2010), has countered classical accounts that have normalized “The” mother, by charting the diversity of psychological orientations that accompany pregnancy and the postnatal experience. She proposes three main groupings. The first, the “Facilitator” orientation, overlaps in important ways with the classical conception of motherhood. For Facilitators, pregnancy is often the culmination of the woman’s aspirations and desires, and they are happy to suspend their own subjectivity; they aim to devote themselves to their child, and may find early childcare intensely satisfying. Other mothers, termed “Regulators,” are more vulnerable to feeling persecuted by the changes brought about by pregnancy and early motherhood; they are likely to resist the upheaval of emotions provoked by the experience, and seek to control events, usually through the application of routines for infant care. The third group, “Reciprocators,” are mothers who are able to tolerate ambivalence and negotiate a balance between meeting their own and their infant’s needs. The key point of Raphael-Leff ’s argument is, then, that there exists a variety of orientations to motherhood and that it is neither a unitary experience, nor one that simply varies in its strength on a single continuum. Furthermore, in this view, it is only at the extremes of the Facilitator and Regulator orientations that functioning becomes pathological, and whether these qualitatively different orientations can function is influenced by a range of factors that either facilitate or prevent each group of mothers fulfilling their own model of motherhood. For example, the Facilitator may become particularly vulnerable if complications arise that seem to threaten her involvement with her infant, such as being unable to breastfeed; toward the end of the first year and beyond, such mothers may also find the infant’s normal bids for independence difficult to manage. A regulator, by contrast, may find the emotional upheaval provoked by the intensity of the infant’s needs in the early postpartum months, together with any practical life changes that restrict her selfesteem (e.g., her role in the workplace), extremely challenging. Since Raphael-Leff ’s formulations, a number of empirical studies have broadly confirmed this grouping, both within and across cultures, and the clinical implications have begun to be investigated. For example, Sharp and Bramwell (2004) found, as predicted, that Regulator mothers, who seek to minimize the inevitable, substantial disruption to their lives brought about by pregnancy and early infant care, were more vulnerable than other women to becoming depressed in the early postnatal months. In a similar vein, other psychoanalytic researchers have sought to identify the different kinds of defense mechanisms that are used by mothers in response to pregnancy and the prospect of motherhood. In one study, Porcerelli, Huth-Bocks, Huprich, and Richardson (2016) used the Working Model of the Child Interview. Similar to the Adult Attachment Interview for assessing representations of the parenting one has received, this interview assesses parents’ representations of their infant, themselves as caregivers, and the parent-child relationship on a number of measures, including acceptance, coherence, and involvement, and classifies them as balanced, disengaged, or distorted. Porcerelli and colleagues applied the DSM-IV Defensive Functioning Scale to the resultant narratives, and found that mothers who used flexible prenatal defense mechanisms (including humor, anticipation, and suppression) had more secure relationships with their infant, and the children had 43

Lynne Murray et al.

better adjustment, than was the case for mothers who used rigid defenses like “disavowal,” even when taking important background factors into account.

Breakdown in Adjustment to Mothering It is clear from the different perspectives outlined earlier that psychological adjustment accompanying the transition to motherhood is highly variable, and it is by no means inevitable that it is smooth. Indeed, during pregnancy and after childbirth, a substantial number of women experience clinically significant anxiety and depression. In fact, the rate of depression is raised in the early months following childbirth relative to other periods in the lifespan, occurring in around 15% women in HICs and even more, around 30%, in LMICs (L. Murray, Halligan, and Cooper, 2018). Just as at other times across the life span, depression occurring after childbirth causes significant impairment in everyday functioning, being characterized by persistent low mood and loss of interest in aspects of experience that normally bring pleasure as well as a range of other symptoms (e.g., sleep disturbance not attributable simply to having an infant waking the mother, appetite loss, suicidal feelings and thoughts). Anxiety is rather less common than depression, but is nevertheless present in a significant minority (around 8% in Northern European and U.S. populations). The occurrence of maternal postnatal depression has been particularly extensively studied, and it is well established that social factors play a significant role. Key risks include, for example, conflict with the partner and lack of social support. The fact that rates are so much higher in LMICs compared with HICs also reflects the importance of background adversity and poverty. In summary, the evidence regarding the occurrence of depression, one of the most common disorders of early motherhood, shows that a positive transition to motherhood is a function not only of individual maternal characteristics, but also the economic and social conditions in which it takes place.

Effects of Mothering Having outlined some of the diverse experiences of mothers, we next consider the impact of mothering.The issue of the impact of mothering on child development has traditionally been approached in studies of the effects on children of its absence, or of relatively stark variations in its form. This work is important, both historically and scientifically, but it is also important to bear in mind when considering this evidence that the majority of studies, and particularly those on maternal “deprivation” have involved deprivation of a range of experiences, going far wider than the absence of mothering alone. Nevertheless, it remains striking that, even when physical care has been adequate, the effects of deprivation of close, consistent human contact are profound.

Maternal Deprivation Eight hundred years ago, Fredrick II, who was a German King, King of Sicily, and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, created an experiment in which he wanted to find out which language children would speak “naturally,” or on their own (Stone and Church, 1957). He ordered that a group of infants be taken from their mothers and cared for by foster mothers and nurses. These caregivers were told to feed, bathe, and see to the needs of these children, but no one was to speak to them in any language. He wondered which of the great languages the children would naturally speak: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, or the language of their birth parents. King Edward never found out which language the children would have spoken. Tragically, without adequate mothering the infants became withdrawn, depressed, and died (Stone and Church, 1957).

44

Mothering

Older Studies of Institutional Care At the turn of the 20th century, it was not uncommon for children to be placed in state-run institutions or foundling homes. During the early 1900s, several medical doctors looked into the extreme death rates that were occurring—between 90% and100%—in some of these institutions. They found that even the few children who survived early childhood in these homes developed delays and disturbances in the normal course of development. Rene Spitz, the Austrian-born doctor who settled in the United States, described these child survivors of institutions as “asocial, delinquent, feeble-minded, psychotic, or problem children . . . practically without exception,” and he related these findings to the lack of maternal nurturance (1945, p. 54). Wanting to understand what effects the lack of mothering would have, Spitz (1946) observed and recorded what happened to a group of 123 infants who were deprived of emotional and physical contact with others by virtue of their institutional environment. This environment provided these motherless infants with basic care, but very little human interaction. They existed in dimly lit, but clean and hygienic conditions. They had adequate food, appropriate clothing with pastel colors, blankets, and regular medical care. They initially had no toys, although this changed with time. The infants had little visual stimulation and, in fact, had sheets hanging in between the cribs or cots—essentially creating a “solitary confinement.” The infants also had minimal human contact, limited primarily to feeding times. Spitz observed these children to deteriorate over time and to develop a group of symptoms, which he later termed “Anaclitic Depression.” This syndrome includes symptoms of apprehension, sadness, weepiness, rejection of the environment, withdrawal, retardation of development and of reaction to stimuli, slowness of movement, dejection, stupor, food refusal, weight loss, and insomnia. He added that one more symptom should be included, although he found it difficult to describe. He portrayed it as a physiognomic expression, likening it to the expression in a depressed adult. In 1945, Spitz compared children who were confined to institutions with same-age children living with their parents in either an urban or rural area. The institutionalized children were the children of poor Latina women who did not have enough money to care for their infants. Their infants were generally healthy at first and were able to continue being breastfed. Nonetheless, they remained in an institutional setting. The other subgroup of institutionalized infants were the children of those whom Spitz termed “delinquent minors as a result of social maladjustment or feeblemindedness, or because they were psychically defective, psychopathic, or criminal” (p. 60). These mothers were prisoners in a penal institution. The infants of these women were weaned early but continued to receive care from their own mothers, with coaching from others. The Latina foundling infants, who had no maternal care, fared the worst. These infants experienced a drop in IQ from 124 to 72 over the first year (the other groups remained the same or improved) and fell to 45 by the end of the second year. In addition, Spitz found increased illness and infection rates in the foundling infants, high death rates, and developmental delays. Sadly, only 2 of 26 surviving 2.5-year-olds could speak a couple of words, most were unable to perform any self-care behaviors, and none had been toilet trained. Spitz argued that, even though the Latina infants had caregivers who were very sincere in their work with the children, the caregivers did not have the time or resources to adequately care for the infants. Essentially, he said, these infants were in “solitary confinement” as they rarely saw or interacted with a caregiver. Freud and Burlingham (1944), Provence and Lipton (1962), and Dennis (1973), who also studied institutionalized children deprived of a mothering relationship, all came to the same general conclusions—that, in spite of proper physical care, the lack of opportunity to bond emotionally with a “mother or mother-substitute” can lead to extreme forms of dysfunction in the child. For example,

45

Lynne Murray et al.

children without such maternal care often demonstrated decreased growth, delayed development, increased risk of psychiatric disturbances, increased levels of illness, and higher death rates.

Research Studies of Institutionalized Care Despite awareness of these early findings, institutional care is still shockingly prevalent. In 2010, more than 2 million children were known to be being reared in institutions (United Nations General Assembly, 2010), and this figure is likely a gross underestimation. Institutional care for young children is particularly common in Eastern Europe, Asia, Central and South America, Africa, and the Middle East (The St. Petersburg-USA Orphanage Research Team, 2008). It is by no means the case that all children reared in institutions are orphans; some children may have been removed from abusive families, and others are children of poor parents, including those who may believe that their offspring will have better prospects by being cared for in an institutional setting. Common features of institutional care still include a high child-to-staff ratio, poorly paid and trained staff, shift working and regimented, nonindividualized care, and a lack of psychological investment in the children. A number of controlled studies have been conducted to examine the effects of institutionalized care, and adverse impacts on every domain of child development have been identified (Dozier, Zeanah, Wallin, and Shauffer, 2012). Children from institutions in Romania, which were characterized by high degrees of emotional neglect, have been a focus of particular research attention. In one set of studies, assessments were made of children who were adopted from Romania into homes in the United Kingdom, and compared with children adopted from within the United Kingdom. In this study, institutional deprivation beyond the first 6 months of age was associated with a combination of autism spectrum disorder, indiscriminate sociability, cognitive impairment, and inattention/over activity and, despite an adequate diet, a major impairment in head growth. These effects were as strong in adolescence as they had been in early childhood. Furthermore, by adulthood, emotional problems (anxiety and low mood) had also begun to emerge (Kennedy et al., 2016; Sonuga-Barke et al., 2017), although the earlier cognitive impairments had gradually resolved. Notably, children who were adopted before 6 months developed similarly to U.K. adopted children and, even within the group who were later adopted, a substantial minority (a fifth) showed no signs of impairment from the age of 6 years onward. The reasons why a minority of child appear resilient in the face of institutional deprivation are not well understood, and further research on this topic is required. In another, particularly well-controlled, study of Romanian orphans, Zeanah, Humphreys, Fox, and Nelson (2017) compared children who stayed in institutions with both those who were noninstitutionalized family-reared Romanian children, and children from institutions who were randomized between 6 and 33 months of age to receive foster care. At 12 years, children exposed to prolonged institutional care (i.e., not receiving foster care until at least 18–24 months) showed particularly clear signs of difficulties, including social communication problems, low IQ and impaired executive function, more internalizing symptoms associated with insecure attachment (particularly of the disorganized kind), and blunted responses to stress. A finding of particular note was that, despite a change in the nurturing environment, early deprivation affected children’s neurobiological trajectories, including decreased brain circuitry and activity (low white matter volume, more slow-frequency theta activity compared with more mature high-frequency alpha/beta waves). In summary, both sets of Romanian studies suggest that institutional care up to only 6 months is likely to have no major adverse impact on child development. Beyond this time, however, and particularly where institutional care lasts more than 24 months, there is a stepwise impact of the duration of institutionalization, with large, long-lasting, adverse effects across a range of developmental domains, with psychopathology showing the least benefit of subsequent foster care.

46

Mothering

Deprivation of Night-Time Maternal Care Another way in which researchers have examined the impact of an absence of maternal care has been to study children reared in the kibbutzim system in Israel. Under this system, which lasted for more than 70 years, many children slept at night in communal, group settings, where deliberate regular changes of staff were implemented. Not only, therefore, did they experience parental non-accessibility and nonavailability at night, they were also exposed to inconsistent care by unfamiliar adults. Even though daytime contact with parents was available, those children experiencing the communal kibbutzim night-time regime were more likely to be insecurely attached than children in kibbutzim who slept with their families (Aviezer, Sagi, and van IJzendoorn, 2002; Sagi, van IJzendoorn, Aviezer, Konnell, and Mayseless, 1994). Remarkably, some 60 years later, some of these individuals were reported to be unable to recall any significant memories of their parents (Tikotzky, Sharabany, Hirsch, and Sadeh, 2010). For secure attachment, at least, then, it appears that children need regular access to their parents at times when they may be more vulnerable, as at night time.

Effects of Different Aspects of Mothering Behavior In 1951, in a postwar world where so many children had lost their parents, the World Health Organization gave the U.K. psychoanalyst John Bowlby the task of exploring the needs of orphaned or homeless children. In understanding these children, he determined that what is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute—one person who steadily mothers him) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment. It is this complex, rich, and rewarding relationship with the mother in early years. . . [that we] now believe to underlie the development of character and mental health. (Bowlby, 1953, p. 11) While the importance of close, consistent, parental care is dramatically shown in studies of the effects of its total absence (as in institutionalization), or absence during key times of need for closeness (as in kibbutzim), most research demonstrating the effects of mothering per se have been conducted with children living in the family context. This research, in large measure generated by Bowlby’s statement, has supported the idea that our mothering is important in who we become as individuals, and it has consistently shown that, even for young children receiving care from other sources, an overwhelming influence on their development is the quality of the mother-child relationship, outweighing, for example, both the effects of the amount of time in, and the quality of, day care (Lamb and Ahnert, 2006; NICHD, 2002). Two key conclusions emerge from decades of research into mother-child relationships and their association with aspects of child development. First, it is clear that mother-child relationships are not unidirectional, with all the effect being from mother to child. The temperament and behavior of young infants exert an active impact on parental experience, with some infants being placid and easy to care for, and engaging positively with others from their first days, whereas others are far more reactive to their environment and may become more easily and intensely distressed (Belsky and Pluess, 2009). In addition to their psychological characteristics, physical differences between infants can also affect parental responses. The minor structural abnormality of a cleft lip, for example, appears to interfere with the normal, intuitive parenting brain responses to infant, as compared with adult, faces (Parsons et al., 2013) as well as maternal gaze and behavior during social interactions with the infant (De Pascalis et al., 2017; Murray et al., in press). Thus, infant differences have an important influence

47

Lynne Murray et al.

on how other people respond to the child, and, as noted earlier, can even affect the risk that a mother may become depressed (L. Murray, Stanley et al., 1996). In such ways, therefore, child characteristics contribute to the nature of the child’s own rearing environment. The second key conclusion to emerge from research is that mothering skills are not unidimensional— it is not just a matter of the extent to which mothers show some generic quality, such as being “loving” or even “sensitive” that affects child development. Although no one would advocate not being sensitive toward their infant or child, the usefulness of such a general term is rather limited. Instead, what has emerged from research is that different kinds of parental responsiveness, all of which might be termed “sensitive,” are associated with different developmental outcomes in the child (L. Murray et al., 2006). Thus, parenting is viewed as multifaceted, with its precise characteristics varying according to the domain of child development and the age of the child, with each of its different characteristics having a differing impact on the child, that is, a “specificity of effects” (Bornstein, 2019; L. Murray, 2014). Ahead, we consider the specificity of effects of maternal behavior, and outline the key facets of mothering that research has shown are associated with good child functioning in four distinct domains of development—social relationships and social understanding, security of attachment, emotion regulation, and cognitive functioning—and we illustrate their effects from research on both nonclinical populations, and in clinical samples with particular reference to maternal depression. As noted in our introduction, we focus on the evidence concerning effects of mothering in the first 2 years. In fact, although we use the term “mothering,” on which the great majority of studies have focused, the same relationships between the form of care and child functioning would apply regardless of the identity of the carer. (For characteristics of care by fathers that are distinctive from that of mothers, see Parke and Cookston, 2019.)

Maternal Behavior That Promotes Child Social Understanding Important developments in social understanding take place over the first 2 years. These include the acquisition of an awareness of “self,” as reflected in the ability of infants around 1.5 years old, at least in research in HICs, to start to recognize their reflection in a mirror as an image of themselves. A second, related, development within the first 2 years is acquiring an implicit sense of others’ experience. This begins with the child’s capacity to apprehend the correspondence between their own and someone else’s experience, and then develops as the capacity to realize that other people can have a different perspective on the world from our own. This latter capacity then develops, by 3 years, as a conscious, explicit knowledge, or representation, of others’ mental states—having a “Theory of Mind” (ToM)— a capacity that is a good predictor of children’s peer relationships and social adjustment. A third, and fundamental, aspect of social understanding that develops within the same period is the ability to cooperate with other people. A number of specific parenting behaviors have been shown to support these various aspects of social development. The first concerns the way in which mothers engage with their infants during face-to-face interactions during the first few postpartum weeks. This is a period that has been considered almost purely social, or “intersubjective” (Trevarthen, 1979). During these early weeks, infants do not have independent mobility, or the manual control to reach out and grasp or manipulate objects, and their vision is limited. Their interest is, therefore, predominantly focused on their immediate environment, and they are particularly sensitive to social stimuli, for example, showing a preference for the sound of the human voice over other sounds, and the appearance of faces over other visual stimuli. These natural propensities of infants to be drawn to other people is matched by adults’ attraction to the Kindchenschema, or baby schema (the facial features of newborns across mammalian species, including large eyes and full cheeks). This attraction response is held to occur out of

48

Mothering

conscious awareness, and to facilitate the parent’s care for their infant (Lorenz, 1971; Papousek and Papousek, 1987), and it is in line with the distinctive neurological activation provoked in adults when viewing infant, as opposed to adult, facial stimuli (Parsons, Young, Murray, Stein, and Kringelbach, 2010). The mutual “social fittedness” of infant and mother that is reflected in their perceptual preferences has been shown to extend to complex behavioral responses during early face-to-face engagements. Thus, within the first 2 months, infants, although helpless in many ways, nevertheless develop a rich repertoire of communicative expressions and gestures that they show while face-to-face with an attentive, responsive adult partner. As well as different emotional expressions, these infant behaviors include positive vocalizations, active movements of lip and tongue, and wide-open shapings of the mouth that have, collectively, been termed “prespeech” (Trevarthen, 1979), and that mothers perceive as the infant’s attempts to be social (L. Murray et al., 2017). On the parent’s side, mothers intuitively place their face in the infant’s mid-line, and at a distance that is in line with infant visual capacities. Furthermore, they modify their voice, changing from the speech register used to converse with adults to adopt what is referred to as “motherese” or “parentese.” As with their adjustment to the infant’s visual preferences, the speech changes made by mothers when they talk to their infants match infant auditory preferences, with speech becoming simplified, slower, and with an overall higher pitch frequency, and clear modulations of intonation contours that attract, and sustain, the infant’s attention. In terms of social responsiveness, mothers react moment by moment to the infant’s facial and vocal displays during interactions in the first 2 or 3 months in highly structured ways, showing different forms of response to the different infant expressions, such that the joint behavior of the two interactants has been described as reflecting a “functional architecture” of early mother-infant communication (L. Murray, De Pascalis et al., 2016). In a detailed U.K. study of video-recorded mother-infant interactions conducted on five occasions in mothers’ homes over the first 9 weeks of life, Murray and colleagues showed two forms of maternal response to be particularly important for infant social development (L. Murray, De Pascalis et al., 2016). One is “positive marking”: This behavior is selectively deployed by mothers in response to infant social expressions (as opposed, for example, to biological events, such as sneezes, or to negative facial expressions), and it serves to emphasize them and mark them out as significant. Positive marking typically combines strong, highly visible, signals, including eyebrow flashing, head nodding, and smiling, and its occurrence not only encourages positive infant engagement during the current interaction, but also predicts a significant increase in infant social expressiveness over time (L. Murray, De Pascalis et al., 2016). The second, key, maternal behavior shown during early social interactions is “mirroring,” whereby the mother follows on the infant’s behavior by clearly imitating it (Lavelli and Fogel, 2013; L. Murray, De Pascalis et al., 2016). To a greater extent, even, than positive marking, mothers selectively use mirroring to respond to infant social, as opposed to nonsocial, facial and vocal signals, and this maternal behavior has an even greater positive impact than marking on the development of infant social expressiveness over the subsequent weeks (L. Murray, De Pascalis et al., 2016). Notably, this study found that mothers’ simple “contingent responsiveness,” even when occurring in the context of infant social expressions, conferred no benefit to infant social development, in contrast to the role played by mirroring. The specific benefit to infant social development conferred by maternal mirroring is likely rooted in the infant’s capacity, from the neonatal period, to detect the correspondence between their own actions and those of other people, as evidenced, for example, in neonates’ imitation of others’ facial gestures, such as tongue protrusion (Meltzoff et al., 2017; Simpson, Murray, Paukner, and Ferrari, 2014). This ability appears to be based on the operation of the “mirror neuron system,” a well-established neural mechanism, demonstrated even in neonates in nonhuman primate research, to map observed and executed gestures (Ferrari et al., 2012). The fundamental importance

49

Lynne Murray et al.

of early maternal mirroring for longer term infant social development and understanding has been shown by Rayson, Bonaiuto, Ferrari, and Murray (2017), who found that infants of mothers who showed high, as opposed to low, rates of mirroring of infant social expressions during interactions in the first 2 months postpartum showed more neurological activation indicative of mirror neuron system involvement (mu suppression in EEG responses) to facial displays of emotion at 9 months postpartum, suggesting that early maternal mirroring improved the infant’s later capacity to process others’ emotions. Importantly, even though mirroring seems likely to be a core aspect of early maternal responsiveness, it does not invariably occur, and its expression can be affected by maternal mental state. Depressed mothers, for example, were found in a U.K. study (the Cambridge Longitudinal Study by Murray and colleagues) to be more likely than non-affected mothers to show heightened mirroring of infant negative, but not positive, infant expressions (L. Murray, Fiori-Cowley, Hooper, and Cooper, 1996). Cross-cultural studies have also shown variability in maternal mirroring, and these differences have also been important in elucidating the role of mirroring in child social development. Thus, despite common levels of general responsiveness between cultures, there are systematic differences in maternal mirroring behavior, with societies where affiliation, rather than individuation, is valued favoring the use of affectionate touch, rather than facial mirroring, to respond to the infant during early social interactions. In turn, these differences are associated with cultural differences in child social development. One study showed, for example, that the lower rates of early maternal mirroring of infant facial cues in the first few weeks characteristic of a rural African society, compared with a German society, predicted less awareness in the African children of their identity in the mirror in later infancy, suggesting they had developed a less individuated sense of self (Keller, Kartner, Borke, Yovsi, and Kleis, 2005). Other parenting practices that are important in influencing the development of social understanding include “pretend” play (Bornstein, 2007;Youngblade and Dunn, 1995). Thus, games where the mother helps the infant think about others’ experiences, for example, in a pretend meal in which the infant is encouraged to wonder whether their teddy is hungry, or whether the toy food might be too hot for him to eat, predict better child ToM abilities. Parental talk to their children about mental states and emotions in everyday conversations also helps children develop the ability to understand other people and their feelings. One particularly good medium for this kind of talk is sharing picture books with suitable content (i.e., including characters with different experiences and feelings; Fletcher and Reese, 2005). In this context, time can be taken to reflect on what is happening in the story narrative, and different points of view can be discussed; this is likely to be easier to achieve during book-sharing than in the hurly burly of real-life encounters, where emotions may be running high and render reflection more difficult. Indeed, evidence shows that parents are more likely to talk about mental states and emotions when sharing picture books with small children than in other contexts, and that such talk is a good predictor of children’s later theory of mind and social relationships, including cooperation.

Maternal Behavior That Promotes Child Emotion Regulation and Self-Control Acquiring the ability to manage difficult emotions and exercise self-control is one of the greatest challenges for children in their first 2 years, and problems with regulating behavior in early childhood are common:The Copenhagen Child Cohort Study of over 6,000 children, for example, found significant problems in 18% of 1.5-year-olds (Skovgaard, 2010). Although there are individual differences in child temperament that influence this process, parents can make a significant difference to how well the child becomes able to manage difficult experiences and emotions. This is particularly

50

Mothering

relevant to managing aggression, but also to normal developmental challenges, such as managing to get off to sleep without difficulty and without requiring a great deal of parental support. With regard to aggression, humans are typically at their most aggressive around the age of 2, and then the level typically declines, as children develop strategies for managing frustration and anger. For a minority, however, aggressive behavior becomes established in a pervasive and persistent pattern (i.e., the child is frequently angry, across contexts, and this behavior persists over time), and longitudinal studies show that this early pattern of pervasive and persistent aggression is associated with the development of significant problems, with risk for violent and antisocial behavior in later life being much increased (Tremblay, Hartup, and Archer, 2005). One longitudinal New Zealand study found, for example, that the small proportion of children (22%) whose behavior was rated as showing poor control (emotionally reactive and negative, and oppositional) at 3 years accounted for over 80% of violent crime in the population in adulthood (Caspi et al., 2016). As with the development of social understanding, longitudinal research shows that specific aspects of parenting reduce the risk that emotion regulation difficulties and pervasive and persistent aggression will develop. In the early weeks, physical holding, including rocking, stroking, and close containment, is the most appropriate way of supporting a distressed infant (Bornstein et al., 2017), and these maternal behaviors reduce the infant’s physiological stress. With increased age, however, more opportunities are available for parents to support the infant’s own capacities to deal with difficulties. One aspect of early social interactions that may be particularly effective has been highlighted by Tronick and colleagues as the “mismatch-repair” process (Tronick and Gianino, 1986). Like Winnicott, Tronick drew attention to the fact that parental responsiveness is not perfect, and indeed, that being “good-enough,” rather than perfect, has important advantages for the infant (Bornstein and Manian, 2013). For example, infants may increase their own capacity to recover from dysregulated states if, following difficult interactive moments, maternal support is provided that helps the infant recover, with prospective studies showing that sensitive “repairs” to the normal mis-attunements that inevitably occur during social interactions predict better infant regulation in the face of more significant challenges (Gunning, Halligan, and Murray, 2013; Halligan, Murray, Cooper,Wheeler, and Crosby, 2013). Later in development, playful interactions between infants and their mothers typically become more physically boisterous. This additional dimension gives infants the opportunity to experience extreme feelings- of excitement, surprise, and so forth within the containment of a safe affectionate relationship. As this kind of play develops through the second year (albeit more often with fathers), infants are able to learn more about their potentially aggressive feelings and how to manage them without harming their parent. When infants experience this kind of play, it can benefit their relationships with other children, helping them to manage aggression in this context, too (Peterson and Flanders, 2005). How mothers handle conflicts with their infant and young child is particularly important in preventing normal early aggression becoming settled into a difficult pattern of behavior; indeed, a certain pattern of parenting problems in the child’s early years is consistently highlighted as a key risk mechanism in the development of persistent antisocial behavior and aggression (Moffitt and Caspi, 2001) as well as subsequent violence (J. Murray, Anselmi, Gallo, Fleitlich-Bilyk, and Bordin, 2013). Meta-analyses show the particular importance of the occurrence of harsh and coercive parenting behavior (Gershoff, 2002; Rothbaum and Weisz, 1994), with genetically sensitive studies providing strong evidence that the association between harsh and coercive parenting and child antisocial behavior is causal (Jaffee, Strait, and Odgers, 2012). Corporal punishment of children is especially important in the development of child aggressive and antisocial behavior, with effect sizes of d = .36 and d = .42, respectively (Gershoff, 2002) across a range of surveys. A further key aspect of parenting implicated in child aggressive behavior is inconsistency: If the mother at first says “no” to the infant’s angry demands,

51

Lynne Murray et al.

and then relents when the infant’s anger escalates, this reinforces the infant’s aggression. Similarly, if the mother attempts to get the infant to do something and the child becomes angry and the mother gives up, this may also reinforce infant anger. By contrast, if parents are consistent without being authoritarian, that is, imposing their will by harsh, forceful means, but rather achieve a balance of being firm but warm, child aggressive behavior problems are less likely to develop. Other positive behaviors that can help reduce risk for aggression include the provision of routines, as this is something that can help infants feel that their world is reliable, and this can help them tolerate frustrations and delays. Parents’ use of praise, encouragement, and demonstrations of affection toward their infant also protect against later child regulatory problems such as disruptive behavior and substance abuse (Kumpfer and Bluth, 2004). Finally, parents’ building on developments in their infant’s social understanding through the second year, and supporting their motivation to cooperate, can promote prosocial, rather than oppositional, behavior. Although many aspects of maternal care that are relevant to aggression are particularly clear throughout the second year, difficult patterns of relating that can underlie such problems can occur even in the early months. These difficult patterns are particularly likely in clinical contexts such as maternal depression, where the irritability and anger that often accompanies the disorder can extend into early mother-infant contacts. The Cambridge Longitudinal Study found, for example, that postnatally depressed mothers were likely to show hostility toward their infants, even at 2 months postpartum. Although this did not affect the infants’ responses to other people at the time, by just 4 months, the infants had become more emotionally dysregulated, a pattern that persisted and, in turn, provoked increased maternal negativity, such that by 5 years, a vicious cycle of negative, coercive parenting, together with child conduct problems, had developed (Morrell and Murray, 2003).

Maternal Behavior That Promotes the Development of Child Secure Attachment The period from around 6 months, when an awareness of dependency on other people emerges, through to 2 years, is when infants typically develop strong feelings of attachment to the particular individuals who are involved in caring for them.The main distinction in attachment quality is that between infants who are “securely” attached to their mother or other carer, and those who are “insecurely” attached. The provision of care and sensitive maternal responsiveness is particularly important for the development of a secure attachment in situations where the infant is vulnerable, for example, when ill, frightened, or distressed. Accordingly, simply observing a mother and infant during play may not be so informative about how well the mother can meet her infant’s attachment needs (McElwain and Booth-LaForce, 2006). Studies have also shown that aside from behaving sensitively to the infant’s needs in distressing circumstances, the mother’s ability to show the infant or young child that she understands how the child feels is important for secure attachments to develop, a capacity sometimes referred to as “reflective functioning” (Koren-Karie, Oppenheim, Dolev, Sher, and Etzion-Carasso, 2002). (For a full account of parenting and attachment, see Cummings and Warmuth, 2019.) Of all the developments in infant behavior studied in the first 2 years, attachment quality is one of the strongest predictors of later adjustment, and it is particularly relevant to the older child’s, adolescent’s, and even adult’s close, intimate relationships. Some research has also found that the lack of a secure attachment in late infancy can pose a risk for the development of affective disorder. Insecure attachment is more common in infants of mothers who are postnatally depressed (Martins and Gaffan, 2000), and the Cambridge Longitudinal Study found, for example, that insecurity in infants of postnatally depressed mothers was associated with poor “ego resilience” in early childhood (manifest in poor coping with a mild challenge), and this child vulnerability, in turn, increased the risk for depression in adolescence (L. Murray et al., 2011).

52

Mothering

Maternal Behavior That Promotes Child Cognitive Development Just as each of the three domains of development outlined earlier is facilitated by specific kinds of maternal care, so infant cognitive development is more likely to flourish when particular forms of maternal support are available. Sensing “contingencies” between one’s own actions and external events is a basic building block of learning and, in fact, infants do much to advance their own cognitive development, as they work at exploring the links between their own actions and what happens around them. Nevertheless, one of the best sources of contingent information for infants is others’ social responsiveness. During face-to-face interactions in the first few months, mothers’ responses to infant social cues enable infants to learn about links between their own actions and other events (Stanley, Murray, and Stein, 2004). The impact of maternal responsiveness is well demonstrated in studies that experimentally disrupt it—for example, when the mother stops responding and adopts a still face (Mesman, van IJzendoorn, and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009), or when their responses are made noncontingent via replayed video sequences (L. Murray and Trevarthen, 1985). These studies show that the infant’s attention and affect are quickly disturbed by such disruptions, and the infant typically becomes withdrawn from the environment and self-absorbed, thereby reducing the cognitive stimulation available to them and opportunities for learning. Aside from the early patterns of contingent face-to-face responsiveness, mothers continue to support infant cognitive development with specific forms of support. A key behavior is “scaffolding” (Vygotsky, 1978). This comprises the facilitation of infants’ exploration and mastery of the world by providing support that is pitched just at the limits of their capacity and that allows them to progress to the next step. A particularly effective way of supporting cognitive development, and especially language, is through responsive “book-sharing,” when mothers indicate and label the book contents, elaborate on them, and draw infants into active two-way exchanges (Fletcher and Reese, 2005; L. Murray, De Pascalis, Tomlinson et al., 2016). If mothers are unable to provide these kinds of input, and their interactions with infants are disrupted, for example, by clinical conditions such as depression, then the impact on child cognitive development can be far reaching (L. Murray, Halligan, and Cooper, 2018). The Cambridge Longitudinal Study found, for example, that boy infants of depressed mothers were likely to experience particularly low levels of responsiveness during interactions in the first few months (L. Murray, Kempton, Woolgar, and Hooper, 1993). Notably, these difficulties were predictive of poorer IQ scores in late infancy and early childhood (L. Murray, Fiori-Cowley et al., 1996; L. Murray, Hipwell, Hooper, Stein, and Cooper, 1996) that, in turn, were associated with poorer exam results even at 16 years of age (L. Murray et al., 2010).

Interventions for Difficulties in Mothering In view of the consistent associations found between parenting and children’s development, together with the evidence that many long-term child problems often have early origins and incur considerable economic burden to society, an important issue is whether aspects of the experience of motherhood and of mothering behaviors that pose risk for adverse child outcome can be improved by intervention. A comprehensive account of parenting interventions is provided by Powell (2019). Here, we focus on two particular topics: First, given that maternal postnatal depression is associated with a range of problems in child development, we consider the evidence for the efficacy of interventions for postnatally depressed mothers in preventing poor child functioning. Second, we consider the implications for interventions of the evidence for the specificity of effects of different parenting dimensions on different child outcomes.

53

Lynne Murray et al.

Interventions for Postnatal Depression The negative effects of maternal postnatal depression on child development are particularly marked when the depression persists beyond the first few months postpartum, when the mood disturbance tends to be severe—a course that applies to about one third of women who experience postnatal depression. For example, one U.K. study of a large community sample of mothers followed up from pregnancy showed that those who had postnatal depression that persisted through the first 8 months after childbirth were likely to have elevated symptoms of depression over the subsequent 11 years; further, when such persistent postnatal depression was severe, it substantially increased the risk for a range of child difficulties, including behavior problems in the preschool years, poorer grades in math at 16 years, and the occurrence of depression in adolescence (Netsi et al., 2018). It is unfortunate, therefore, that treatment trials that have aimed to alleviate maternal postnatal depression and, in some cases, also mother-infant interaction difficulties and child outcomes associated with the disorder, have rarely targeted these more prolonged and, therefore, more severe, postnatal depressions. Instead, they have typically evaluated relatively brief interventions delivered in the early postnatal months, and the results have been disappointing. Thus, although such interventions, including a range of different psychotherapeutic approaches, do help resolve mothers’ depressed mood, they are only moderately effective; and the scant evidence available on longer term outcome fails to show enduring benefits to either maternal mood or child development. Similarly, although some interventions focusing on the early difficulties in mother-infant interactions, rather than the depression itself, have shown short-term benefits, the few studies regarding child outcome beyond late infancy have had negative findings (see L. Murray et al., 2018 for a review). These findings from studies in HICs also apply to LMICs (where there is a similar adverse effect of postnatal depression on child development (Black et al., 2007; Cooper et al., 1999; Tomlinson, Cooper, and Murray, 2005), with studies showing that although short-term benefits can be achieved by psychological intervention (Rahman, Mali, Sikander, Roberts, and Creed, 2008), they are not sustained (Maselko et al., 2015). In the light of the largely negative evidence concerning interventions that have mostly been brief, and that have been conducted in the early postnatal months, it seems reasonable to conclude that, for both maternal depression and child outcome, more intensive treatments that continue beyond the first few postnatal months might be required in order to bring about sustained benefits.This may be because mothers are otherwise likely to relapse, and particularly if such relapse occurs during the period up to 2–3 years postpartum when the child’s developmental trajectory is still stabilizing, the maternal depression may still carry substantial risk to the child. This suggestion is supported by the contrasting, positive findings of intervention studies involving more intensive treatment and continued into the child’s second year, conducted by Cicchetti and Toth and colleagues in the United States (Cicchetti, Rogosch, and Toth, 2000;Toth, Rogosch, Manly, and Cicchetti, 2006), and by Stein and colleagues in the United Kingdom (Stein et al., 2018). In the former, mothers who had been depressed in the first postpartum year received prolonged toddler-parent psychotherapy (average 57 weeks), starting on average at 20 months. The intervention, which focused on promoting positive maternal attachment representations and mother-infant interactions, showed significant benefits in terms of both child cognition and attachment relative to a non-treated control group. In the U.K. study, mothers with persistent postnatal depression identified around 6 months postnatally received an intensive intervention of 11, 90-minute sessions lasting through the remainder of the first year, followed by two booster sessions in the child’s second year. The intervention was delivered in mothers’ homes, and it comprised Cognitive Behavior Therapy, specifically adapted to the postnatal period, together with either Video-Feedback Treatment focusing on the mother-infant relationship or else Progressive Muscle Relaxation. At 2 years, over 80% mothers in both groups were free from depression, and the children’s outcome in both groups was in line with local population norms on measures of behavior problems, attachment security, and cognitive 54

Mothering

development.Together, these studies suggest that tackling postnatal depression and its associated parenting problems may be effective in preventing adverse child outcome as long as treatments are sufficiently intensive and rigorous to resolve the core difficulty.

Implications of the Specificity of Parenting Effects for Interventions The evidence that particular aspects of parenting are associated with different child outcomes can be harnessed in delivering successful interventions, and can also potentially help explain why some interventions are not successful. By way of illustration, we consider two interventions delivered to mothers of children under 2 years old in a LMIC, South Africa. Initial epidemiological work in a poor, peri-urban community near Cape Town had shown the rate of insecure infant attachment to be high (Tomlinson et al., 2005), as was the rate of maternal depression and difficulties in motherinfant interactions (Cooper et al., 1999). Accordingly, an intervention, “Thula Sana,” was subsequently mounted in this same community that was designed to address the precursors of insecure attachment (Cooper et al., 2009). Mothers were identified in pregnancy and randomized to receive either routine health services care, or else a home visiting program from late pregnancy through to 6 months postpartum, delivered by local trained community workers. The intervention included nondirective counseling and specific support for the mother’s management of attachment-relevant infant behavior. This support included encouraging the mother to think of her infant as a sentient individual with the motivation and capacity to communicate, and helping her to handle distressed or difficult infant behavior sensitively: At 18 months, infants whose mothers had received the intervention were significantly more likely than the control infants to be securely attached. Nonetheless, in spite of the positive benefits to attachment of the Thula Sana intervention, there were no gains in terms of infant cognitive development, with the IQ of both groups of infants being only 85, and, notably, there was no association between the infants’ security/insecurity of attachment and their IQ (L. Murray, Cooper, et al., 2016). Considering the principle of specificity of parenting effects, the negative results from Thula Sana concerning infant IQ are not altogether surprising: The intervention had targeted parenting practices of particular relevance to attachment, but there had been no support for infant cognitive exploration or mastery of their environment. In fact, cognitive failure is a pressing problem in the South African context, with a recent review, for example, showing the country to be bottom of the international league table in terms of literacy (Twist, 2007). A further intervention was, therefore, implemented that focused on providing mothers with specific tools to support their infants’ cognitive functioning, and particularly their language and attention. On the basis of the evidence from observational studies (Fletcher and Reese, 2005), together with results of a small number of trials in HICs in which parents had been trained in “dialogic reading” (Whitehurst et al., 1994), a supportive book-sharing program was developed for the South Africa peri-urban context. Parents of 1.5-year-old infants, who had almost invariably not had any experience of sharing books with their infants before, attended weekly sessions in small groups over a period of 6 weeks, during which a local trained facilitator instructed them, using slideshow presentations with accompanying video examples, in good book-sharing practices. These included following the infant’s interest, pointing to and naming elements of the pictures, elaborating on the content and linking it to the infant’s own experience, and seeking to draw the infant into an active, two-way engagement. Both an initial pilot trial (Cooper et al., 2014) and a full randomized controlled trial (Vally, Murray, Tomlinson, and Cooper, 2015) showed substantial benefits of the program to infant language and attention that were mediated by improvements in parental book-sharing (L. Murray, De Pascalis, Tomlinson et al., 2016). A recent review confirms the generality of these positive effects of book-sharing training on child language development, but also, and as with interventions for postnatal depression, highlights the 55

Lynne Murray et al.

importance of providing an intervention that is more intensive if benefits are to be obtained (Dowdall et al., 2018). The examples concerning interventions for mothers and for mothering, drawn from a wide range of populations, are encouraging on a number of fronts. With regard to postnatal depression, even in the context of persistent episodes with relatively severe symptoms and associated difficulties in the mother-infant relationship, psychological treatments can be highly effective if delivered intensively during the period when the child is developing core skills. Support for mothering delivered by trained community workers in LMIC contexts can also be highly effective, and benefits to different child outcomes can be enhanced when programs integrate evidence from developmental psychology concerning the specificity of parenting effects.

Conclusions Models of motherhood have undergone significant changes over the decades, with increasing acknowledgment of its complexity and of the lack of uniformity in the way different mothers adapt. A common theme to emerge is that better adjustment involves taking on board the complexities of the experience, and finding the means to face and resolve the inevitable emotional demands and life changes that follow the transition to motherhood. This is not just an individual matter, however, but is influenced by the woman’s network of social relationships and by wider societal structures. Studies of the impact of mothering on child development have often drawn on research concerning severe deprivation, as occurs in some notable examples of institutional care, where profound and long-lasting effects have been demonstrated. Caution is required, however, in equating such conditions with the absence of mothering, because in most studies of this kind, institutional deprivation has been pervasive. The impact of mothering has also been informed by studying not only the effects of clinical disorders (e.g., maternal depression), where parenting can often be impaired but also variation within typical samples. These studies show that the nature of mothering is not simply a function of the mother herself, but is a two-way process to which children actively contribute. It is also evident that mothering is not unidimensional, and subsumed under some generic quality such as “sensitivity,” but is multifaceted, with distinctive parenting practices being associated with different dimensions of child developmental outcome. For a number of reasons, this chapter has focused on mothering during the first 2 years. This is a time when maternal care may be particularly important, as it is a period when the foundations of core capacities that underlie later child functioning are laid. Nevertheless, mother-child relationships do, of course, continue, and although the same dimensions of support for social and cognitive development and for attachment and emotion regulation still apply, the way in which they play out necessarily involves important shifts and changes in their patterns. For example, in the United States and many European societies, mothers will, with the preschool years, increase the degree of autonomy they allow their children; in the school years, they will generally play a critical role in supporting their child’s peer relationships; the child in middle school will need more support from mother to become self-reliant; the preteen years require mothers to support their children taking appropriate risks that will help prepare them for achieving individuation into adulthood; and in adolescence, mothers will give their children guidance in finding resources, and will increasingly negotiate consequences and responsibilities in relation to the young person’s behavior (Barnard and Solchany, 2002). Notwithstanding such changes, as children grow up and eventually leave home, mothers still typically remain significant people in their children’s lives. This enduring significance is particularly likely to be the case when mothers become grandmothers, when their support may become important in new ways (Smith and Wild, 2019), and mothers are also likely to be particularly significant to their children, when, in time, the tables may turn, and offspring may become engaged in the support and care of their aging and dependent parents (Fingerman, Kim, Tennant, Birditt, and Zarit, 2016). 56

Mothering

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Kirsten Arendse for her helpful comments on the manuscript, and Joan RaphaelLeff and Arietta Slade for sharing their latest work on mothering with us.

References Aviezer, O., Sagi, A., and van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2002). Balancing the family and the collective in raising Kibbutz children: Why the communal sleeping experiment was predestined to fail. Family Process, 41,435–454. Balint, A. (1939). Love for the mother and mother love. In M. Balint (Ed.). (1985). Primary love and psychoanalytic technique (pp. 91–108). London: Maresfield Press. Barclay, L., Everitt, L., Rogan, F., Schmied,V., and Wyllie, A. (1997). Becoming a mother—an analysis of women’s experience of early motherhood. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 719–728. Barnard, K. E., and Solchany, J. E. (2002). Mothering. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., p. 3–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bassin, D., Honey, M., and Kaplan, M. M. (1994). Introduction. In D. Bassin, M. Honey, and M. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Representations of motherhood (pp. 1–25) New Haven, CT:Yale University. Belsky, J., and Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. Benedek, T. (1959). Parenthood as a developmental phase: A contribution to the libido theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 379–417. Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love: Feminism, psychoanalysis, and the problem of domination. New York: Pantheon. Black, M. M., Baqui, A. H., Zaman, K., McNary, S. W., Le, K., Arifeen, S. E., Hamadani, J. D., Parveen, M.,Yunus, M. D., and Black, R. E. (2007). Depressive symptoms among rural Bangladeshi mothers: Implications for infant development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), 764–772. Bornstein, M. H. (2007). On the significance of social relationships in the development of children’s earliest symbolic play: An ecological perspective. In A. Gönçü and S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives (pp. 101–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Children’s parents. In M. H. Bornstein and T. Leventhal (Eds.), Editor-in-Chief: R. M. Lerner. Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems. Vol. 4 of the handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 55–132). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bornstein, M. (2019). Parenting infants. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 1: Children and parenting (3rd ed., pp. 3–55). New York, NY: Routledge. Bornstein, M. H., Arterberry, M. E., and Nash, C. (2013). Differentiated brain activity in response to faces of “own” versus “unfamiliar” babies in primipara mothers: An electrophysiological study, Developmental Neuropsychology, 38(6), 365–385. Bornstein, M. H., and Manian, N. (2013). Maternal responsiveness and sensitivity reconsidered: Some is more. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 957–971. Bornstein, M. H., and Putnick, D. L. (2007). Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers: A multivariate study of parenting Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 850–864. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Suwalsky, J.T. D., and Gini, M. (2006). Maternal chronological age, prenatal and perinatal history, social support, and parenting of infants. Child Development, 4, 875–892. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Rigo, P., Esposito, G., Swain, Suwalsky, J.T. D., Sue, X., Due, X., Zhang, K., Cote, L. R., De Pisapia, N., and Venuti, P. (2017). Neurobiology of culturally common maternal responses to infant cry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(45), E9465–E9473. Bowlby, J. (1953). Childcare and the growth of love. Great Britain: Penguin Books. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Harrington, H., Hogan, S., Ramrakha, S., Poulton, R., and Moffitt, T. E. (2016). Childhood forecasting of a small segment of the population with large economic burden Nature Human Behaviour, 1. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0005 Chodorow, N. J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press. Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., and Toth, SL. (2000). The efficacy of toddler-parent psychotherapy for fostering cognitive development in offspring of depressed mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 135–148. Cleary-Goldman, J., Malone, F. D.,Vidaver, J., Ball, R. H., Nyberg, D. A., Comstock, C. H., Saade, G., Eddleman, K. A., Klugman, S., Dugoff, L.,Timor-Tritsch, I. E., Craigo, S. D, Carr, S. R.,Wolfe, H. M., Bianchi, D.W., and D’Alton, M. for the FASTER Consortium. (2005). Impact of Maternal Age on Obstetric Outcome Obstetrics and Genecology, 105, 983–990.

57

Lynne Murray et al. Cooper, P. J., Tomlinson, M., Swartz, L., Landman, M., Molteno, C., Stein, A. L., McPherson, K., and Murray, L. (2009). Improving quality of mother–infant relationship and infant attachment in socioeconomically deprived community in South Africa: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 338, b974. Cooper, P. J., Tomlinson, M., Swartz, L., Woolgar, M., Murray, L., and Molteno, C. (1999). Postpartum depression and the mother–infant relationship in a South African peri-urban settlement. British Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 554–558. Cooper, P. J., Vally, Z., Cooper, H., Radford, T., Sharples, A., Tomlinson, M., and Murray, L. (2014). Promoting mother–infant book sharing and infant attention and language development in an impoverished South ­African population: A pilot study, Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(2), 143–152. Condon, J. T. (1993). The assessment of antenatal emotional attachment: Development of a questionnaire instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 167–183. Costantine, M. (2014). Physiologic and pharmacokinetic changes in pregnancy. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 5, 65. Cranley, M. (1981). Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy. Nursing Research, 30, 281–284. Cummings, E. M., and Warmuth. (2019). Parenting and attachment. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 374–400). New York: Routledge. De Pascalis, L., Keli, N., Chakrabarti, B., Dalton, L.,Vaillancourt, K., Rayson, H., Bicknell, S., Goodacre,T. Cooper, P. J., Stein, A., and Murray, L. (2017). Maternal gaze to the infant face: Effects of infant age and facial configuration during mother-infant engagement in the first nine weeks. Infant Behavior and Development, 46, 91–99. Dennis, W. (1973). Children of the creche. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. Dinnerstein, D. (1976). The rocking of the cradle and the ruling of the world. London: Women’s Press, 1987. Dix,T., and Moed, A. (2019). Parenting and depression In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 449–482). New York: Routledge. Dowdall, N., Melendez-Torres, G. J. Murray, L., Gardner, F., Hartford, L., and Cooper, P. J. (in press). The impact of shared picture book reading interventions on child language development: A systematic review and metaanalysis Child Development. Dozier, M., Zeanah, C. H., Wallin, A. R., and Shauffer, C. (2012). Institutional care for young children: Review of literature and policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 6(1), 1–25. Feldman, R. (2015). The adaptive human parental brain: Implications for children’s social development. Trends in Neuroscience, 38, 387–399. Feldman, R.,Weller, A., Sharon-Zagoory, O., and Levine, A. (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological foundation of Human Affiliation. Psychological Science, 18(11), 965–970. Ferrari, P. F.,Vanderwert, R., Paukner, A., Bower, S., Suomi, S. J., and Fox N. A. (2012). Distinct electroencephalographic amplitude suppression to facial gestures as evidence for a mirror mechanism in newborn monkeys. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1165–1172. Fingerman, L., Kim, K., Tennant, P., Birditt, K., and Zarit, S. H. (2016). Intergenerational Support in a Daily Context. The Gerontologist, 56(5), 896–908. Fletcher, K., and Reese, E. (2005). Picture book-reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25, 64–103. Fraiberg, S. (1980). Clinical studies in infant mental health. New York: Harcourt Brace. Freud, A., and Burlingham, D. (1944). Infants without families. New York: International Universities Press. Freud, S. (1955). Totems and Taboo. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press, original work published 1913. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures, lecture 33: On femininity (Standard ed.,Vol. 22). London: Hogarth Press. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A metaanalytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539–579. Golombok, S. (2019). Parenting and contemporary reproductive technologies. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 482–512). New York: Routledge. Gunning, M., Halligan, S. H., and Murray, L. (2013). Contributions of maternal and infant factors to infant responding to the Still Face paradigm Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 319–328. Halligan, S. L., Murray, L., Cooper, P. J., Wheeler, S., and Crosby, M. (2013). The longitudinal development of emotion regulation capacities in children at risk for externalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 391–406. Hardyment, C. (2007). Dream babies. Childcare advice from John Locke to Gina Ford. London: Frances Lincoln. Hartrick, G. A. (1997). Women who are mothers: The experience of defining self. Health Care for Women International, 18, 263–277. Heidemann, B. H., and McClure, J. H. (2003). Changes in maternal physiology during pregnancy British Journal of Anaesthesia, 3(3), 65–68. doi:10.1093/bjacepd/mkg065.

58

Mothering Henrich, J., Hein, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2012). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. Hoekzema, E., Barba-Müller, E., Pozzobon, C., Picado, M., Lucco, F., García-García, D., and Ballesteros, A. (2017). Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 20(2), 287–296. International Labour Organization. (2014). Maternity and paternity at work: Law and practice across the world. Geneva: International Labour Office. Jaffee, S. R., Strait, L. B., and Odgers, C. L. (2012). From correlates to causes: Can quasi-experimental studies and statistical innovations bring us closer to identifying the causes of antisocial behavior? Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 272–295. Jansen, J., de Weerth, C., and Riksen-Walraven. (2008). Breastfeeding and the mother-infant relationship- a review. Developmental Review, 28, 503–521. Keller, H., Kartner, J., Borke, J., Yovsi, R., and Kleis, A. (2005). Parenting styles and the development of the categorical self: A longitudinal study on mirror-self recognition in Cameroonian Nso and German families International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 496–504. Kennedy, M., Kreppner, J., Knights, N., Kumsta, R., Maughan, B., Golm, D., Rutter, M., Schlotz,W., and SonugaBarke, E. J. S. (2016). Early severe institutional deprivation is associated with a persistent variant of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Clinical presentation, developmental continuities and life circumstances in the English and Romanian Adoptees study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 1113– 1125. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12576 Kim, P., Leckman, J. F., Mayes, L. C., Feldman, R., Wang, X., and Swain, J. E. (2010). The plasticity of human maternal brain: Longitudinal changes in brain anatomy during the early postpartum period. Behavioral Neuroscience, 124(5), 695. Konner, M. (2010). The evolution of childhood. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Koren-Karie, N., Oppenheim, D., Dolev, S., Sher, E., and Etzion-Carasso, A. (2002). Mothers’ insightfulness regarding their infants’ internal experience: Relations with maternal sensitivity and infant attachment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 534. Kumpfer, K. L., and Bluth, B. (2004). Parent/child transactional processes predictive of resilience or vulnerability to “substance abuse disorders”. Substance Use and Misuse, 39(5), 671–698. Lamb, M. E., and Ahnert, L. (2006). Non-parental child care: Context, concepts, correlates and consequences. In W. Damon et al. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology Vol. 4, child psychology and practice (pp. 950–1016). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lampinen, R., Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K., and Kankkunen, P. (2009). A review of pregnancy in women over 35 years of age. The Open Nursing Journal, 3(1). Lavelli, M., and Fogel, A. (2013). Interdyad differences in early mother-infant face-to-face communication: Real-time dynamics and developmental pathways. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2257. Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in animal and human behaviour II (R. Martin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Main, M., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 66–104. Martins, C., and Gaffan, E. A. (2000). Effects of early maternal depression on patterns of infant–mother attachment: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(6), 737–746. Maselko, J., Sikander, S., Bhalotra, S., Bangash, O., Ganga, N., Mukherjee, S., Egger, H., Franz, L., Bibi, A., Liaqat, R., and Kanwal, M. (2015). Effect of an early perinatal depression intervention on long-term child development outcomes: Follow-up of the Thinking Healthy Programme randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(7), 609–617. McElwain, N. L., and Booth-Laforce, C. (2006). Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 247–255. Meltzoff, A. N., Murray, L., Simpson, E., Heimann, M., Nagy, E., Nadel, J., Pedersen, E. J., Brooks, R., Messinger, D. S., De Pascalis, L., Subiaul, F., Paukner, A., and Ferrari, P. F. (2017). Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. Evidence for Neonatal Imitation of Tongue Protrusion. Developmental Science. doi:10.1111/desc.12609 Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M., and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. (2009). The many faces of the Still Face paradigm: A review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 29, 120–162. Miller, L. J. (2002). Postpartum depression. JAMA, 287(6), 762–765. Moffitt, T. E., and Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescencelimited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 355–375.

59

Lynne Murray et al. Morrell, J., and Murray, L. (2003). Parenting and the development of conduct disorder and hyperactive symptoms in childhood: A prospective longitudinal study from 2 months to 8 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(4), 489–508. Murray, J., Anselmi, L., Gallo, E.A.G., Fleitlich-Bilyk, E., and Bordin, I. (2013). Epidemiology of childhood conduct problems in Brazil: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(10), 1527–1538. Murray, L. (2014). The psychology of babies: How relationships support development from birth to two. London: Constable and Robinson. Murray, L., and Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T. M. Field and N. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Murray, L., Arteche, A., Fearon, P., Halligan, S., Croudace,T., and Cooper, P. (2010).The effects of maternal postnatal depression and child sex on academic performance at age 16 years: A developmental approach. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1150–1159. Murray, L., Arteche, A., Fearon, P., Halligan, S., Goodyer, I., and Cooper, P. (2011). Maternal postnatal depression and the development of depression in offspring up to 16 years of age. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 460–470. Murray, L., Cooper, P. J., Arteche, A., Stein, A., and Tomlinson, M. (2016). Randomized controlled trial of the effect of a home visiting intervention on infant cognitive development in peri-urban South Africa. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 58(3), 270–276. Murray, L., De Pascalis, L., Bozicevic, L., Hawkins, L., Sclafani,V., and Ferrari, P. F. (2016). The functional architecture of mother-infant communication, and the development of infant social expressiveness in the first two months. Scientific Reports, 6, 39019. doi:10.1038/srep39019 Murray, L., De Pascalis, L., Tomlinson, M.,Vally, Z., Dadomo, H., MacLachlan, B., Woodward, C., and Cooper, P. J. (2016). Randomized controlled trial of a book-sharing intervention in a deprived South African community: Effects on carer-infant interactions, and their relation to infant cognitive and socio-emotional outcome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(12), 1370–1371. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12605 Murray, L., Fiori-Cowley, A., Hooper, R., and Cooper, P. J. (1996). The impact of postnatal depression and associated adversity on early mother-infant interactions and later infant outcome. Child Development, 67, 2512–2526. Murray, L., Halligan, S. L., and Cooper, P. J. (2018). Postnatal depression and child development. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (4th ed.). New York: Guilford. Murray, L., Hipwell, A., Hooper, R., Stein, A., and Cooper, P. J. (1996). The cognitive development of five year old children of postnatally depressed mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 927–935. Murray, L., Kempton, C., Woolgar, M., and Hooper, R. (1993). Depressed mothers’ speech to their infants and its relation to infant gender and cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(7), 1083–1101. Murray, L., Sclafani, V. Rayson, H., De Pascalis, L., Bozicevic, L., and Ferrari, P. F. (2017). Beyond aerodigestion: Exaptation of feeding-related mouth movements for social communication in human and nonhuman primates Commentary on Keven and Akins. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 40, 33–35. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X16001941, e397 Murray, L., Stanley, C., Hooper, R., King, F., and Fiori-Cowley, A. (1996). The role of infant factors in postnatal depression and mother-infant interactions. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 38, 109–119. Murray, L., Woolgar, M., Martins, C., Christaki, A., Hipwell, A., and Cooper, P. J. (2006). Conversations around homework: Links to parental mental health, family characteristics and child psychological functioning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 125–150. Nelson, S. (2017). Women and sex. In C. Squire (Ed.), The social context of birth (pp. 21–36). London, CRC Press. Netsi, E., Pearson, R. M., Murray, L., Cooper, P. J., Craske, M., and Stein, A. (2018). Persistent and severe postnatal depression: Its long term course and impact on child development JAMA Psychiatry, 75(3), 247–253. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Parenting and family influences when children are in childcare: Results from the NICHD study of early childcare. In J. G. Borkowski, S. Ramey, and Bristol-Power, M. (Eds.), Parenting and the child’s world: Influences on intellectual, academic and socioemotional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Family Database. (2016). Maternal employment rates, Chart LMF1.2.A (Datafile). Retrieved from www.oecd.org/els/soc/LMF_1_2_Maternal_ Employment.xlsx. Ouzounian, J. G., and Elkayam, U. (2012). Physiologic changes during normal pregnancy and delivery. Cardiology Clinics, 30, 317–329. doi:10.1016/j.ccl.2012.05.004

60

Mothering Papousek, H., and Papousek, M. (1987). Intuitive parenting: A dialectic counterpart to the infant’s integrative competence. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 669–720). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Parke, R. D., and Cookston, J.T. (2019). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 64–136). New York: Routledge. Parsons, C. E.,Young, K. S., Murray, L., Stein, A., and Kringelbach, M. L. (2010). The functional neuroanatomy of the evolving parent-infant relationship. Progress in Neurobiology, 91(3), 220–241. Parsons, C., Young, K., Mohseni, H., Woolrich, M., Rømer Thomsen, K., Joensson, M., Murray, L., Goodacre, T., Stein, A., and Kringelbach, M. (2013). Minor structural abnormalities in the infant face disrupt neural processing: A unique window into early caregiving responses. Social Neuroscience, 8(4), 268–74. doi:10.1080/ 17470919.2013.795189 Patterson, C. J. (2019). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 345–371). New York: Routledge. Peterson, J. B., and Flanders, J. (2005). Play and the regulation of aggression. In R. E. Tremblay and W. H. Hartup (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 133–157). New York: Guilford. Pines, D. (1972). Pregnancy and motherhood: Interaction between fantasy and reality. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 45, 333–343. Porcerelli, J. H., Huth-Bocks, A., Huprich, S. K., and Richardson, L. (2016). Defense mechanisms of pregnant mothers predict attachment security, social-emotional competence, and behavior problems in their toddlers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 138–146. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15020173 Powell, D. (2019). Parenting interventions. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 618–649). New York: Routledge. Priel, B., and Besser, A. (2001). Bridging the gap between attachment and object relations theories: A study of the transition to motherhood. Psychology and Psychotherapy:Theory, Research and Practice, 74(1), 85–100. Provence, S., and Lipton, R. C. (1962). Infants in institutions. New York: International Universities Press, Inc. Rahman, A., Malik, A., Sikander, S., Roberts, C., and Creed, F. (2008). Cognitive behaviour therapy-based intervention by community health workers for mothers with depression and their infants in rural Pakistan: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 372(9642), 902–909. Rayson, H., Bonaiuto, J. J., Ferrari, P. F., and Murray, L. (2017). Early maternal mirroring predicts infant motor system activation during facial expression observation. Scientific Reports, 7, 11738. doi:10.1038/ s41598-017-12097-w. Raphael-Leff, J. (1980). Psychotherapy with pregnant women. In B. Blum (Ed.), Psychological aspects of pregnancy, birthing and bonding (pp. 174–205). New York: Human Science Press. Raphael-Leff, J. (2010). Healthy Maternal Ambivalence. Studies in the Maternal, 2(1), 1–15. doi:10.16995/sim.97 Reynolds, R. M., Labad, J., Buss, C., Ghaemmaghami, P., and Räikkönen, K. (2013). Transmitting biological effects of stress in utero: Implications for mother and offspring. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(9), 1843–1849. Rothbaum, F., and Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 55–74. Rubin, R. (1967a). Attainment of the maternal role: Models and referents. Nursing Research, 16, 342–346. Rubin, R. (1967b). Attainment of the maternal role: Processes. Nursing Research, 16, 237–245. Rubin, R. (1977). Binding-in the postpartum period. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal, 6, 67–75. Rubin, R. (1984). Maternal identity and maternal experience. New York: Springer. Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Aviezer, O., Konnell, F., and Mayseless, O. (1994). Sleeping out of home in a kibbutz communal arrangement: It makes a difference for infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 65, 992–1004. Sanghavi, M., and Rutherford, J. D. (2014). Cardiovascular physiology of pregnancy. Circulation, 130, 1003–1008. Sharp, H. M., and Bramwell, R. (2004). An empirical evaluation of a psychoanalytic theory of mothering orientation: Implications for the antenatal prediction of postnatal depression. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 22(2), 71–78. Simpson, E., Murray, L. Paukner, A., and Ferrari, P. (2014).The mirror neuron system as revealed through neonatal imitation: Presence from birth, predictive power, and evidence of plasticity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 369, 20130289. Skovgaard, A. M. (2010). Mental health problems and psychopathology in infancy and early childhood: An epidemiological study. Danish Medical Bulletin, 57(10), B4193. [PUBMED: 21040689]. Slade, A., and Sadler, L. S. (2018). Pregnancy and infant mental health. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (4th ed. pp. 25–40). New York: Guilford. Slade, A., and Cohen, L. J. (1996). The process of parenting and the remembrance of things past. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17(3), 217–238.

61

Lynne Murray et al. Smith, P., and Wild. (2019). Grandparenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 232–270). New York: Routledge. Solchany, J. E. (2001). Rehearsal for mothering: A handbook for prenatal mental health, maternal role attainment, and the mother-child relationship. Seattle: NCAST, School of Nursing, University of Washington. Sonuga-Barke, E. J., Kennedy, M., Kumsta, R., Knights, N., Golm, D., Rutter, M., and Kreppner, J. (2017). Childto-adult neurodevelopmental and mental health trajectories after early life deprivation: The young adult follow-up of the longitudinal English and Romanian Adoptees study. The Lancet, 389(10078), 1539–1548. Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood I. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 53–73. Spitz, R. A. (1946). Anaclitic depression: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood, II. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 313–342. Spock, B. (1946). The common sense book of baby and child care. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Squire, C. (2009). Women and society. In The social context of birth (2nd ed., pp. 1–23). Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd. St Petersburg-USA Orphanage Research Team. (2008). The effects of early social-emotional and relationship experience on the development of young orphanage children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 73, 1–297. Stanley, C., Murray, L., and Stein, A. (2004). The effect of postnatal depression on mother-infant interaction, infant response to the Still-face perturbation and performance on an instrumental learning task. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 1–18. Stein, A., Netsi, E. Lawrence, P. J., Granger, C., Kempton, C., Craske, M. G., Nickless, A., Mollison, J., Stewart, D. A., Rapa, E., West, V., Scerif, G., Cooper, P. J., and Murray, L. (2018). Mitigating the effect of persistent postnatal depression on child outcomes through an intervention to treat depression and improve parenting: A randomised controlled trial Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), 134–144. Stone, J., and Church, J. (1957). Childhood and adolescence. New York: Random House. Tikotzky, L., Sharabany, R., Hirsch, I., and Sadeh, A. (2010). “Ghosts in the nursery”: Infant sleep and sleeprelated cognitions of parents raised under communal sleeping arrangements. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31, 312–334. doi:10.1002/imhj.20258 Tomlinson, M., Cooper, P. J., and Murray, L. (2005). The mother-infant relationship and infant attachment in a South African peri-urban settlement. Child Development, 76, 1044–1054. Tomlinson, M., Bornstein, M., H., Marlow, M., and Swartz, L. (2014). Imbalances in the knowledge about infant mental health in rich and poor countries: Too little progress in bridging the gap. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(6), 624–629. Toth, S. L., Rogosch, F. A., Manly, J., and Cicchetti, D. (2006). The efficacy of toddler-parent psychotherapy to reorganize attachment in the young offspring of mothers with major depressive disorder: A randomized preventive trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1006–1016. Trad, P.V. (1990). On becoming a mother: In the throes of developmental transformation. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7(3), 341–361. Tremblay, R. E., Hartup, W. H., and Archer, J. (2005). Developmental origins of aggression. New York: Guilford. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech:The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 321–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tronick, E. Z., and Gianino, A. F. (1986). The transmission of maternal disturbance to the infant. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 34, 5–11. Twist, L. (2007). Results from PIRLS 2006. Literacy Today, 53, 28–31. Tulman, L., and Fawcett, J. (2003). Women’s health during and after pregnancy: A theory-based study of adaptation to change. New York: Springer. United Nations. (2015). World fertility patterns 2015—Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/370). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2010). Guidelines for the alternative care of children: Resolution.Adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/64/142. Retrieved from www.refworld.org/docid/ 4c3acd162.htm. Vally, Z., Murray, L., Tomlinson, M., and Cooper, P. J. (2015). The impact of dialogic book sharing training on infant language and attention: A randomized controlled trial in a deprived South African Community. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 865–873. Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M. P., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., and van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 337–366. Victora, C. G., Bahj, R., and Barros, A. J. D., França, G.V., Horton, S., Krasevec, J., Rollins, N. C. (2016). Breast feeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. The Lancet, 387, 10017, 475–490.

62

Mothering Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., and Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542. Youngblade, L. M., and Dunn, J. (1995). Individual differences in young children’s pretend play with mother and sibling: Links to relationships and understanding of others’ feelings and beliefs. Child Development, 66, 1472–1492. Zeanah, C. H., Humphreys, K. L., Fox, N. A., and Nelson, C. A. (2017). Alternatives for abandoned children: Insights from the Bucharest early intervention project. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 182–188.

63

3 FATHERS AND FAMILIES Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

Introduction Theoretical assumptions that guide research on fathers and families both explain the choice of topics and provide an organizational structure for this chapter. We draw attention to 11 themes of importance. First, to understand fully the nature of father-child relationships, it is necessary to recognize the interdependence among the roles and functions of all family members. Families are best viewed as social systems. Consequently, to understand the behavior of one member of a family, the complementary behaviors of other members also need to be recognized and assessed. For example, as men’s roles in families shift, changes in women’s roles in families are also in flux (Parke, 1996, 2013). Second, family members—mothers, fathers, and children—influence each other both directly and indirectly (Cox and Paley, 2003; Parke, Power, and Gottman, 1979). Examples of fathers’ indirect impact include various ways in which fathers modify and mediate mother-child relationships. In turn, women affect their children indirectly through their husbands by modifying both the quantity and the quality of father-child interaction. Children may indirectly influence the husband-wife relationship by altering the behavior of either parent that consequently changes the interaction between spouses. Third, different levels of analysis are necessary to understand fathers. The individual level—child, mother, and father—remains a useful and necessary level of analysis, but recognition of relationships among family members as levels or units of analysis is also necessary. The marital, the mother-child, and the father-child relationships require separate analyses. The family as a unit that is independent of the individual or dyads within the family requires recognition (McHale and Lindahl, 2011). Fourth, families are embedded within a variety of other social systems, including both formal and informal support systems as well as the cultures in which they exist. These include a wide range of extrafamilial influences such as extended families, informal community ties such as friends and neighbors, work sites, and social, educational, and medical institutions (Leventhal, Dupéré, and Shuey, 2015; Parke, 2013). Fifth, the role of biology in shaping father roles has become more widely recognized. Fathers and families are embedded in a network of biological and neurological systems, and we will examine the biological basis of fathering. This perspective suggests that fathers (as well as mothers) are biologically prepared for the parenting role due to hormonal changes as well as neurological predispositions to respond to infants as part of their preparation for the caregiving role (Feldman, Gordon, Influs, Gutbir, and Ebstein, 2013; Swain et al., 2014). 64

Fathers and Families

A sixth assumption concerns the importance of considering father-child relationships from a variety of developmental perspectives. Developmental changes in child perceptual-cognitive and socioemotional capacities represent the most commonly investigated types of development. In addition, a life-span perspective (Elder, Shanahan, and Jennings, 2015; Parke and Elder, in press) suggests the importance of examining developmental changes in the adult because parents continue to change and develop during adult years. For example, age at the time of the onset of parenthood can have important implications for how females and males manage their maternal and paternal roles. Adult age involves an exploration of the tasks faced by adults such as self-identity, education, and career and examination of relations between these tasks and the demands of parenting. A seventh assumption involves recognition of the impact of secular shifts on families. In recent years, a variety of social changes in the United States has had a profound impact on families. These include the decline in fertility and family size, changes in the timing of the onset of parenthood, increased participation of women in the workforce, an initial rise in rates of divorce that has become more stable, and subsequent increase in the number of single-parent families (Golombok, 2015; Parke, 2013). The ways in which these society-wide changes impact on interaction patterns between parents and children merit examination. Another closely related eighth assumption involves recognition of the importance of the historical time period in which the family interaction is taking place (Parke and Elder, in press). Historical time periods provide the social conditions for individual and family transitions: Examples include the 1930s (the Great Depression), the 1960s (the Vietnam War Era), or the 1980s (Farm Belt Depression). Across these historical time periods, family interactions may be quite different due to the peculiar conditions of the particular era (Elder et al., 2015). These distinctions among different developmental trajectories, as well as social change and historical period effects, are important because these different forms of change do not always harmonize (Elder et al., 2015; Parke, 1988). For example, a family event such as the birth of a child—the transition to parenthood—may have very profound effects on a man who has just begun a career in contrast to the effects on one who has advanced to a stable occupational position. Moreover, individual and family developmental trajectories are embedded within both the social conditions and the values of the historical time in which they exist (Elder et al., 2015). The role of parents, as is the case with any social role, is responsive to such fluctuations (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, and Roggman, 2014). A ninth assumption addresses the major challenge concerning the universality of theories about fathers and families and the error of assuming that generalizations from a single culture (e.g., United States) to other cultures are appropriate (Rogoff, 2003). Cultures vary enormously in how they organize their families, how they allocate family roles to different individuals, what outcomes they value in their children, and even what childrearing tactics they choose to achieve their socialization goals. Although there are many similarities across and within cultural groups around the globe, we need to recognize the variations and how to learn from these variations. Closely related to the issue of cross-cultural variation in fathering is recognition that intracultural variations in ethnicity need to be considered as well. It is important not only to examine the diversity of familial organization, roles, goals, and strategies across ethnic groups but also it is equally critical to explore variations within different ethnic groups (Parke, 2013). Recognizing the ethnic diversity within our own culture is necessary both for understanding variations in fatherhood and for guiding social policy. A tenth assumption concerns the role of cognitive factors in understanding father-child relationships. Specifically, we assume that the ways in which parents perceive, organize, and understand both their children and their roles as parents will affect the nature of father-child interaction (Cookston et al., 2012; Goodnow and Collins, 1990). The eleventh and final assumption observes that research on fathering benefits from an intersectional framework that operationalizes both identity and social position simultaneously (Shields, 2008). Because fathers have authority over their children, they are imbued with power in the lives 65

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

of others that nonfathers lack. Similarly, when men enact the role of father, they assume a gendered identity that differs from mothering in the types of experiences a man might provide his child, his expectations for the child’s behavior when they are together, and his expectations for how the child should act when alone with the father versus when in public. Themes of identity and social position abound when fathers are the focus of study, such as the father’s sex assignment at birth, ethnicity, socioeconomic opportunities and disadvantage in childhood, and availability of male role models during childhood, among others. To understand the nature of father-child relationships within families, a multilevel and dynamic approach is required. Multiple levels of analysis are necessary to capture the individual, dyadic, and family unit aspects of operation within the family itself as well as to reflect the embeddedness of families within a variety of extrafamilial social systems. The dynamic quality reflects the multiple developmental trajectories that warrant consideration in understanding the nature of families in children’s development. Figure 3.1 serves as a theoretical guide for the chapter and aims to capture the transactional nature of the linkages among predictors and father and child outcomes. The substantive portion of this chapter begins with a discussion of the nature of father-child relationships and how these shift across development of the child. Next, the chapter moves to an examination of the determinants of father involvement to examine the impact of the marital relationship on the parent-child relationship. The effect of historical changes, namely, shifts in work patterns of family members and changes in the timing of the onset of parenthood on father-child relationships, will be reviewed. Finally, the implications of fathering for men themselves, their wives, and their children are examined. This chapter is a review of recent work on fatherhood and devotes less attention to the historical aspects of the topic. However, several reviews caution against any simple and linear set of historical trends that lead clearly from the past to the present (LaRossa, 1997; 2012; Parke and Stearns, 1993; Pleck, 2004; Rotundo, 1993). Perhaps most striking is the continued tension and variability in fathering behavior—a set of characteristics that have long marked definitions of fatherhood. There have always been counteracting forces that have both promoted and limited father involvement with their children and families. There have been “good dads and bad dads” (Furstenberg, 1988) throughout the course of the history of fatherhoods, and this theme of variability in the amount, type, and consistency of fathering across time and context continues (Furstenberg, 2014). It is encouraging to note that there has been an increase in research attention to fathers from diverse family structures as reflected in journal articles focused on fathers (Goldberg, Tan, and Thorsen, 2009). Stearns (1991, p. 50) characterized the shifts over the last century as follows: The most pressing context for fatherhood over the past century has been the change in work—family relationship. . . . An 18th Century father would not recognize the distance contemporary men face between work and home or the importance of sports in fatherchild relationships or the parental leadership granted to mothers or indeed the number of bad fathers. An 18th Century father would, however, recognize certain contemporary tensions such as a balance between seeking and giving love on the one hand and defining proper authority and he might feel kinship to present-day fathers who sense some tension between responses they regard as male and special restraints required for proper family life. In summary, many of the themes that characterize contemporary thinking about fatherhood have clearer antecedents over the last century than we often assume. There has been a tendency to confuse the resurgence of interest in fathering as a research topic with the assumption that the changes in fathering activities have been only recent as well.

66

Biological

Societal condions changing over me

Cognive working models Representaons of relaonships Perceived ma‡ering

Cognive processes

A‡enon regulaon

Ability to a‡end to relevant cues, sustain a‡enon, and refocus a‡enon

Encoding and decoding Emoonal regulaon Display rule skills

Emoonal processes

Figure 3.1 Theoretical overview of the predictors and consequences of father involvement

Socioeconomic status Employment opportunies Ethnicity Governmental policies Other social influences

Contextual

Couple relaonship Maternal gatekeeping Coresidenal status Timing of parenthood

Coparental

Relaonship with family of origin Preparaon for parenng Paternal mental health Child (e.g., temperament, age, sex)

Individual

Paternal hormones Temperament Neurological influences

Father involvement

Children

Emoonal development Social development Language development Cognive development

Men

Self-identy Psychological adjustment Generavity Physical health Relaonship with partner Work pa‡erns

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

Paternal Versus Maternal Involvement With Children There are overall differences in the quantity of involvement for mothers and fathers, and there are important stylistic or qualitative differences as well. Not all forms of father involvement are conceptually equivalent (Lamb, Pleck, and Levine, 1985; Palkovitz, 1997; Parke, 2000). The most influential scheme was offered by Lamb and his colleagues (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, and Levine, 1987; Lamb et al., 1985), who suggested three components: Interaction, availability, and responsibility. Interaction refers to the father’s direct contact with his child through caregiving and shared activities. Availability is a related concept concerning the father’s potential availability for interaction, by virtue of being present or accessible to the child whether direct interaction is occurring. Responsibility refers to the role the father takes in ascertaining that the child is taken care of and arranging for resources to be available for the child (Lamb et al., 1987, p. 125). As several previous authors (e.g., Palkovitz, 1997; Parke, 2000; Pleck, 2010) found, the focus of research on fathers has been primarily on face-to-face parent-child interaction. To a large degree, this emphasis reflects the common assumption that parental influence takes place directly through face-to-face contact or indirectly through the impact of the interaction on another family member. Pleck (2010) modified this conceptual scheme to further distinguish specific qualitative aspects of interaction, namely, warmth, responsiveness, and control. This has encouraged researchers to measure not only time with the child but also the quality of the interactions as well. In turn, the goal was to increase the strength of the links between aspects of father engagement and child outcomes. However, it is still useful for cross-time comparisons to continue to track changes in the relative level of father and mother overall involvement as part of the goal of monitoring shifting family roles by mothers and fathers. If the goal is to assess the effects of parental behavior on child outcomes, qualitative measures of the type of involvement are generally better than simply the amount of time in parental activities (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Other updates on the paternal involvement measure have been suggested. Absolute and relative involvement need to be distinguished because these two indices are independent and may affect both children’s and adults’ views of role distributions in different ways (Pleck, 2010; Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004). It is important to distinguish among domains of involvement, because fathers and mothers vary in their distribution of time across different child and household activities (Doucet, 2013). Several distinctions have been made including personal care activities, involvement in play, leisure, and affiliative activities with children (Beitel and Parke, 1998; Palkovitz, 2002; Pleck, 2010). Others (Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, and Hofferth, 2001) have expanded the domain list to include not just personal care and play but also achievementrelated activities (homework, reading), household activities (housework, shopping), social activities (conversation, social events), and other activities (time in school, sleep). As noted ahead, both the amount of time that fathers spend on these different activities and the determinants of involvement in these domains vary across fathers. Finally, estimates of father involvement have usefully distinguished between weekdays and weekends because both the types of activities and levels of father involvement vary as a function of the time period being assessed (Yeung et al., 2001). Although the availability issue has been addressed largely through the research on father absence as a consequence of either divorce or unwed parenthood (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010; ­McLanahan and Sandefer, 1994; Stevenson et al., 2014), studies of the quantity and quality of fathers’ nonfamily work have begun to shed light on variations in father availability (O’Brien and Moss, 2010; Williams, 2010). Finally, researchers and theorists have recognized the “managerial” function of parents (Lamb et al.’s “responsibility” notion) and have examined the impact of variations in how this managerial function influences child development (Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, and Sameroff, 1999; Parke et al., 2003). By managerial, we refer to the ways in which parents organize and arrange the child’s home environment and set limits on the range of the home setting to which the child has access and the opportunities for social contact with playmates and socializing agents outside the family. The 68

Fathers and Families

managerial role may be just as important as the parent’s role as stimulator, because the amount of time that children spend interacting with the inanimate environment far exceeds their social interaction time (White, Kaban, Shapiro, and Attonucci, 1976). Nor are fathers always mere helpers; in over 20% of married employed mother families, fathers served as the primary care provider during the hours that the mother was working (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). So fathers are active contributors to childcare not only in U.S. culture but in other places as well. Mothers still do more than fathers of the child caregiving, such as feeding and diapering in infancy and in providing meals, school lunches, and clothing, as the child develops (Gray and Anderson, 2010; Pleck, 2010). And mothers continue to assume more managerial responsibility than fathers, such as arranging social contacts, organizing schedules, taking the child for medical checkups, and monitoring homework and school-related tasks. However, these patterns change as a function of the time of the week and the age of the child. For example, fathers are more involved in household activities (shopping) and social activities on weekends than weekdays, and play as the focus of fathering decreases as the child develops (Yeung et al., 2001). Mothers and fathers differ in their degree of responsibility for management of family tasks. From infancy through middle childhood, mothers are more likely to assume the managerial role than fathers. In infancy, this means setting boundaries for play, taking the child to the doctor, or arranging day care (Doucet, 2013; Power and Parke, 1982). In middle childhood, mothers continue to assume more managerial responsibility (e.g., directing the child to have a bath, to eat a meal, to put away toys) (Russell and Russell, 1987). Nor is the managerial role restricted to family activities but includes initiating and arranging children’s access to peers and playmates (Ladd, 2005; McDowell and Parke, 2009), and maintaining contact with teachers and schools (Kim and Hill, 2015), tasks which fathers are less likely to undertake than mothers. In addition, parents function as supervisors or overseers of especially younger children’s interactions with age mates. Both mothers and fathers are equally capable of this type of supervisory behavior as shown in laboratory studies (Bhavnagri and Parke, 1991) and in home contexts, but fathers are less likely than mothers to perform this supervisory role in everyday settings (Bhavnagri and Parke, 1991; Ladd, Profilet, and Hart, 1992). As Doucet (2013) observed, this disparity between men and women’s managerial/responsibility roles has persisted: “The responsibility for childcare and domestic life has remained overwhelmingly in women’s hands” (pp. 302–303). The extent to which fathers in intact families participate in childcare needs to be distinguished from the level of involvement of fathers who are not coresident with their children for a variety of reasons including divorce, out-of-wedlock births, economic hardship, or incarceration. In fact, this conceptual distinction reflects the contradictory trends in the fathering literature that Furstenberg (2014) characterized as the “two-tier family system.” On the one hand, well-educated and economically viable fathers seem to be increasing their involvement and moving slowly toward more equal participation with their wives in the care and rearing of children. On the other hand, due to lack of education and limited employment opportunities, many men forgo marriage and, in many cases, coresidency due to lack of education and limited employment opportunities and develop different patterns of involvement with their children than fathers in intact families. Similarly, other groups of fathers who are separated from their children due to military deployment, incarceration, or immigration are receiving attention. By recognizing these various groups of fathers beyond traditional intact, residential family-based fathers, the variability in contemporary fathering becomes evident and reminds us that change across time in fathering is not linear and straightforward but is contradictory and inconsistent and open to influence by changing societal conditions.

Father Involvement in Intact, Majority Families in the United States Most attention in the research literature has been devoted to the study of fathers in two-parent intact families. According to a survey of over 1,100 journal articles from 1930 to 2006, 76% of the fathers 69

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

were from two-parent families and the rest were focused on divorced, single or nonresident father families (Goldberg, Tan, and Thorsen, 2009). In spite of shifts in cultural attitudes concerning the appropriateness and desirability of shared roles and equal levels of participation in routine caregiving and interaction for mothers and fathers, the shifts toward parity are small, but nonetheless real (Pleck, 2010). More mothers are entering the workforce, but current occupational arrangements still mean that the vast majority of fathers have less opportunity for interaction with their children than mothers. Bianchi, Robinson, and Milkie (2006) using a national survey of parents, found that in the year 2000, resident American fathers with children under 18 spent an average of 2.4 hours per week in interactive activities with their children in comparison to 3.3 hours for mothers. Fathers spent 72% of the time as mothers. Across time there is a marked increase. In comparison with 1965, the interactive engagement time in 2000 increased 94% while mothers’ time increased even more from 1.5 hours to 3.3 hours. However, the gap is closing, as data from 2003 to 2004 indicate that fathers’ engagement had increased to 3.0 hours (Wang and Bianchi, 2009). To place these trends in perspective, fathers also increased their time in routine care as well as direct interactive activities. Fathers spent 4.1 hours per week in routine childcare activities and were present and accessible to their children another 26.5 hours per week. This was an impressive 33 hours per week in total time with their children. Compared with mothers, fathers’ total time in 2000 was 64.7% of time as mothers compared with 44.7% in 1965 (Bianchi et al., 2006). Others report similar trends. Yeung et al. (2001) found that the relative time fathers in intact families were directly engaged with children was 67% of the time that mothers were involved on weekdays and 87% of mothers’ engagement on weekends. Accessibility showed similar shifts across time and in accord with earlier estimates were higher than levels of engagement.

Involvement Among Ethnic Minority Fathers in the United States The historical view of the African American father as absent or uninvolved in the lives of their children is no longer valid, and recent work has corrected the scholarly neglect of this large ethnic minority group (12% of U.S. population). Comparisons across ethnic groups (African and European American) revealed either few differences in level of father involvement (Yeung et al., 2001) or in some studies African American fathers are higher in their levels of caregiving and play than European American fathers (Cabrera, Hoffreth, and Schae, 2011; Hofferth, 2003). The greater level of caregiving involvement is consistent with the less traditional attitudes of African American fathers toward gender roles than European American fathers (Gadsden, 1999). However, studies of African American families confirm the pattern found for European Americans, namely, that fathers were less involved in caregiving their infants than mothers (Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013). In a study of Head Start fathers, African American fathers of sons reported more involvement in physical play and social activities (taking children out with friends and visiting relatives) than European American fathers (Leavell et al., 2012). In terms of responsibility, African American fathers are higher in monitoring than European American fathers, in part possibly due to their residence in more dangerous neighborhoods (Deater-Deckard and Dodge, 1997). As we note ahead, even nonresidential African American fathers are more involved with their children than is commonly assumed. Another ethnic group that has received increased attention is Latin American fathers. Today, Latino Americans constitute 18% of the U.S. population, and it is projected that by 2065, Latin American families will be the most prominent minority in the U.S. culture at 24% (Pew Charitable Trust, 2015). Historically, it was assumed that Latino fathers are “traditional patriarchs, authoritarian, and emotionally uninvolved, and not very engaged in the daily care of their children” (Cabrera, Aldoney, and Tamis-Lemonda, 2013, p. 248). Recent research suggests that this portrait is outdated and misleading. In contrast to this characterization, Latino fathers typically rear their children in two-parent families where fathers are often involved in their children’s lives from an early age, even beginning in the prenatal period (Cabrera et al., 2009). The importance of focusing on Latino fathers 70

Fathers and Families

stems from Latin American fathers having been found to be more involved in household and personal care activities than European American fathers (Yeung et al., 2001) and spending more time in caregiving activities than fathers of other ethnic groups (Cabrera et al., 2011; Hofferth, 2003). Finally, Latino fathers show similar levels of affection and warmth to their children as fathers of other ethnicities (Hofferth, 2003; Toth and Xu, 1999). Studies of responsibility among Latino fathers have focused on monitoring and restrictiveness of their children’s behavior. Some reports increased restriction of their children’s behavior (Toth and Xu, 1999), especially for daughters (Wilson, Dalberth, and Koo, 2010). At the same time, as in the case of other groups, fathers spend less time than mothers in routine caregiving and more time in play (Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013). These findings are consistent with Latino values of familism, which stress the centrality of family life in Latino culture. Acculturation is important as well. More acculturated Latino fathers are more involved with their children than less acculturated men (Glass and Owen, 2010) Asian Americans are another rapidly growing ethnic minority. Although Asian Americans currently constitute 6% of the U.S. population, this will increase to 14% by 2065 (Pew Charitable Trust, 2015). Asian American fathers in comparison with mothers have typically been viewed as aloof and uninvolved with their children (Ishii-Kuntz, 2009). Again, this stereotype has some historical basis, but the portrait of the modern Asian father is changing due to both patterns of immigration and acculturation as well as shifting economic conditions in some Asian countries (Chao and Tseng, 2002; Ishii-Kuntz, 2009; Li and Lamb, 2013). In both Asian American and Asian families, there are some general findings that characterize maternal and paternal roles in the family. The strong commitment to the breadwinner role among Asian fathers has resulted in men’s limited involvement with the care of their children (Ishii-Kuntz, 2009; Li and Lamb, 2013) compared with mothers as well as to men in other cultures. For example, Japanese fathers are less involved with their children compared with mothers and less than fathers in other countries (Ishii-Kuntz, 2009). Similar lower levels of father involvement in childcare relative to mothers have been reported for Chinese families (Chuang and Zhu, 2018; Jankowiak, 2010; Lau, 2016) as well as Taiwanese families (Sun and Roopnarine, 1996). In China, fathers were not viewed as sufficiently competent or trustworthy to care for infants. Instead, in Chinese families, a father’s role was focused on children’s education when children entered middle school (Li and Lamb, 2013). However, the centrality of the men’s breadwinning role among Asian fathers is changing (Li and Lamb, 2013; Nakazawa and Shwalb, 2013). In one study, 81% of Japanese fathers ranked the paternal role as first or second in importance among five paternal roles—evidence that the importance of the worker role is lessening (Shwalb et al., 2010). An increase in the labor force participation of women in both China and Japan has contributed to this decline. In Japan, fathers are more likely to be involved in childcare when their wives were employed full time (Ishii-Kuntz, 2009). In China, a similar pattern has emerged with a shift away from the focus only on the provider role for father to a more multifaceted set of roles including a more active role in childcare (Chuang and Su, 2008; Chuang and Zhu, 2018), although some evidence suggests that paternal involvement is more evident among preschoolers and older children than with infants ( Jankowiak, 2010). There are also rural/urban and regional differences. Urban Chinese fathers are less oriented to traditional gender roles, more likely to be more involved with their children, and tend to have closer relationships with their children than their rural counterparts, in part due to higher employment rates among urban mothers as well as more exposure to contemporary cultural messages concerning parental roles (Song, 2004). In terms of regional variations, fathers in Asian Indian families are less likely to participate in household and childcare work even when their wives are employed, which suggests that patriarchal values may persist in some Asian regions more than others (Suppal and Roopnarine, 1999). As in the case in other cultures, Asian fathers are more likely to be playmates or as children enter school to act as an educational guide than as caregivers, a reminder that involvement still often follows gender-based scripts (Chuang and Su, 2008; Song, 2004). Similarly, in the United States and Canada as Asian families become more acculturated, there is a trend toward 71

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

greater equality in the division of household labor including more equity in childcare responsibilities among Japanese Americans (Ishii-Kuntz, 2009), Chinese Canadian (Costigan and Su, 2008), and Asian Indian immigrant fathers in the United States ( Jain and Belsky, 1997). However, the patterns are not uniform across Asian subgroups that vary in terms of immigration patterns and levels of economic participation. It is clear from these brief examples that cultural factors will either enhance or diminish differences between mothers and fathers and underscore the plasticity of parental roles. These findings are important in light of past negative characterizations of low-income African American and Latin American fathers as uninvolved. Clearly, the stereotypes surrounding fathers of different ethnic backgrounds are inaccurate and outdated and needs to be revised in light of recent evidence (Cabrera et al. 2013; Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013). Much of the earlier work concerning fathering among ethnic minority fathers was based on single-parent families and/or on young unwed fathers and failed to recognize differences within ethnic groups.

Father Involvement in International Perspective An examination of non-U.S. countries reveals a pattern similar to the one observed in the United States. From 1965 to 2000, fathers in Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom showed a similar increase over time in the amount of “child care time” (Bianchi et al. 2006). However, with the exception of France, “childcare time” for U.S. fathers is lower than fathers in many industrial countries, with British fathers being highest (Bianchi et al., 2006). The most comprehensive cross-national examination of this issue comes from the Multinational Time Use Study in which time use diary surveys across 16 countries were utilized to assess cross-time shifts from the 1960s to the 2000s in men’s and women’s household roles (Kan, Sullivan, and Gershuny, 2011). As expected, women continue to devote more time to routine housework (e.g., cooking, cleaning, other care) than men who, in turn, have increased their contribution to nonroutine household tasks (e.g., shopping, gardening, house repairs). Over time, the gender gap is closing, in part, due to a reduction in routine household activities by mothers and an increase in men’s contributions to these tasks. Small-scale studies in several countries including Sweden, Israel, and Japan confirm this general pattern (see Shwalb, Shwalb, and Lamb, 2013). These findings are consistent with the more general proposition that pregnancy and birth of a first child, in particular, are occasions for a shift toward a more traditional division of roles regardless of whether their initial role division between husbands and wives was traditional or equalitarian (Cowan and Cowan, 2010).

Developmental changes in father involvement The overall pattern of contact time between mothers and fathers and their infants and toddlers continues into middle childhood and adolescence. In a study of middle childhood (6- to 7-year-olds), Russell and Russell (1987) found that Australian mothers were available to children 54.7 hours/week compared with 34.6 hours/week for fathers. Mothers also spent more time alone with children (22.6 hours/week) than did fathers (2.4 hours/week). However, when both parents and child were together, mothers and fathers initiated interactions with children with equal frequency and children’s initiations toward each parent were similar. Adolescents spend less time with their parents than younger children and less time alone with their father than with their mother (Larson and Richards, 1994). Part of the explanation for the greater involvement of mothers versus fathers is because the maternal parenting role is more mandatory and more clearly scripted by our culture, whereas paternal parenting is less clearly scripted and more discretionary. The gendered nature of parenting roles is illustrated by custody decisions which, in spite of shifts toward more equal custody arrangements across mothers and fathers, continue to favor mothers. In a study with a national probability sample, Kelly, Redenbach, and Rinaman (2005) found that in 80% of the cases, the mother received sole 72

Fathers and Families

physical custody of the minor child or children. However, the number of fathers with sole custody has increased over the last several decades as a result of the growing national fatherhood movement, the growing recognition of fathers as significant parental figures and perhaps father-friendlier courts (Stevenson et al., 2014). A caveat is in order. The lower level of father involvement in caregiving and other forms of interaction does not imply that fathers are less competent than mothers to care for infants and children. Competence can be measured in a variety of ways; one approach is to measure the parent’s sensitivity to infant cues in the feeding context. Success in caregiving, to a large degree, depends on the parent’s ability to correctly “read” or interpret the infant’s behavior so that the parent’s own behavior can be regulated to respond appropriately. Decades of research has documented that maternal and paternal behavior that is contingent on, sensitive to, and responsive to a child’s signals and behavior is critical for adequate development (Tamis-LeMonda and Baumwell, 2001; Tamis-LeMonda, Baumwell, and Cabrera, 2013). Beginning in infancy, fathers’ sensitivity to a variety of cues (e.g., auditory distress signals during feeding [sneeze, spit up, cough], vocalizations, mouth movements) is just as marked as mothers’ responsivity to these cues (Parke and Sawin, 1976, 1980) in spite of the fact that fathers may spend less time in caregiving activities. Moreover, the amount of milk consumed by infants when either their mothers and fathers were the feeding agent is similar; fathers and mothers are equally successful in feeding their infant. Other evidence is similar: Mothers and fathers show similar levels of sensitivity to their 24- and 30-month-old children’s behavior during play (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004) and are responsive to their 12-month-olds when engaged in an interactive task (Notaro and Volling, 1999). Invoking a competence/performance distinction, fathers may not necessarily act as a caregiver or interactive partner as often as mothers, but when called on, they are sensitive and competent interactive agents. Fathers’ ability to perform caregiving tasks matches mothers’ skill in middle childhood as well. As Russell and Russell (1987) found, both parents reported that they were involved on a regular basis in a variety of caregiving activities (e.g., having a cuddle, sit and have a talk) even though mothers were higher in their frequencies. Finally, fathers can function effectively as managers and supervisors of their children’s activities, but do so less than mothers on a routine basis (Ladd, 2005; Parke et al., 2003). Again, it appears that fathers are capable of this type of caregiving function but execute this function less regularly than mothers. On balance, the evidence suggests that fathers are competent caregiving agents.

Qualitative Effects: Stylistic Similarities and Differences in Mother and Father Interaction Although the levels of involvement may differ for mothers and fathers, their childrearing styles do not differ greatly. Both mothers and fathers express warmth and responsiveness in their interactions with their children, and in general, the notion of the aloof and unresponsive father is an outdated view. For example, among residential fathers with preteens, 73% reported that they showed affection (87% for mothers),62% expressed love (85% for mothers), and 37% offered appreciation to their children (55% for mothers; Child Trends, 2006). Similarly, evidence from other ethnic groups reveals a similar picture. African American fathers showed moderate levels of responsiveness and low levels of negative behavior directed toward infants (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, and Cabrera, 2006) and toddlers (Mitchell and Cabrera, 2009). In the case of Asian fathers, Chao and Tseng (2002) observed, “Parenting differences purported between Asian fathers and mothers have been based on the traditional adage ‘strict father, kind mother’—wherein fathers exert high degrees of authoritarian control and mothers manifest high degrees of warmth” (p. 73). Although there is some support for this view among Chinese families, other studies of Asian American families fail to support this profile. Consistent with a view endorsing a more involved mother, in a study of Chinese adolescents’ perceptions, maternal parenting was viewed as being more positive than paternal parenting (Shek, 73

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

2000). Adolescents stated that fathers showed less concern, less responsiveness, and higher levels of harshness than mothers. Also, father-adolescent communication was perceived less positively and as occurring less frequently than mother-adolescent communication (Shek, 2000). Others (Xu and Zhang, 2008) report similar findings of low levels of communication and emotional support for Chinese fathers. In contrast to this traditional picture of Asian families, studies of Asian American immigrant families have found few differences between mothers and fathers in levels of authoritative parenting control and warmth (Chao and Kim, 2000). Again, acculturation clearly plays a role in helping to understand differences and similarities in mother-father childrearing styles. These patterns present a clear challenge to our stereotype of the maternal and paternal childrearing styles among Asian American families. In contrast to traditional portraits of Latino fathers as patriarchal, authoritarian, and aloof (Mirande, 2008), Latin American fathers are characterized as warm and nurturing (Gamble, Ramakumar, and Diaz, 2007; Leidy et al., 2011; Toth and Xu, 1999) especially as a result of acculturation (Taylor and Behnke, 2005). Similarly, African American fathers showed moderate levels of responsiveness and low levels of negative behavior directed toward infants (Shannon et al., 2006) and toddlers (Mitchell and Cabrera, 2009). However, mothers and fathers may exhibit differences in level of control. For example, African American fathers set limits less often than mothers but have more sole responsibility for disciplining their children than European American fathers (Child Trends, 2006). Among Latin American families, fathers often exercise more control over children than mothers, especially in the case of adolescent daughters. Finally, among Asian American immigrants, few mother-father differences in strictness have been found (Chao and Kim, 2000) in contrast to higher levels of paternal compared with maternal strictness among mainland Chinese families (Berndt et al.,1993). Clearly, acculturation and exposure to new cultural values play a role in parenting styles. In spite of similarities in interactive stylistic features, the contexts that mothers and fathers choose for interacting with their children tend to differ. Fathers participate less than mothers in caregiving and in providing meals, school lunches, and clothing but spend a greater percentage of the time available for interaction in play activities. Among North American families, fathers regardless of ethnicity (European American, Asian American, African American, and Latin American) spent a greater percentage of time with their infants in play than mothers (Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013). However, in absolute terms, mothers spend more time than fathers in play with their children (Yeung et al., 2001). The quality of play across mothers and fathers differs too. Among young infants, older infants, and toddlers, fathers’ hallmark style of interaction is physical play with characteristic degrees of arousal, excitement, and unpredictability in terms of the pace of the interaction. In contrast, mothers’ playful interactive style is characterized by a more modulated and less arousing tempo. Moreover, mothers play more conventional motor games or toy-mediated activities and are more verbal and didactic (Hossain and Roopnarine, 1994; Parke, 1996). They engage in more pretend play and role play than fathers as well as more teaching activities than fathers (by labeling colors and shapes) as they engage their infant in play (Power and Parke, 1982). Fathers engage in more physical play with sons than daughters (Power and Parke, 1982), whereas mothers facilitate pretend play of their daughters more than of their sons (Bornstein, 2007). In turn, girls engage in more frequent and more sophisticated pretend play than boys (Bornstein, 2007). Nor are these effects evident only in infancy. MacDonald and Parke (1984) found that fathers engaged in more physical play with their 3- and 4-year-old children than mothers, whereas mothers engaged in more object-mediated play than fathers. The fathers’ distinctive role as a physical play partner changes with age, however. Physical play is highest between fathers and 2-year-olds, and between 2 and 10 years of age, there is a decreased likelihood that fathers engage their children physically (MacDonald and Parke, 1986). In spite of the decline in physical play across age, fathers are still more often physical play partners than mothers. In an Australian study of parents and their 6- to 7-year-old children (Russell and Russell, 1987), fathers were more involved in physical/outdoor play interactions and fixing things around the house and garden than mothers. 74

Fathers and Families

In contrast, mothers were more involved in caregiving, household tasks, reading, toy play, and arts and crafts. In sum, fathers are tactile and physical, and mothers tend to be verbal, didactic, and toymediated in their play. Clearly, infants and young children experience qualitatively different stimulatory patterns from mothers and fathers. In adolescence, the quality of maternal and paternal involvement continues to differ. Just as in earlier developmental periods, mothers and fathers may complement each other and provide models that reflect the tasks of adolescence—connectedness and separateness. Across development, the focus on physical play on the part of fathers declines and is replaced in adolescence by verbal playfulness in the form of sarcasm, humor, and word play, even though this often increases emotional distance but perhaps encourages independence and more equal and egalitarian exchanges as well (Shulman and Klein, 1993): “Fathers, more than mothers conveyed the feeling that they can rely on their adolescents, thus fathers might provide a ‘facilitating environment’ for adolescent attainment of differentiation from the family and consolidation of independence” (Shulman and Klein, 1993, p. 53). Mothers are more emotionally available to their adolescents, and mother-adolescent dyads spend more time together than father-adolescent dyads (Larson and Richards, 1994; Larson and Sheeber, 2007). Mothers continue to be more involved in arts, crafts, and reading, and maintain more open communication and emotional closeness with their offspring during adolescence. Although the style of fathers’ involvement as a play or recreational partner appears to have reasonable continuity from infancy through adolescence, the meaning and function of this interaction style shift across development. Why do mothers and fathers play differently? Both biological and environment factors probably play a role. Experience with infants, the amount of time spent with infants, and the usual kinds of responsibilities that a parent assumes are all factors that influence parents’ style of play. For example, as a result of spending less time with infants and children than mothers, fathers may use their distinctive arousing style as a way to increase their salience to compensate for their more limited interaction time. Mothers who overall spend more time with their infants and young children than fathers focus on less arousing types of activities such as symbolic pretend play (Bornstein, 2007). Biological factors cannot be ignored in light of the fact that male monkeys show the same rough-and-tumble physical style of play as U.S. human fathers, and infant male monkeys tend to respond more positively to bids for rough-and-tumble play than females (Parke and Suomi, 1981): “Perhaps [both monkey and human] males may be more susceptible to being aroused into states of positive excitement and unpredictability than females” (Maccoby, 1988, p. 761)—speculation that is consistent with gender differences in risk-taking and sensation seeking. In addition, human males, whether boys or men, tend to behave more boisterously and show more positive emotional expression and reactions than females (Maccoby, 1998). The fact that girls and their mothers engage in more symbolic pretend play than fathers and boys suggests that mothers and fathers may enact complementary roles in their children’s lives. Together, these threads of the puzzle suggest that predisposing biological differences between males and females may influence the play patterns of mothers and fathers. At the same time, the cross-cultural data underscore the ways in which cultural and environmental contexts shape play patterns of parents and remind us of the high degree of plasticity of human social behaviors. How mutable are these stylistic differences? The common wisdom concerning these parent gender differences has been questioned. Instead, a profile has emerged of overlapping play styles between and within mothers and fathers as well as adoption of a range of play styles by both mothers and fathers has emerged. This revision does not diminish the contribution of either parent to children’s development but opens up new questions about the processes through which parents contribute. Moreover, we may need to reevaluate the distinctiveness of maternal and paternal contributions to developmental outcomes but still recognize that both parents can play important roles. Despite evidence about the unique styles of mothers and fathers, questions remain. The gender-of-parent differences, on average, are relatively small, and there is a good deal of overlap between mothers and fathers in both the style of play as well as in the absolute amount of time devoted to playful 75

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

interactions (Pleck, 2010; Yeung et al., 2001). And fathers do not own the physical play franchise; mothers have a mixed play repertoire, too, and can and do bouncing and tickling as well as reading and conversing with their children. In the same vein, fathers, like mothers, play with toys, read books, and engage in pretend play in addition to their supposedly signature style of arousing and stimulating physical play (Lamb and Lewis, 2010). Parents may do a variety of types of play not only in a single play session but also across different days, weeks, or even times of day depending on their mood, their energy level, the child’s momentary interest, and their child’s daily schedule. Both mothers and fathers contribute to their children’s development in a myriad of playful ways (Roggman, Boyce, Cook, Christiansen, and Jones, 2004; Tamis-LeMonda, 2004): The stylistic differences in play between fathers and mothers became enshrined in our views of mothers and fathers based on work conducted 20–30 years ago when traditional conceptions of fathers’ role predominated, maternal employment was still relatively uncommon and was viewed negatively, and fathers were much less involved in the day-to-day care of their infants. (Lamb and Lewis, 2010, p. 116) As men in contemporary society have expanded their range of involvement to include more caregiving and managerial parenting activities, the predominance of play as the distinctive feature of the father role has diminished in importance. Play has become merely one of a variety of ways that fathers (and mothers) are involved with their children. Some leading father scholars have revised their earlier views of the uniqueness of father play: “There is less and less justification for viewing the identification of fatherhood with play and companionship as something with unique psychological significance as was once thought” (Lamb and Lewis, 2010, p. 117).

Other Cultures, Other Interactive Styles, and Other Play Partners Another challenge to the uniqueness of these play distinctions comes from scrutiny of other cultures, which clearly demonstrates that both the quantity and quality of parental involvement vary across cultures. This evidence has challenged the assumption of the universality of paternal physical play as well as the widely shared view that physical play is the hallmark of fathers’ interactive style. In some cultures that are similar to mainstream U.S. culture, such as England and Australia, there are comparable differences between mothers and fathers in play. However, findings from several other cultures do not find that physical play is a central feature of the father-infant relationship (Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013; Shwalb et al., 2013). Neither in Sweden nor among Israeli Kibbutz families were fathers more likely than mothers to play with their children or to engage in different types of physical play (Hwang, 1987). Similarly, among Chinese Malaysian, Indian and Aka pygmy (Central Africa) parents, parents, they rarely engage in physical play with their children (Hewlett and MacFarlan, 2010; Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013). Instead, both parents display affection and engage in plenty of close physical contact. Perhaps societies that value sharing and cooperation are less likely to encourage a physical playful interactive style, whereas industrialized societies which are characterized by a high degree of competition and value independence and assertiveness commonly support this interactive style (Paquette, 2004). In fact, children in Western technologically advanced and highly individually oriented societies have the highest levels of competition between partners in their play (Hughes, 1999). However, there is less competitive play among North American children reared in cooperation-oriented communes (Plattner and Minturn, 1975) and perhaps less prevalence of physical play between fathers and children, although the possible decrease in physical play has not been established. Another challenge to the traditional view of mothers and fathers as play partners comes from cross-cultural observations that parents are not always active play partners. Instead, in some cultures, 76

Fathers and Families

the play duties are assumed by other members of the community. In Italy, neither mothers nor fathers but other women in the extended family or within the community are more likely to play physically with infants (New and Benigini, 1987), and in Mexico, this physical play role often falls to siblings (Zukow-Goldring, 2002). These findings suggest that the physical play role of the father is not universal and that the play role may be assumed by other social agents in some cultures. Moreover, these cross-national differences suggest that cultural context is one of the factors that may reduce the ­differences—in this case, in terms of play style—between mother and father interaction patterns. These observations argue for a reevaluation of the pathways through which fathers influence their children and suggest that we reconsider the father’s physical play role as a major contributor to children’s emotional regulation—at least in some cultures. The findings from other cultures suggest that our focus on the gender of the parent may be too narrow a conceptualization of the issue of necessary adult input for adequate child development. Instead, it may be helpful to recast the issue by asking whether exposure to male and female parents is the key, or whether it is exposure to the interactive style typically associated with either mothers or fathers that matters. In an experimental examination of this issue, Ross and Taylor (1989) found that boys prefer the physical play style, whether it is mothers or fathers who engage in it. Their work suggests that boys may not necessarily prefer their fathers but rather their physical style of play. Together, these studies suggest that gender of the agent of delivery of playful input may be less important than the type of stimulation itself. Further evidence is consistent with this interchangeability argument, which suggests that mothers and fathers can substitute for each other as we saw in the case of caregiving. To illustrate gender of parent substitutability, consider a classic study of the effects of having a secure or insecure attachment relationship with mother or father on an infant’s sociability with a stranger, a friendly clown (Main and Weston, 1981). Infants who had secure attachment ties to both mother and father were most responsive to the friendly stranger, whereas those with insecure attachment relationships with both parents were the most wary and least responsive. Infants who had a secure attachment with either their mother or their father and an insecure attachment to the other parent exhibited a mid-level of social responsiveness. However, the gender of the parent with whom the infant developed a secure attachment did not matter; the parents were substitutable for one another. Studies of the effects of having supportive or unsupportive parents on toddlers’ and 5-year-olds’ cognitive development came to a similar conclusion (Martin, Ryan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Ryan, Martin, and Brooks-Gunn, 2006). When both mothers and fathers were supportive, the children’s cognitive development scores were highest, and when both parents were unsupportive, the children scored lowest. The scores were between the two high and low extremes when one parent was supportive and the other parent was unsupportive. However, the scores were similar regardless of which parent was supportive or unsupportive. Clearly, it is better to have two supportive parents, but if the child has only one supportive parent, sex of parent is irrelevant and mother and father are equivalent. Together, this evidence indicates that the style of parenting and the gender of the parent who delivers it can be viewed as at least partially independent. These data help us address the uniqueness of fathers’ and mothers’ roles in the family. Moreover, they help provide clarity on the important issue of how essential fathers (Silverstein and Auerbach, 1999) and mothers (Parke, 2002, 2013) are for the successful socialization of their children. Work on same-gender parents that shows that parenting processes are more important than the family type (same gender versus heterosexual) for children’s development is consistent with this view (Golombok, 2019; Miller, Kors, and Macfie, 2017; Patterson, 2016). Finally, the focus on parents themselves as the sole agents in the socialization matrix is too narrow a framing as well, as we saw in the cross-national examples in Mexico and Italy. These findings suggest that a variety of socialization agents beyond mothers and fathers, such as siblings, extended family members, and nonkin figures in the community, play important roles in children’s lives. 77

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

Beyond the “New Involved Father” in Intact Married Families It is increasingly clear that the previous descriptions of the albeit slow emergence of fathers who are more actively involved in the care of their children, and shared the responsibilities of both caregiver and breadwinner with their partners, do not apply to all fathers (Doucet, 2013; Edin and Nelson, 2013). There is increasing recognition that there is a two-tier family system based to a large extent on social class (Furstenberg, 2014). The cultural trends involving new and involved fathers apply most clearly to economically and educationally advantaged families, but they apply less readily to less economically well off and less educated fathers and families. Especially as economic inequality has increased, it is important to recognize that economic disparities have yielded more variability across social class in the patterns of fathering than is usually recognized. Many fathers are either in cohabitation with a partner rather than married; others may be divorced or never in residence with their partner but still involved in the lives of their children. Reviews of fathering after divorce and stepfathering are beyond the scope of this chapter (see Ganong, Coleman, and Sanner, 2019; Weinraub and Bowler, 2019). Instead, several recent trends in fathering will be examined in this section including the father’s role in multiple partner fertility families. In a subsequent section, work on patterns of “fathering at a distance” in which fathers do not reside with their children on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, such as military deployment, incarceration, or work in another country, will be examined.

Disadvantaged Families and Patterns of Father-Child Contact Much of the recent work on fathers and families who have experienced disadvantage is based on large national samples of fathers and children, such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). These studies and recent qualitative studies (Edin and Nelson, 2013) provide important insights into fathers’ roles in the lives of children as well as the effects of these fathers on children’s development. According to the Fragile Families study, unmarried fathers are generally younger than married fathers at the time of the birth of their first child (27 versus 32 years), of minority background (African American or Latin American), and less educated and less likely to be employed (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). A variety of other features characterizes these families, such as early onset of parenthood and a decision not to marry. However, many parents are either cohabitating or in a partner relationship at the time that the baby is born (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). In spite of stereotypes, these men often had a close relationship with their partners, with 82% being romantically involved at the time of the birth, 50% were cohabiting, and another 32% were romantically involved but not in residence. Clearly, the belief that most out-of-wedlock births are a product of casual relationships is misleading (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). Across time, however, just as is the case of early-timed marriages, these relationships are unstable. Only about two fifths of unmarried couples are still romantically involved 5 years after the birth of the child, compared with 77% of married couples (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). Moreover, disadvantaged men may be involved with multiple partners across time and, in turn, have children with subsequent partners. Almost 20% of fathers between the ages of 15 and 44 years have children with more than one partner (Guzzo, 2014; Guzzo and Furstenberg, 2007). Age at first sexual experience, age at birth of the first child, and relationship status of partners are correlates of multi-partner fertility (Guzzo, 2014). Men whose first children are born outside of marriage are three times as likely to experience multi-partner fertility than are men who are married to the mother of their first child at the time of birth (Carlson and Furstenberg, 2006). What about involvement with their children? Several studies converge in finding that contact between unmarried fathers and their children decreases over time and, in contrast to the 78

Fathers and Families

new contemporary fathers, have less contact with their offspring (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). However, contact is not absent, and there is a notable amount of variation in the amount of time that unmarried fathers spend with their children as well as variations in their forms of support for their child. Studies of unmarried fathers indicate a surprising amount of paternal involvement for extended periods following the birth. Results from Fragile Families indicate that 87% of fathers saw their child in the year after the birth and 63% saw the child more than once a month (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). There is considerable instability in levels of father involvement with their children across time. In a sample of low-income African American, unwed fathers, nearly 40% either increased or decreased their level of involvement between the child’s birth and 3 years (Coley and Chase-Lansdale, 1999). Similarly in the Fragile Families study (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010), by 3 years, only 71% of fathers had seen their child in the prior 2-year period and less than half (47%) had seen their child more than once in the past month. By 5 years, 63% of fathers had seen their child since age 3, and 43% had seen their child more than once in the past month. These declines in father participation continue across childhood and adolescence (Furstenberg and Harris, 1993). A word of caution in needed because the pattern of instability over time in contact patterns of nonresident fathers and their children may apply more to poor fathers than all nonresidential fathers. To illustrate, using a nationally representative sample, Cheadle, Amato, and King (2010) found that most nonresidential fathers have fairly stable patterns of contact over a 12-year period. A large group (38%) maintained a high level of contact across the study, and another group (32%) were initially uninvolved and continued to remain at a distance from their children across time. A third group (23%) of men were initially involved with their offspring but became relatively uninvolved across time, as a small group (7%) were low at the beginning but gradually increased their level of involvement. There is great variety in forms of father involvement beyond financial or even emotional and practical support for the mother. Fathers provide nurturance, play and leisure activities, safety, moral guidance, and discipline as well as connections with the extended family and community (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010; Palkovitz, 2002). In the Fragile Families study, formal child support was rare but informal support in the form of money, toys or diapers for the baby, or transportation were common around the birth of the baby (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010; Edin and Nelson, 2013). A broadened definition of support has clearly corrected the myth of the “deadbeat dad” among poor and unmarried fathers (Tamis-LeMonda and McFadden, 2010). And the stereotype that African American fathers are uninvolved is not true, either. In the Fragile Families study, African American men were more likely to maintain contact with their children than either European American or Latin American men (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). Similarly, others report that fewer African American fathers (12%) have no contact with their offspring than European American (30%) and Latin American (37%) fathers. Finally, to fully appreciate the variability in contact between poor, often nonresidential, fathers and their offspring, another feature of fathering among poor unwed men needs attention, namely, that fathers do not maintain similar levels of contact across all biological children. Middle-class men are more likely to marry, divorce, and remarry, a pattern that has been termed the “Marriage go round” (Cherlin, 2009), but men in poverty are less likely to marry but more likely than middle-class men to have multiple children with different partners. According to Edin and Nelson (2013), these men are on “the ‘Family-go-round’ where good fatherhood is accomplished by moving from one child to another” (2013, p. 189) as romantic relationships end and they move on to a new relationship and often a new bout of fathering. Fathering efforts are not evenly distributed across all offspring because few men are able to support or even maintain ties with several children. Instead, a pattern of selective fathering is more normative among poor unmarried men whereby a father selectively and serially invests his fathering capital in one or a few offspring. Instead of supporting the child’s mother, many women are left to their own resources as many poor men are unable to play the traditional breadwinner role due to high unemployment or sporadic and low paying employment or 79

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

intermittent incarceration. Instead of a contemporary package deal in which a middle-class father is expected to be both a breadwinner and a nurturer, guide, and support for their child, poor men may elect to play only the nurturing role. This selective involvement choice represents a reversal of roles between the sexes because it is the mother who is the financial provider and the father the playmate to their child. Although selective involvement allows men to perhaps father at least one child well, it leaves not only the women who have borne these other children to bear the major responsibility for the financial burden of rearing a child but also these “nonselected” children without support from their biological father. As we elaborate ahead, this arrangement may have detrimental effects on children. Clearly, the patterns of contact between fathers and their offspring, the modes of support provided to either children or the biological mother, and the couple relationships among these poor families in which fathers are often nonresidential are sufficiently unique from more typical married families to raise caution about any single profile of fathers in the current era. Instead, there continue to be multiple faces of fatherhood.

Paternal Incarceration and Father Contact Another group of fathers who have begun to receive attention and who are disproportionately drawn from poor, disadvantaged, and minority groups are incarcerated fathers. A recent estimate suggests that more than 5,000,000 children, or 7% of all U.S. children, have experienced a coresident parent leaving to spend time in jail or prison (Murphey and Cooper, 2015; see Dalliare, 2019). A recent report revealed that 1 in 28 children in the United States had an incarcerated parent in 2010, up from 1 in 125 children in 1985 (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010). Estimates suggest that cumulatively, 1 in 25 European American children and 1 in 4 African American children born in 1990 had experienced parental imprisonment by their 14th birthday (Wildeman, 2009). There has been increasing interest in both the modes and the frequency of contact between incarcerated parents and their children (Poehlmann-Tynan, 2014). A variety of factors alters the contact patterns between incarcerated parents and their children. First, proximity is a major factor, and the greater the distance between the incarceration site and the family, the less the likelihood of visitation (Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen, and Kennon, 1999). Therefore, those in more distant state or federal prisons, rather than in local jails, are less likely to experience regular visitation (Dallaire, 2019). Second, the appropriateness and friendliness of visiting arrangements affect both the likelihood of visitation and the positive or negative effects of the visit on both parent and child (Loper, Carlson, Levitt, and Scheffel, 2009). Noisy, inhospitable contact settings, such as plexiglass barriers that limit direct contact between parent and child, may reduce the benefits of visitation. In light of these difficulties surrounding live visitation, remote forms of contact such as phone calls or written correspondence offer a viable alternative for reliable contact between incarcerated parents and their children (Poehlmann et al., 2010). Letter writing is the most frequent vehicle for parent-child contact, with an estimated 52% of parents in state prisons having at least monthly mail contact with at least one of their children (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). Moreover, Tuerk and Loper (2006) found that frequency of letter writing, rather than the frequency of personal visits or phone calls, accounted for the association between more child contact and less parenting stress. As Poehlmann et al. (2010) noted, “Parents have control over the content of letters and can plan and anticipate what their children may need to hear in ways that are not available to them in a noisy or unpredictable visitation environment” (p. 586). Other forms of remote communication are increasingly feasible such as video calls, instant messaging, and e-mail, but these forms of communication are not uniformly available to incarcerated individuals or are limited to a few contacts and at a cost to the imprisoned person (Poehlmann-Tynan, 2014). Boudin (1997) described a program by which incarcerated parents read and recorded stories for their children. The effects of these forms of contact remain to be rigorously evaluated. 80

Fathers and Families

Third, according to a national survey of state and federal prisoners, imprisoned mothers more frequently reported at least monthly phone calls (47% versus 38%) and mail correspondence with children (65% versus 51%) than did imprisoned fathers (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). Fathers are less likely to receive visitation contact with their children than incarcerated mothers, and contact is likely to vary with the earlier quality of the parent-child relationship (Poehlmann, Shlafer, Maes, and Hanneman, 2008). Others found that imprisoned fathers (and mothers) perceiving stronger coparenting alliances were more likely to experience child contact (letters in particular) than those who disagreed about coparenting issues (Loper et al., 2009). Most children with incarcerated fathers live with their mothers during the incarceration period, whereas children with incarcerated mothers are more likely to live with their grandparents, other family members, or in foster care (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). Particularly in the case of young children, the non-incarcerated caregiver often restricts contact with the incarcerated parent due to concerns about negative reactions to the visit (Arditti, 2003). Additionally, because many young incarcerated fathers have limited direct experience caring for children, interventions to pair parent education with one-on-one time with the child appear to be having an impact on father-child time and relationships (Barr et al., 2011). Finally, prior incarceration is related to less child contact in the post-incarceration period due to “the social stigma, lower earning capability, and complicated relationships with mothers typically experienced after they are released” (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010, p. 253). As we note ahead, incarceration has a clear negative effect on children and families and although some forms of contact may be beneficial, the effects of contact between incarcerated fathers and their children remain poorly understood.

Transnational Fathers and Patterns of Contact Another understudied aspect of fathering at a distance involves transnational fathers who often leave their country of origin and migrate to another country to improve their economic prospects but who often leave either their partner or children or sometimes both behind in the process. Some estimates suggest that 25% of children in U.S. immigrant families have at least one parent abroad (Mazzucato and Schans, 2011), and most often it is the father who is the emigrating parent. The decision to divide childcare and provisioning responsibilities across international borders is best viewed as a family strategy aimed at helping the family survive economically by finding better-paying jobs in another country. At the same time, the consequences of these economic strategies for father-mother relationships and father-child relationships are poorly understood. Little is known about the variations in the amount of time that fathers (or mothers) are separated from their children (or partners). Thus, we need better information on the patterns of contact between transnational parents and their children and or partners who remain in the country of origin. Clearly, most parents make an effort to stay in contact with their children. Although visiting their children is obviously important, and according to an internet survey (Cookston, Boyer, Vega, and Parke, 2017), 64% of parents who were residing in the United States cited “visiting children living there” as their primary reason for visiting their families in Mexico, visiting their home country is often difficult in terms of logistics and cost. In spite of their motivation to see their children, 75% of parents had not been back to visit their children in over a year. Alternatively and as a result of the limited opportunities to have face-to face visits, most transnational parents use some form of “communication at a distance” strategy to keep in contact with their children. In one study (Dreby, 2010), most U.S.-based parents—mothers and fathers—reported calling home to Mexico once a week. Similarly, 61% of children in this study reported talking to their parents once a week or more. The frequency of contact needs to be better understood, and the modes of communication need to be better specified. In the internet survey, Cookston et al. (2017) found that 83% of parents communicated with their children via telephone, 85% via the internet, and 67% by video conference. Only 24% communicated by traditional postal mail. 81

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

Many questions remain to be addressed. What is the quality of internet contact? What topics are most frequently discussed? And how are variations in contact patterns related to fathers’ (and mothers’) perceptions of his role as father? What factors determine variations in separation periods? How does the age of the child alter the patterns of separation? Do fathers return home more often when children are younger (or older)? Perhaps, fathers return more frequently to visit infants to establish attachment bonds. Are they less (or more) likely to leave at all when children are young? Or do fathers visit more when children are adolescents? Fathers may view themselves as more critical in curbing deviant behavior during the adolescent period.

Father Duty: Military Fathers During Deployment and Back Home Another form of fathering at a distance involves military fathers who are deployed to foreign lands as part of their military duties. Patterns of contact between these physically absent fathers and their children is beginning to receive attention (MacDermid Wadsworth, 2013). The evidence suggests that deployed fathers use a variety of communication strategies to maintain contact with their partners and children, such as phone contact, video conference, and other forms of electronic communication. Ahead, we examine the impact of this form of father-child separation on children’s development. This form of fathering at a distance is an especially useful comparison because many of the confounding factors, such as stigma and poverty, associated with other forms of distant fathering, such as incarceration, are avoided. Fathers who are in the military and are deployed due to military service experience a unique set of challenges. On the one hand, their physical separation makes direct contact a challenge; however, access to modern telecommunications means fathers can interact with their children regularly while deployed and their relationships with their children’s other parent means they are able to remain involved in the lives of their children. However, as we would expect with long periods of absence, when military deployed fathers are separated from their children for extended periods, children appear to increase in their adjustment problems at both school (Chandra, Martin, Hawkins, and Richardson, 2010) and home (Lester and Flake, 2013). For the most part, children who experience deployment fare well, but a subset of children experience adversity as a result of the deployment separation (Mustillo, Wadsworth, and Lester, 2015). Importantly, a DVD intervention that employed Sesame Street characters that was designed to help families prepare for and cope with deployment was linked to better functioning among caregivers and children (Flittner O’Grady et al., 2016). For many military fathers who have seen active duty, a return to family life can prove challenging, and it is common for these fathers to experience difficulties in their marriages and parenting (Mustillo, Wadsworth, and Lester, 2015). In one sample of men who had served in the National Guard (Mustillo et al., 2015), combat exposure was linked to major depression and the experience of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Further, the quality of the marital relationship was associated with father internalizing symptoms, and parenting difficulties were greatest when depressive symptoms were greatest. Cozza, Holmes, and van Ost (2013) drew attention to risks associated with childhood in a military family and suggested that a deficit perspective has emerged for research on the risks of a life in the military. In fact, when both risk and protective factors associated were measured, evidence emerged that the protective factors within families increased when risk was present (MacDermid Wadsworth et al., 2016). For these reasons, the experiences of military families offer an important perspective for consideration of the role of fathers in the lives of their children. In a qualitative study of deployed fathers, parent identity emerged as a salient determinant whether and how fathers remain involved in the lives of their children (Willerton et al., 2011). Given that the military is a workplace with expectations and rules that bind members, opportunities exist to promote education and opportunities for men to fully engage in the lives of their children and partners. An evaluation of a mobile phone 82

Fathers and Families

application designed to help military fathers learn about child development, track milestones, and communicate with their child’s other parent demonstrated that the content resonated with military fathers and could be a useful tool to engage military fathers in the lives of their children despite possibly being separated by a great distance (Lee and Walsh, 2015). Clearly as the previous sections illustrate, both differences in fathering across cultures and the considerable variability in patterns of father involvement across social and ethnic groups in our own culture need to be recognized.

Determinants of Father Involvement The importance of examining the determinants of father involvement stems from the view that the paternal role is less culturally scripted and determined than the maternal role and few clear role models for defining fatherhood exist. It is assumed that a multifactor approach to father involvement is necessary because a variety of factors determines the degree of father involvement with children. It is useful to distinguish individual, familial, and societal levels of analysis in assessing the determinants of father involvement with children. As outlined in Figure 3.1, it is useful to distinguish both biological (hormonal and neurological) and social (individual, familial, and societal levels) determinants of father involvement with children (Doherty, Kouneski, and Erikson, 1998; Li and Fleming, 2019; Parke and Buriel, 2006). It is important to recognize that these factors operate together in determining fathering behavior even though most prior investigators have examined single or a few predictors within an individual study. The advantages of an additive and interactive approach over a model focusing on single components to understanding father-child interaction are illustrated in a study by Holmes and Huston (2010), who found that a variety of factors including father parenting beliefs, child language and social skills, maternal employment and mother-child interaction quality together predicted father-child interaction patterns (see Parke and Buriel, 2006; Pleck, 2010; Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004 for reviews).

Biological Factors in Paternal Behavior Hormonal Influences It has long been recognized that females undergo a variety of hormonal changes during pregnancy and childbirth that may facilitate maternal behavior. It was long assumed that hormones play an unimportant role in paternal behavior because exposure to rat pups increases paternal activity without any changes in hormone levels (Li and Fleming, 2019). More recent evidence has challenged the assumption that hormonal levels are unimportant determinants of paternal behavior by examining this issue in species other the rat, which is not a natural paternal species. In naturally paternal species, such as canid species who constitute less than 10% of mammalian species (Storey and Walsh, 2013), researchers have found that in a variety of animal species, males experience hormonal changes including increases in prolactin and decreases in testosterone prior to the onset of parental behavior and during infant contact (Li and Fleming, 2019). Human fathers, too, undergo hormonal changes during pregnancy and childbirth (Feldman, 2019; Storey and Walsh, 2013). Males experience hormonal changes prior to the onset of parental behavior and during infant contact. Storey, Walsh, Quinton, and Wynne-Edwards (2000) found that men experienced significant pre-, peri-, and postnatal changes in each of these hormones—prolactin, cortisol, and testosterone—a pattern of results that was similar to the women in their study. Specifically, prolactin levels were higher for both men and women in the late prenatal period than in the early prenatal period, and cortisol levels increased just before birth and decreased in the postnatal period for both men and women. Testosterone levels were lower in the early postnatal period, which corresponds to the first opportunity for interaction with their infants. Hormonal levels and changes 83

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

were linked with a variety of social stimuli as well. Men with lower testosterone held test baby dolls longer and were more responsive to infant cues (crying) than men with higher testosterone. Men who reported a greater drop in testosterone also reported more pregnancy or couvade symptoms. Together, these findings suggest that lower testosterone in the postnatal period may increase paternal responsiveness, in part, by reducing competitive non-nurturing behavior (Storey et al., 2000). Similarly, prolactin levels were higher in men showing greater responsiveness to infant cries and in men reporting more couvade symptoms during pregnancy. Storey et al. (2000, p. 91) argued that the “cortisol increases in late pregnancy and during labor may help new fathers focus on and become attached to their newborns.” Men’s changes in hormonal levels are linked not only with baby cries and the time in the pregnancy birth cycle but also to the hormonal levels of their partners. Women’s hormonal levels were closely linked with the time remaining before delivery, and men’s levels were linked with their partner’s hormone levels, not with time to birth. That father hormone levels are linked with those of his partner suggests that contact with the pregnant partner may play a role in paternal responsiveness, just as the quality of the marital relationship is linked with paternal involvement in later infancy. Clearly, social variables need to be considered in understanding the operation of biological effects. Perhaps intimate ties between partners during pregnancy stimulates hormonal changes, which, in turn, are associated with more nurturance toward babies. This perspective recognizes the dynamic or transactional nature of the links between hormones and behavior in which behavior changes can lead to hormonal shifts and vice versa. Other evidence is consistent with a psychobiological view of paternal behavior. Fleming and colleagues (2002) found that fathers with lower baseline levels of testosterone are more sympathetic and show a greater need to respond when hearing infant cries than men with higher baseline testosterone levels. Moreover, fathers with higher baseline prolactin levels are more positive and alert in response to infant cries. Just as in the case of mothers, contact with the baby is linked to the level of the hormone oxytocin for new fathers too; paternal oxytocin correlated with the degree of stimulatory parenting behaviors, including proprioceptive contact, tactile stimulation, and object presentation (Feldman, Gordon, Schneiderman, Weisman, and Zagoory-Sharon, 2010). This stimulatory play style is the typical and unique way that many Western fathers interact with their infants. But all of these studies were cross-sectional snapshots, and alternative interpretations are possible. Perhaps men who show lower testosterone are more likely to partner and reproduce, whereas higher testosterone men stay single and do not become parents. Longitudinal work suggests that becoming a father does, indeed, lead to a drop in testosterone which, in turn, may better prepare them for the nurturing aspect of parenting. Gettler and his colleagues (2011) followed a group of over 600 men in the Philippines over a 5-year period from the time that they were single to the time some became fathers. Men with high levels of testosterone were more likely to become partnered fathers over the course of the study than men with lower levels of the hormone, possibly because men with higher testosterone were more assertive in competing for women or appeared healthier and more attractive. However, the men who became partnered fathers showed a larger drop in testosterone than did single non-fathers, whereas the drop for the men who became fathers was nearly twice as large as the decline in testosterone shown by the single men. These findings show that relations between testosterone and men’s reproductive strategies are bidirectional. High testosterone is helpful in the mating process but declines rapidly once men become fathers and begin the process of parenting where lower levels of testosterone are better for maintaining a family. As anthropologist Peter Gray noted, “A dad with lower testosterone is maybe a little more sensitive to cues from his child, and maybe he’s a little less sensitive to cues from a woman he meets at a restaurant” (Simon, 2011). Moreover, childcare experience also plays a role. Fathers who have more experience with babies have lower testosterone and higher prolactin levels than first-time fathers (Fleming, Corter, Stallings, and Steiner, 2002), even after controlling for paternal age. In the Gettler, McDade, Feranil, and Kuzawa (2011) study, fathers with extensive involvement in childcare (3 hours a day or more 84

Fathers and Families

playing, feeding, bathing, toileting, reading, or dressing them) showed larger decreases in testosterone than fathers who were less involved with the routine care of their children. Similar links between testosterone and involvement in childcare have been found in Tanzania (Muller, Marlowe, Bugumba, and Ellison, 2009). In two neighboring cultural groups, fathers in the group in which paternal care is the cultural norm had lower testosterone than among fathers in the group in which paternal care is absent. In a study of a polygamous Senegalese society, fathers who were highly invested in their children, as reported by the children’s mothers, had lower testosterone compared with fathers who were less invested (Alvergne, Faurie, and Raymond, 2009). This perspective recognizes the dynamic or transactional nature of the links between hormones and behavior in which behavior changes can lead to hormonal shifts and vice versa. In contrast to the myth of the biologically unfit father, this work suggests that men may be more prepared—even biologically—for parenting than previously thought. Men, just like women, are biologically evolved to be parents, and cooperation between parents is an adaptive strategy. More work is needed to explore the implications of these hormonal changes for the long-term relationship between fathers and their offspring. For example, are the ties between children and fathers who do not experience hormone-related changes at birth weaker, or can experience compensate for this lack of hormonal shift? Do childless men or women show hormonal changes as a result of opportunities to engage infants and children as well? However, it is clear that hormonal, in combination with social, factors are an important class of factors to recognize because the shifts in paternal hormones may decrease differences in maternal versus paternal parenting behavior. It is not just hormones that reflect fathers’ biological preparedness for parenting.

Insights From the Brain Perhaps some of the most striking evidence that humans—mothers and fathers—are biologically prepared for caregiving comes from studies of how our brains react when we are exposed to babies. From the earliest days of life, fathers as well as mothers are neurologically primed to respond to infants. Using brain imaging techniques such as fMRI, they show more neural activation when shown pictures of babies than pictures of animate objects (Swain, Lorberbaum, Kose, and Strathearn, 2007). Brain imaging reveals that mothers and fathers compared with nonparents exhibited more pronounced neural responses in the right amygdala (an area involved in emotional processing) in response to infant crying than to infant laughter (Seifritz et al., 2003). Evidence for differences in neural responses to the emotional responses of children suggests parents may experience a cry as an emotionally important signal which requires their attention and demonstrates that the emotion areas of the brain may be involved in fathers and mothers listening/responding to babies distress signals (Seifritz et al., 2003). Fathers and mothers show higher levels of activity in emotional processing areas of the brain when exposed to infant cries than nonparents (Swain, 2008; Swain et al., 2011). Other brain imaging studies found that men respond neurologically more to the cries of their own infants than to the distress signals of unrelated infants (Swain et al., 2007). Structural changes in the brain of fathers over the first 4 months postpartum have been documented (Kim et al., 2014). Fathers exhibited increase in gray matter (GM) volume in several neural regions involved in parental motivation, including the hypothalamus, amygdala, striatum, and lateral prefrontal cortex. Fathers exhibited decreases in GM volume in the orbitofrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and insula. These changes may support the development of close attachment relationships with their offspring during early infancy. The findings provide evidence for neural plasticity in fathers’ brains that accompanies interaction experience between fathers and their infants. How much and what type of social interactional experience between fathers and infants is related to these brain changes remains unexplored. Moreover, hormonal changes in vasopressin may be related to these brain changes (Kim et al., 2014), a reminder that neurological and hormonal influences may act together in shaping paternal responding. 85

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

In sum, our brains as well as our hormones prepare not just mothers but also fathers for the challenges of caregiving. In contrast to the myth of the biologically unfit father, this work suggests that men may be more prepared even biologically for parenting than previously thought. Finally, it is critical to underscore that these hormonal possibly neurological changes are not necessary for the elicitation of fathering behaviors in either animals or humans (Li and Fleming, 2019). In humans, for example, studies of father-infant relationships in the cases of adoption clearly suggest that hormonal shifts are unnecessary for the development of positive father-infant relationships (Grotevant and McDermott, 2014; Pinderhughes and Brodinsky, 2019). Next, we turn to a discussion of the social determinants of father involvement.

Individual Factors Men’s own psychological and family background, attitudes toward the fathering role, motivation to become involved, and childcare and childrearing knowledge and skills all play a role in determining men’s level of involvement with their children.

Men’s Relationships With Their Family of Origin The quality of relationship that fathers develop with their own mothers and fathers has been viewed as a possible determinant of fathers’ involvement with their own children. However, evidence in support of this proposition is not clear-cut. Two views have guided this inquiry. First, from social learning theory (Bandura, 1989) comes a modeling hypothesis that suggests that men model themselves after their fathers, and this modeling process will be enhanced if their fathers were nurturant and accessible. Second, a compensatory or reworking hypothesis argues that fathers tend to compensate or make up for deficiencies in their childhood relationships with their own fathers by becoming better and more involved when they themselves assume this role (Roy and Smith, 2013). There is support for both views. In support of the modeling hypothesis, a number of studies suggest that positive relationships with fathers in childhood are related to higher levels of later father involvement (Cowan and Cowan, 1992; Sagi, 1982). Hofferth (1999) found that men whose fathers were active participants in rearing them are more involved with their own offspring, take more responsibility, are warmer, and monitor them more closely than men reared by less involved fathers. Subsequent results from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth showed that men were more involved with their children when their own fathers were more involved when they were children (Hofferth, Pleck, and Vesely, 2012). Importantly, the link between more involved fathering as a child and involved fathering as a parent was not better explained by mothering or adolescent adjustment. Moreover, fathers parent more like their own fathers than their mothers (Losh-Hesselbart, 1997). There is also intergenerational transmission of harshness. Scaramella and Conger (2003) found that children who experienced hostile parenting were more likely to use similar tactics when they became parents. Support for the second hypothesis is also evident. Men may reject their own experiences with their fathers and opt for alternative compensatory parenting practices. Baruch and Barnett (1986) found that men who viewed their own relationships with their fathers as negative tended to be more involved with their 5- and 9-year-old children. Similarly, studies of men reared in father absent homes suggest that many men became more involved when they themselves became fathers (Roy, 2006). As Sagi (1982, p. 214) argued, these two hypotheses “are not mutually exclusive since either process is possible depending on the circumstances.” Prior history often combines with current circumstances as well as child temperament in determining cross-generational father involvement. Low-income men who had poor childhood relationships with their fathers and poor current circumstances (poor coparent relationship, limited education) were low on involvement with their children, whereas men with negative histories with their fathers but a positive current situation were 86

Fathers and Families

highly involved with their children (McFadden, Tamis-Lemonda, Howard, Shannon, and Cabrera, 2009). Moreover, cross-generational continuity of parental hostility is more likely if children were temperamentally negative (high in negative reactivity), but less continuity was found when children were temperamentally more positive (Scaramella and Conger, 2003). Another factor that can disrupt the intergenerational transmission of hostility is the presence of a warm and supportive coparent (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, and Cabrera, 2006). It is oversimplified to assume that family of origin is the only major influence on fathering, and a broader set of cultural factors needs to be recognized. Roy, Buckmiller, and McDowell (2008) found that only about half of the men reported that their own fathers taught them how to be a father. In a qualitative study, Daly (1993) interviewed fathers of young children about the sources of their role models for their own fatherhood identity. Some fathers emulate their own fathers, others compensate, and still others report little influence of their own fathers as mentors or models. However, most fathers interviewed by Daly either did not view their fathers as a model or wanted to do better as fathers than their own fathers. Many fathers in Daly’s study opted for a piecemeal approach to defining fathering. Instead of emulating one person, many men tried to piece together an image of fathering from many different sources including extended family members, cultural figures, and friends. This view is echoed by Roy and Smith (2013), who suggested that “young men’s lessons about how to care emerge through the enactment of relationships as sons to their parents, as siblings or as junior family members with aunts and uncles, cousins or grandparents” (p. 324). Men thus draw on models from their own generation of contemporary fathers as well as fathers from earlier eras and generations. As men become fathers, they struggle to reconcile past and present images and models of fathering behavior with the changed historical circumstances that face modern fathers. Even if they chose to emulate their own fathers, the rapid changes in our society make it difficult for current fathers to apply these lessons from the past in any simple way. It is clear that the process of intergenerational transmission of parenting is an active one in which the father himself plays a central role in sorting, retaining, and discarding images and guidelines from a variety of sources. There is no simple or single route to developing a father identity; there are many different paths just as there are many different kinds of fathers.

Socialization of Boys Into the Fathering Role It is not only the specific nature of the relationship a child develops with his parents but the ways in which girls and boys are differentially prepared for parenthood during childhood that determine the ways in which girls and boys enact their parenting roles in adulthood. It is well known that girls and boys are treated differently by parents during socialization but most of this work focuses on occupational aspirations, activity, and object preferences and modes of relating to others. However, the differential treatment of girls and boys may help shape a boy’s expectation about his future fathering role. A variety of strands of evidence supports this view. First, children’s household chores are based on gender, with girls engaging in more household duties such as cleaning, ironing, cooking, and childcare, whereas boys take out the garbage and mow the lawn (Goodnow and Lawrence, 2001; McHale, Crouter, and Whiteman, 2003). Cross-national studies of over 30 countries confirm these findings, with girls engaging in more household work and boys engaging in non-household labor such as farm- or business-related activities (Putnick and Bornstein, 2016). Of particular importance are the differential opportunities afforded to girls and boys to learn childcare skills. Cross-cultural evidence (Whiting, Edwards, Ember, and Erchak, 1988), as well as evidence from our own culture, suggests that boys are given dolls less often than girls and are discouraged from playing with dolls (Rheingold and Cook, 1975; Pomerleau, Bolduc, Malcuit, and Cossotte, 1990). In middle childhood, boys are less likely to be babysitters (Goodnow, 1999) and are less likely to be caregivers for their siblings (East, 2010). This lack of opportunities for socialization into parenthood makes boys 87

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

less prepared for fatherhood than girls are for motherhood and may lead to lower levels of parental self-efficacy for men than women (Rose and Halverson, 1996). However, some qualitative evidence suggests that in single-mother families or in economically disadvantaged households, boys as well as girls are more likely to be recruited into household work, including sibling caregiving duties, in part due to the more limited parental resources in these households (Roy and Smith, 2013). When boys are obligated to care for younger siblings, some suggest that “these first steps toward learning to parent may lead to a new sense of self confidence, empathy or leadership” (Roy and Smith, 2013, p. 325). Although these qualitative studies suggest that these childhood experiences may enhance later father involvement, further quantitative work is needed to firmly establish these links.

Men’s Attitudes, Motivation, and Skills Paternal attitudes, motivation, and skills are important determinants of father involvement (Lamb and Lewis, 2010). In early work on attitudes and father involvement, the focus was on the relation between sex role attitudes and paternal involvement. However, weak or no links between sex role attitudes and father involvement have led to a more specific focus on men’s attitudes concerning the paternal role (Parke, 2002). When the focus is more specifically oriented toward beliefs about parental roles, clearer links between beliefs and behavior are evident (Bornstein, Putnick, and Suwalsky, 2017). This work has been guided, in part, by identity theory which recognizes that men play a variety of roles as spouse, parent, and worker and that the relative importance men assign to these roles in their formation of a self-identity is a useful predictor of father involvement (Rane and McBride, 2000). Paternal attitudes about parenting relate to measures of father involvement with their 3-monthold infants (Beitel and Parke, 1998). Specifically, fathers’ belief in the biological basis of sex differences, their perception of their caregiving skills, and the extent to which they valued the father’s role were predictors of father’s involvement. Finally, a variety of types of involvement relates to paternal attitudes including play, caregiving, and indirect care (e.g., packs diaper bag, changes crib linen). Other studies have confirmed that paternal attitudes are important beyond infancy. Russell (1983) found that Australian men who do not accept the notion of maternal instinct participate in childcare more with their 3- to 6-year-old children. Consistent with this work, McBride and Rane (1997) found that fathers’ attitudes about the importance of father for preschool age children’s development were linked to several indices of father involvement (responsibility, interaction, and accessibility), and their perceived investment in the worker role was inversely related to their workday accessibility and responsibility. Rane and McBride (2000) found that fathers who considered the nurturing role highly central to their sense of self engaged in more interaction and assumed more responsibility behaviors with their children than fathers low on nurturing role centrality. Bonney, Kelley, and Levant (1999) found that fathers with more liberal gender ideology and who view fathers as critical for child development and as capable of performing childcare as mothers have higher levels of involvement in childcare than more traditional fathers. Similarly, fathers who have more traditional childrearing attitudes (high in control and emotionally distant) have lower quality interactions with their children than less traditional fathers (Holmes and Huston, 2010). Finally, Hofferth, Pleck, Goldscheider, Curtin, and Hrapczynski (2013) suggested that paternal attitudes (e.g., “fathers should be as involved as mothers,” “fathers and mothers are equally good at meeting their children’s needs”) are undergoing change but also predict father involvement across time. Compared with 1997, in 2003, fathers’ attitudes concerning their paternal role became more positive. And positive attitudes were linked with several indices of father involvement (i.e., engagement, warmth, control, discussion of rules) across this period. In spite of the fact that men are competent caregivers, there are wide individual differences among men in either their perceived or actual level of skill in caregiving. In turn, these variations in skill may be related to level of father involvement. 88

Fathers and Families

Paternal Mental Health A variety of studies supports the prediction that personal resources—including mental health—alter parenting behaviors (Cummings, Merrilees, and Ward George, 2010). Although many studies have found that maternal psychopathology, such as depression, will alter parenting behavior, evidence suggests that paternal depression is an important determinant of fathering as well (Cummings, Keller, and Davies, 2005). Fathers who report depression at 8 weeks postpartum have children with more conduct problems 3 years later (Ramchandani, Stein, Evans, and O’Connor, 2005). Others find that paternal depression is linked with poorer peer relationships and more behavior problems (Dave et al., 2005). Labeled the “paternal mental health hypothesis” (Cummings et al., 2010), this perspective focuses on the role of parental psychological functioning in accounting for the effects of marital conflict either as a risk or protective factor. While recognizing that the mental health of both parents is important, a strong version of this position suggests that father mental health may be particularly influential in altering children’s adjustment. Papp, Cummings, and Schemerhorn (2004) found that paternal (as well as maternal) depression was linked with poor child adjustment indirectly through a poor marital relationship. Mothers’ depression was directly related to child problems, which suggests that paternal and maternal depression may be linked to child outcomes through different pathways. Other work suggests that the effects of paternal and maternal depression may affect different child outcomes and vary by gender of child (Cummings et al., 2005; Shelton and Harold, 2008). As we explore ahead, fathers’ parenting may be more vulnerable to problematic marital relationships than mothers’ parenting. Some evidence suggests that paternal depression may have a greater impact on their parenting and, in turn, their children’s adjustment than maternal depression (Low and Stocker, 2005), a finding that would bolster the paternal mental health hypothesis. Cummings, El-Sheikh, Kouros, and Keller (2007) found that children’s sympathetic nervous system reactivity in response to marital conflict was linked to child adjustment more strongly for fathers’ than mothers’ dysphoria, a result that supports the paternal mental health argument. Further support for this hypothesis comes from evidence that suggests that problem drinking may negatively impact not only the marital relationship but also parenting and, in turn, children’s adjustment; again, paternal drinking is more consequential for child outcomes than maternal alcohol consumption (Keller, Cummings, Davies, and Petersen, 2009).

Characteristics of the Child In recognition that fathers and children mutually influence each other, it is important to note that a variety of child characteristics merits consideration as well. Several individual child features have been identified, including child gender, temperament, and children’s social skill and language competence. Support for gender of child has been found in infancy, with fathers devoting more time to boys than girls (Lamb and Lewis, 2010) but less support for a clear gender effect beyond infancy (Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004). Child sociability positively predicted a father’s time with his child, his accessibility to his child, and his responsibility for the child’s care (McBride, Schoppe, and Rane, 2002) and to the quality of father-child interaction (Holmes and Huston, 2010). Moreover, children with high receptive and expressive language skills engage in more positive father-child interactions than children with low skills (Holmes and Huston, 2010). Children’s health appears to be important as well. Greater neurobiological risk at birth and a longer hospitalization at birth are associated with more distress at 6 months of age for fathers but not mothers (Gueron-Sela, Atzaba-Poria, Meiri, and Marks, 2015). Further, although diagnoses of a developmental delay in children are resolved similarly by mothers and fathers, mothers tend to employ methods of emotion coping, and fathers favor more cognitive coping strategies (Barak-Levy and Atzaba-Poria, 2013). When children experience sleep difficulties, fathers (more so than mothers) report their children as more difficult, but when fathers 89

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

of children with sleep difficulties become more engaged, it serves to protect mothers from stress (Millikovsky-Ayalon, Atzaba-Poria, and Meiri, 2015). Finally, child temperament has been linked to father-child interaction quality. When children have difficult temperaments, fathers as well as mothers are more likely to use coercive parenting strategies (Rothbart, 2011) or be less involved with their children (Grych and Clark, 1999). And temperament may affect the quality of coparenting as well (Wong, Mangelsdorf, Brown, Neff, and Schoppe-Sullivan, 2009). In sum, both father and child characteristics play roles in determining the father-child relationship.

Family Factors Individual factors are not the only determinants of father involvement. Family-level variables including maternal attitudes concerning father involvement and the marital relationship are both family level factors that require examination.

Maternal Attitudes: Mother as Gatekeeper Consistent with a family systems view, maternal attitudes need to be considered as a determinant of paternal participation in childcare (Schoppe-Sullivan and Altenburger, 2019). In spite of advances in women’s participation in the workplace, many women still feel ambivalent about father involvement in domestic issues (Doucet, 2006). Due, in part, to the “cult of maternalism” (Duffy, 1988), which stresses the notion that mothers are indispensable, natural, and necessary, many women are reluctant to actively and wholeheartedly involve fathers in the daily routines of caregiving. As Allen and Hawkins (1999) suggest, their ambivalence “may be because increased paternal involvement intrudes on a previously held monopoly over the attentive and intuitive responsibilities of family work which if altered may compromise female power and privilege in the home” (p. 202). However, contradictory attitudes about father involvement may reflect a more deeply held belief that predates recent increases in father involvement. As a father of five in 1927 lamented, “There often seems to be a conspiracy on the part of the female of the species to exclude father from any active part in the care of the baby” (What Should a Child Demand of His Father, Parents’ Magazine, 1927; cited by Milkie and Denny, 2014). These maternal attitudes may lead to behaviors which, in turn, limit father involvement and constitute a form of gatekeeping. A major advance in the conceptualization of gatekeeping was made by Allen and Hawkins (1999, p. 200), who defined the term as follows: Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviors that ultimately inhibit a collaboration effort between men and women in families by limiting men’s opportunities for learning and growing through caring for home and children. These investigators identified three conceptual dimensions: Mothers’ reluctance to relinquish responsibility over family matters by setting rigid standards, external validation of a mothering identity, and differentiated conceptions of family roles. In a study of dual-earner families, Allen and Hawkins (1999) found that 21% of the mothers were classified as gatekeepers who, in turn, did more hours of family work per week and had less equal divisions of labor than women classified as collaborators. Unfortunately, the scales used to measure gatekeeping included both housework and childcare, although the authors noted that “separating housework and child care into unique measures produced similar results” (1999, p. 210). Nor were the number and ages of the children specified in analyses. Other studies of gatekeeping have focused specifically on father involvement in childcare. Beitel and Parke (1998) examined the relation between maternal attitudes and father involvement with 3- to 5-month-old infants. A variety of maternal attitudes concerning father involvement including judgments about their husband’s motivation and interest in childcare activities, maternal 90

Fathers and Families

perception of his childcare skills, and the value that she places on his involvement linked with father involvement. Mothers’ belief in innate sex differences in female and male ability to nurture infants and the extent to which mothers viewed themselves as critical of the quality of their husbands’ caregiving were negatively related to father involvement. As these results suggest, maternal attitudes play a significant role in understanding father involvement, but the type of involvement needs to be considered, because maternal attitudes may vary across different types of involvement (e.g., play, role responsibility, indirect care). But gatekeeping is not restricted to infancy. Fagan and Barnett (2003) found a direct link between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement in a sample of fathers of children between 3 and 17 years of age Similarly, McBride and Rane (1997) found that maternal perceptions of their partners investment in the parental as well as the spousal role were related to father involvement, whereas their perceptions of their husbands’ investment in the worker role was negatively related to fathers’ involvement. In fact, mothers’ perceptions were the best predictors of total father involvement. Other evidence suggests that fathers’ participation may be more self-determined than these earlier studies suggest. Bonney, Kelley, and Levant (1999) found that mothers’ attitudes about the degree to which fathers should be involved in childcare were unrelated to fathers’ participation in childcare. Instead, they found that fathers’ participation appears to influence mother’s beliefs about the father’s role. Or perhaps, as Bonney et al. (1999) argue, a transactional perspective best characterizes this relation between maternal attitudes and father involvement in which fathers who are more involved have female partners who develop more positive attitudes about their involvement which, in turn, increases fathers’ level of participation. Longitudinal studies are needed to more definitively determine the direction of causality in this domain. Finally, gatekeeping effects are not confined to intact families as studies of postdivorce efforts on the part of the custodial parent demonstrate. Custodial parents, usually the mother, will often attempt to restrict access to the noncustodial father after divorce, especially if there is a high level of couple conflict and distrust (Fabricius et al., 2010; see Ganong et al., 2019). Moreover, in nonresidential father families, mothers or, in some cases, maternal grandparents control paternal access to the child and may facilitate or restrict his access (Edin and Nelson, 2013; Fagan and Barnett, 2003). Similarly, visitation opportunities between incarcerated fathers and their children are regulated by their nonincarcerated partner (Poehlmann et al., 2010), just as in the case on transnational fathers where custodial mothers or other relatives may control the duration and frequency of phone contact with their children (Dreby, 2010). Two qualifications to our discussion of gatekeeping are needed. First, the term is gender neutral and fathers as well as mothers engage in gatekeeping activities in other domains of family life (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Pruett, Williams, Insabella, and Little, 2003; Schoppe-Sullivan, Brown, and Cannon, 2008; Trinder, 2008), and theoretical work suggests that there are likely to be bidirectional influences across partners with respect to gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors (Adamsons, 2010). Second, gates can open as well as close, and the term needs to be broadened to recognize that parents—­mother and fathers—can facilitate as well as inhibit the type and level of domestic involvement of each other. Work on “parental gatekeeping” needs to include gateopening as well as gateclosing to underscore the dual nature of the inhibitory and faciliatory processes that are part of the coparenting enterprise.

Couple Relationships and Father-Child Relationships Models that limit examination of the effects of interaction patterns to only father-child and motherchild dyads and the direct effects of one individual on another are inadequate for understanding the impact of social interaction patterns in families (Belsky, 1984; Cummings et al., 2010; Parke, 2013). From a family systems viewpoint, the couple relationship needs to be considered as well. The bulk of 91

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

attention has been given to intact families, as noted earlier, but the quality of the couple relationship in non-intact families suggests that the quality of the couple relationship is a major determinant of the degree of father involvement. Studies of nonresident unmarried fathers suggest that when the relationship between the parental partners is harmonious (romantic or not) and their quality of coparenting is satisfactory, father involvement is higher (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010; Lerman and Sorensen, 2000), but if either parent has moved on to a new partner, father participation may decrease or at least be more selective in terms of which child is the recipient of father involvement (Edin and Nelson, 2013; Edin, Tach, and Mincy, 2009). Among intact families, the primary focus has been on the effects of the quality of the couple relationship (conflictful versus cooperative/constructive) on their children. Two perspectives concerning the link between couple conflict and children’s adaptation can be distinguished. According to a direct effects model, direct exposure to couple conflict influences children’s behavior; the indirect model suggests that the impact of couple conflict on children is indirectly mediated by changes in the parent-child relationship (Crockenberg and Langrock, 2001; Cummings and Davies, 2010; Grych and Fincham, 1993). Several decades of investigation suggest that dimensions of marital functioning are related to aspects of children’s long-term overall adjustment and immediate coping responses in the face of interparental conflict (Cummings and Davies, 2010). Couple discord and conflict are linked to a variety of child outcomes, including antisocial behavior, internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, and changes in cognition, emotions, and physiology in response to exposure to marital conflict (Cummings et al., 2010). Although less empirical work has been directed specifically toward examination of the “carryover” of exposure to couple conflict to the quality of children’s relationships with significant others, such as peers and siblings, exposure to couple discord is associated with poor social competence and problematic peer relationships (Katz and Gottman, 1991; Kerig, 1996). Importantly, among divorcing families when conflict tends to be high, fathering can compensate for the negative risk associated with exposure to conflict (Sandler, Miles, Cookston, and Braver, 2008), and intervention with fathers after divorce appears to reduce interparental conflict while increasing perceived coparenting by mothers (Cookston, Braver, Griffin, deLusé, and Miles, 2007). Couple discord can have an indirect influence on children’s adjustment through changes in the quality of parenting (Cummings and Davies, 2010; Fauber and Long, 1991). Factors that include affective changes in the quality of the parent-child relationship, lack of emotional availability, and adoption of less optimal parenting styles each has been implicated as a potential mechanism through which marital discord disrupts parenting processes. Marital conflict is linked with poor parenting, which, in turn, is related to poor social adjustment on the children. Other work has focused on the specific processes by which the marital relationship itself directly influences children’s immediate functioning and long-term adjustment. Several aspects of parental conflict appear to be relatively consistently associated with poor outcomes for children. More frequent interparental conflict and more intense or violent forms of conflict have been found to be particularly disturbing to children and likely to be associated with externalizing and internalizing difficulties (Cummings and Davies, 2010) and poor peer relationships (Parke et al., 2001). Conflict that was child-related in content was more likely than conflict involving other content to be associated with behavior problems in children (Cummings and Davies, 2010; Grych and Fincham, 1993). Finally, when parents resolve their conflict, the negative effects on children are reduced. Resolution of conflict reduces children’s negative reactions to exposure to inter-adult anger and conflict. Exposure to unresolved conflict is associated with negative affect and poor coping responses in children (Cummings and Davies, 2010). In addition, the manner in which conflict is resolved may also influence children’s adjustment. Katz and Gottman (1993) found that couples who exhibited a hostile style of resolving conflict had children who tended to be described by teachers as exhibiting 92

Fathers and Families

antisocial characteristics. When husbands were angry and emotionally distant while resolving marital conflict, children were described by teachers as anxious and socially withdrawn. Conflict is inevitable in most parental relationships and is not detrimental to family relationships and children’s functioning under all circumstances. In particular, disagreements that are extremely intense and involve threat to the child are likely to be more disturbing to the child. In contrast, when conflict is expressed constructively, is moderate in degree, is expressed in the context of a warm and supportive family environment, and shows evidence of resolution, children may learn valuable lessons regarding how to negotiate conflict and resolve disagreements (Cummings and Davies, 2010). However, although the evidence suggests that couple conflict may alter the parenting of both mothers and fathers, evidence suggests that fathers are more likely to be affected by marital conflict than their female partners. Several studies in the United States (Cummings and Davies, 2010), Great Britain (Pike, Caldwell, and Dunn, 2005), and other cultures (e.g., Japan; Durrett, Otaki, and Richards, 1984) support the conclusion that the quality of the mother-father relationship is related to the quality of the father- and mother-child relationships, which, in turn, may alter the child’s adjustment. Several major theoretical and empirical advances in this domain over the past several decades are noteworthy. First, the vulnerability of the father to disruptions in quality of the couple relationship has continued to receive attention. Often termed the father “vulnerability hypothesis” (Cummings et al., 2010), this notion suggests that the father-child relationship is altered more than the mother-child relationship by the quality of the couple relationship. This position continues to receive support but several moderating process that govern its operation have been identified. Second, possible mediators between the impact of couple quality on fathering and child outcomes have been discovered. Third, longitudinal evidence in support of this hypothesis has begun to accumulate. Fourth, the positive effects of a high-quality couple relationship on fathering (and mothering) have received more scrutiny as a corrective to the usual focus of the effects of marital conflict.

The Father Vulnerability Hypothesis This notion has a long history of support over the last 30 years. A meta-analysis of the relations between interparental conflict and parenting provided strong evidence of this position including stronger links between a variety of aspects of fathering behaviors such as parental control, acceptance, harsh discipline, and overall parenting quality than for mothering behaviors (Krishnakumar and Buehler, 2000). However, this hypothesis needs to be qualified in several ways (Cummings et al., 2010). First, contextual factors need consideration because fathers’ parenting is linked with poor marital quality in both dyadic and triadic settings, but mothers exhibit the negative effects of marital conflict on parenting only in triadic contexts (Clements, Lim, and Chaplin, 2002). Perhaps the presence of her conflictful partner in the triadic interactional context highlight their mutual estrangement leading to a deterioration of mothering, whereas fathers may have more deeply internalized the negativity associated with the marital conflict. Second, the child’s gender matters as well. Some studies have found that fathering boys (Kitzmann, 2000) is more vulnerable to marital quality and conflict than mothering of boys, but others found that fathering girls is more negatively affected than fathering boys (Cowan and Cowan, 1992). Third, some child outcomes may be more strongly altered by marital conflict than others. For example, fathers’ parenting declines in response to marital quality were linked with increases in boys’ internalizing, whereas maternal parenting in high conflict marital contexts is associated with higher externalizing problems among boys (Kaczynski et al., 2006). There is overall support for the father vulnerability hypothesis, but a variety of factors may qualify its operation and probably more will be discovered. Even stronger support for this hypothesis comes from longitudinal studies. For example, across time, interparental hostility and withdrawal are both linked to parental emotional unavailability and, in turn, to children’s adjustment (Sturge-Apple, Davies, and Cummings, 2006). Fathers’ emotional 93

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

unavailability is more consistently related to a range of child outcomes (internalizing, externalizing, and school-related problems), whereas maternal unavailability is related only to scholastic problems. Other longitudinal evidence supports this hypothesis and suggests greater complexity across time. A reverse pathway from parent-child to marital relationships was found for fathers, but not mothers, which suggests that the father-child relationship may be more closely tied to broader family relationships than the mother-child relationship (Schermerhorn, Cummings, and Davies, 2008). This bidirectionality of influence between parenting and other aspects of family dynamics is not surprising and is consistent with a general family systems view of fathering. A number of factors aid in explaining the father vulnerability hypothesis. First, fathers’ level of participation is, in part, determined by the extent to which the mother permits participation (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Beitel and Parke, 1998). Second, because the paternal role is less well defined than the maternal role, spousal support may help crystallize the boundaries of appropriate role behavior (Lamb and Lewis, 2010; Parke, 2013). Third, men have fewer opportunities to acquire and practice caregiving skills during socialization and, therefore, may benefit more than mothers from informational support (Parke and Brott, 1999). Although the preponderance of evidence has focused on the negative effects of couple distress on parent-child relationships and child adjustment, it is important to recognize that positive couple relationships can have a protective effect on parenting and, in turn, child outcomes. In both crosssectional and longitudinal studies, support for this link has been found. Bonney et al. (1999), in a cross-sectional study of couples with children ages 1–4, found that for fathers, higher marital satisfaction was associated with more participation in common childcare activities. Lee and Doherty (2007) followed couples from the second trimester of pregnancy to 6 and 12 months postpartum. Fathers’ marital satisfaction and involvement were positively related, and mothers’ employment status and fathers’ attitudes toward father involvement were important moderators. Nor are the links evident in only European American families. A study focused on the potential benefits of positive marital quality for children in working-class, first-generation Mexican American families (Leidy, Parke, Clavis, Coltrane, and Duffy, 2009) examined the links between positive marital quality and child internalizing and externalizing behaviors 1 year later when the child was in sixth grade. Positive marital quality was negatively correlated with child internalizing behaviors. Not all studies found couple satisfaction negatively related to paternal involvement (Nangle, Kelley, Fals-Stewart, and Levant, 2003), so the issue remains open. However, this body of work serves as an important corrective to the sole focus on the negative aspects of couple relationships on fathering.

Changing Societal Conditions as Determinants of Father-Child Relationships A number of society-wide changes in the United States have produced a variety of shifts in the nature of early family relationships. Fertility rates and family size have decreased, the percentage of women in the workforce has increased, the timing of onset of parenthood has shifted, divorce rates have risen, and the number of single-parent families has increased (for reviews, see Goldberg, 2014; Golombok, 2015; Parke, 2013). In this section, the effects of two of these changes—timing of parenthood and recent shifts in family employment patterns—are explored to illustrate the impact of social change on father-child and family relationships. Exploration of these shifts underscores an additional theme, namely, the importance of considering the historical period or era in which social change occurs.

Timing of Parenthood and the Father’s Role A number of factors need to be considered to understand the impact on parenting of childbearing at different ages. First, the life course context, which is broadly defined as the point at which the 94

Fathers and Families

individual has arrived in his or her social, educational, and occupational timetable, is an important determinant. Second, the historical context, namely, the societal and economic conditions that prevail at the time of the onset of parenting, interacts with the first factor in determining the effects of variations in timing. Consider early and delayed childbirth in light of these issues. Patterns of the timing of the onset of parenting are changing for both mothers and fathers. In comparison to 1986–1987, when women were on average 22.7 years old and fathers were 25.3 years when they became parents, in 2013, both women and men were about 2 years older (24.6 and 27.8, respectively) when they made this transition (Eickmeyer, 2016). However, there is considerable variability, and the age of entry into this role varies with marital status, ethnicity, and education (Eickmeyer, 2016). Married fathers were older (29.4 years) than cohabitating fathers (26.7 years), who, in turn, were older than single men (21.5 years). European American men became fathers at later ages (28.3 years) than either African American men (26.5 years) or either native born (27.5) or foreign born (26.2) Latin American men. As educational attainment increases, men become fathers at later ages. Men who completed at least an undergraduate college degree were the oldest (30.9), and those without a high school diploma were the youngest (23.9) to become fathers. Those men who completed high school or attained a GED and those with some college entered fatherhood around 27 years of age. At the same time, it is important to recognize that, as the overall shift toward later childbearing has occurred, there has been a decline in births to teenage mothers over the last several decades. There were approximately 60 births per 1,000 to teen women in 1991, but by 2014, this number dropped to 24.3 per 1,000, which is a decline of about one third. In spite of the fact that teenage parenthood is still higher in the United States than in many Western countries, this is a decline in part due to delays in initiation of sexual activity and increased use of birth control (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Moreover, most fathers or young mothers are, in fact, older, usually in their 20s or later rather than teenagers themselves. The focus of attention has shifted from teen or adolescent parenthood to early parenthood more broadly conceived as a challenge of young or emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2011). Movement through the educational system and into a stable position in the workforce is a longer, slower, and more challenging process than in prior eras. “Transitions of today’s young adults are both delayed and elongated: delayed because young adults take more time to complete their education and enter the job market and elongated because each subsequent transition (marriage and family formation) takes longer to complete. Typical transitions to adulthood can stretch from the late teens to early thirties” (Clarke, 2009, p. 14, cited by Leadbeater, 2014). Therefore the issue of early versus late-timed onset of fathering needs to be reframed as an issue of financial and educational readiness for the fathering role and more generally how poverty alters father roles. Educational level is positively linked with later onset of fathering (and mothering), which, in turn, alters job and financial prospects. In this section, we examine recent work on men who become fathers at a time before they are fully prepared for this role, and in a later section, we explore the effects of delayed entry into fatherhood.

The Challenges of Entry Into Fatherhood Before Preparation Men who become fathers in young adulthood are often unprepared financially and emotionally to undertake the responsibilities of parenthood (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). As Lerman (1993, p. 47) noted, “Young unwed fathers are generally less well educated, had lower academic abilities, started sex at earlier ages and engaged in more crime than did other young men.” Low family income and having lived in a welfare household increase the likelihood of entry into young unwed fatherhood. This profile is especially evident for European American unwed fathers. In spite of the fact that African American males are four times as likely to be an unwed father as European American males, African American unwed fatherhood is less likely to be linked with adverse circumstances but is a more mainstream issue. Several factors reduce the likelihood of becoming a father earlier 95

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

than optimal including church attendance, military service, and higher reading scores. In view of the low rates of marriage and high rates of separation and divorce for adolescents, early and less prepared fathers, in contrast to “on-schedule” fathers, have less contact with their offspring. However, contact is not absent; in fact, studies of unmarried adolescent fathers indicate a surprising amount of paternal involvement for extended periods following the birth. Data (Lerman, 1993) based on a national representative sample of over 600 young unwed fathers indicated that three-fourths of young fathers who lived away from their children at birth never lived in the same household with them. However, many unwed fathers remain in close contact with their children. According to Lerman’s (1993) analysis of the national survey data, nearly half visited their youngest child at least once a week and nearly a quarter almost daily. Only 13% never visited, and 7% visited only yearly. There is considerable instability in levels of father involvement with their children across time. In a sample of low-income African American, unwed fathers, nearly 40% either increased or decreased their level of involvement between the child’s birth and 3 years (Coley and Chase-Lansdale, 1999). These declines in father participation continue across childhood and adolescence. Furstenberg and Harris (1993) reported the pattern of contact between adolescent fathers and their offspring from birth through late adolescence. Under half of the children lived at least some time with their biological father at some time during their first 18 years, but only 9% lived with their father during the entire period. During the preschool period, nearly half of the children were either living with their father or saw him on a weekly basis. By late adolescence, 14% were living with him, and only 15% were seeing him as often as once a week; 46% had no contact, but 25% saw him occasionally in the preceding year. In contrast to early-timed childbearing, when childbearing is delayed, considerable progress in occupational and educational spheres has potentially already taken place. Education is generally completed and career development is well underway for both males and females. Delayed fathers have described themselves to be in more stable work situations than early-timing fathers, to be more experienced workers, and have their jobs and careers more firmly established than early-timing peers (Daniels and Weingarten, 1982). The financial strains associated with early career status may be more likely to create conflict between the work and family demands of early/normal-timing fathers than delayed-timing fathers. Neville and Parke (1997) found some support for this proposition, but qualified by the sex of the child. Specifically, younger fathers of girls and older fathers of boys reported more interference by work in family life than older fathers of girls and younger fathers of boys. What are the effects of late-timed parenthood for the father-child relationship? Retrospective accounts by adults who were the firstborn children of older parents report having felt especially appreciated by their parents (Yarrow, 1991). Daniels and Weingarten (1982) found late-timed fathers are three times more likely to be involved in the daily care of a preschool child. Cooney, Pedersen, Indelicato, and Palkovitz (1993) found that late-timed fathers were more likely to be classified as being highly involved and experiencing positive affect associated with the paternal role than “ontime” fathers. Finally, men who delayed parenthood until their late 20s contributed more to indirect aspects of childcare, such as cooking, feeding, cleaning, and doing laundry than men who assumed parenthood earlier (Coltrane and Ishii-Kuntz, 1991). There are qualitative differences in styles of interaction for on-time versus late-timed fathers. In a self-report study, MacDonald and Parke (1986) found that age of parent is negatively related to the frequency of physical play, especially physical activities (i.e., bounce, tickle, chase, and piggyback), that require more physical energy on the part of the play partner. Moreover, Neville and Parke (1997) found older parents likely to engage in more cognitively advanced activities with children and to report holding their children more than younger fathers. These and other studies (Zaslow, Pedersen, Suwalsky, Rabinovich, and Cain, 1985) suggest that older fathers may be less tied to stereotypic paternal behavior, adopting styles more similar to those that have been considered traditionally maternal. 96

Fathers and Families

Observational studies of father-child interaction confirm these early self-report investigations. Volling and Belsky (1991), who studied fathers and their 3- and 9-month-olds, found that older fathers were more responsive, stimulating, and affectionate. Neville and Parke (1997) found that early fathers relied on physical arousal to engage their preschoolers, whereas delayed fathers relied on more cognitive mechanisms to remain engaged. Waiting too long to become a parent has a downside not only for women but also for men. As men age, they produce lower quality sperm that increases the risk of birth defects (Wyrobek et al., 2006). Men as well as women have ticking biological clocks. Timing effects are important not just for fathers, but also for grandfathers as well. In their study of grandfathers interacting with their 7-month-old grandchildren, Tinsley and Parke (1987) divided grandfathers into three categories: Younger (36–49 years), middle (50–56), and older (57–68). Grandfathers in the middle age group were rated significantly higher on competence (e.g., confident, accepting), affect (e.g., warm, attentive), and play style (e.g., playful, responsive, stimulatory). From a life-span developmental perspective, the middle group of grandfathers could be viewed as being optimally ready for grandparenthood, both physically and psychologically (Tinsley and Parke, 1984) because they were less likely to be chronically tired or to have been ill or still be heavily involved in their work activities. Moreover, the age of the middle group of grandfathers fits the normative or age-appropriate time at which grandparenthood is most often achieved.

Women’s and Men’s Employment Patterns and Their Parental Roles in the Family Relations between employment patterns of both women and men and their family roles are increasingly being recognized (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). In this section, a variety of issues concerning the links between the worlds of work and family is considered to illustrate the impact of shifts in work patterns on both men’s and women’s family roles. The impact of changes in the rate of maternal employment on both quantitative and qualitative aspects of father participation is examined as well as the influence of variations in family work schedules. Since the mid-1960s, there has been a dramatic shift in the participation rate of women in the labor force. Between 1960 and 2016, the employment rate for mothers of children under age 6 increased dramatically from about 20% to 65% and among mothers of children between 6 and 17, it is even higher (75%) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). In exploring these work trends, two issues are relevant. First, does father involvement shift with increases in maternal employment? Second, how does the quality of work alter maternal and paternal parenting behavior? Maternal employment is a robust predictor of paternal involvement which, as noted earlier, has increased considerably over the last half century (Pleck, 2010). However, we are clearly not at 50/50 yet. Working women decrease their time devoted to housework, but they still spend time on childcare, especially in the case of children under 6 (Bianchi, 2009). Women who do not work outside the home continue to do a significantly larger share of childcare than their husbands (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). In addition to documenting the quantitative shifts in father behavior as a consequence of maternal employment, it is also necessary to examine the impact of this shift on the quality of the father-child relationship. Pedersen, Anderson, and Cain (1980) assessed the impact of dual wage-earner families on mother and father interaction patterns with their 5-month-old infants. Fathers in single wageearner families tended to play with their infants more than mothers did, but in the dual wage-earner families, the mothers’ rate of social play was higher than the fathers’ rate of play. Perhaps mothers used increased play as a way of reestablishing contact with the infant after being away from home for the day: “It is possible that the working mother’s special need to interact with the infant inhibited or crowded out the father in his specialty” (Pedersen et al., 1980, p. 10). However, as studies of reversed role families suggest, the physical style of fathers play remains evident (Field, 1978). These 97

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

data suggest that both mothers and fathers may exhibit distinctive play styles, even when family role arrangements modify the quantity of their interaction. However, the father-infant relationship is altered as a result of maternal employment. Specifically, insecure infant-father attachment is higher in dual-career families, although only for sons and not daughters (Belsky, Rovine, and Fish, 1989). Other evidence suggests that fathers in dual-earner families are less sensitive with their male infants, and this pattern may explain the more insecure infant-father attachments (Braungart-Rieker, Courtney, and Garwood, 1999). Grych and Clark (1999) reported similar findings, namely, that in families where mothers work full time (defined as 25 hours or more), fathers were more negative in interacting with their infants at 4 months, although the relation was not evident at 12 months.

Father’s Work Quantity and Quality and Father Involvement Although there has been an increase in the number of parents who are employed, many workers experienced increases in work hours, a decrease in job stability, a rise in temporary jobs, and especially among low-wage workers, a decrease in income (Williams, 2010). As a result of these changes, the theoretical questions have shifted. Instead of examining whether one or both parents are employed, researchers have begun to address the issue of the impact of the quality and nature of work on the parenting of both mothers and fathers (see Cho and Ciancetta, 2016, for a review). Both how much and when parents work matter for children. As studies of poor nonresidential fathers indicate, lack of employment opportunities and, therefore, financial ability to support children is a major determinant of lack of father involvement (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010). Men who provide either informal or formal financial support are more likely to maintain contact with their children, whereas fathers who rarely or never visit are less likely to pay child support (Lerman, 1993; Lerman and Sorensen, 2000) which, in turn, adds to mothers’ financial burden and may indirectly have negative effects on the children. The direction of effects is still being debated; perhaps fathers who can provide financial support are more likely to stay involved as a parent, or alternatively, those who stay involved are more likely to seek employment to fulfill their role as provider (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010; Coley and Chase-Lansdale, 1999). Parental work schedules can be stressful and are associated with negative outcomes for children and adults (Li et al., 2013; Williams, 2010). In the 24-hour economy, 40% of employed individuals in the United States work part of their time outside normal working hours or what Europeans call “unsocial hours.” In 51% of two-job families with children, at least one parent works nonstandard hours, with the evening shift being the most common (Deutsch, 1999; Gornick and Meyers, 2003). As Williams (2010) observed, this trend toward nonstandard schedules takes its toll on family relationships. People working “unsocial hours,” not surprisingly, tend to have strained relationships. These schedules are associated with higher family-work conflict, lower marital quality, and reduced time with children. They are also associated with a lower likelihood of eating meals together, providing homework supervision, and sharing leisure (Han and Fox, 2011; Williams, 2010). In a Canadian study, children had more behavioral problems when parents worked nonstandard hours (Strazdins, Korda, Lim, Broom, and D’Souza, 2004). Nor are marriages immune from the effects of work schedules; nonoverlapping work hours for husbands and wives had negative effects on marital relationships (Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, and Crouter, 2000) and may increase the chances of divorce (Presser, 2004). And mothers’ household workload goes up more than fathers’ with nonstandard job schedules (Craig and Powell, 2011). Although such work schedules are often undertaken out of economic necessity, they still are a hardship for parents and children. Finally, job loss and underemployment have serious effects on family life, including marital relationships, parent-child relationships, and child adjustment (Conger et al., 2002; Parke et al., 2004; White and Rogers, 2000). In terms of the quality issue, there are two types of linkage between father work and fathering. One type of research focuses on work as an “emotional climate” which, in turn, may have short-term 98

Fathers and Families

spillover effects to the enactment of roles in home settings. A second type of linkage focuses on the type of skills, attitudes, and perspectives that adults acquire in their work-based socialization as adults and how these variations in job experience alter their behavior in family contexts on a longer term basis. Work in the first tradition (Repetti, 1994, 2005) has shown that fathers in high-stress jobs (e.g., air traffic controller) were more withdrawn in marital interactions after high-stress shifts and behaviorally and emotionally withdrawn during father-child interactions. Distressing social experiences at work were associated with higher expressions of anger and greater use of discipline during interaction with the child later in the day. Similarly Crouter, Bumpus, Maguire, and McHale (1999) found that mothers and fathers who felt more pressure on the job reported greater role overload, which, in turn, was linked to heightened parent-adolescent conflict (see Repetti, 2005, for a review). Positive work experiences can enhance the quality of fathering. Grossman, Pollack, and Golding (1988) found that high job satisfaction was associated with higher levels of support for 5-year-old children’s autonomy and affiliation in spite of the fact that positive feelings about work were negatively related to the quantity of time spent interacting with the child. This finding underscores the importance of distinguishing quantity and quality of involvement. Finally, when parents have better work-family balance, children’s mental health is better (Repetti, 2005). This line of research underscores the importance of distinguishing between different types of work-related stress on subsequent fatherchild interactions and of considering direct short-term carryover effects versus long-term effects of work on fathering. Research in the second tradition of family-work linkage, namely, the effects of the nature of men’s occupational roles on their fathering behavior, dates back to Miller and Swanson (1958) and Kohn and Schooler (1983). Men who experience a high degree of occupational autonomy value independence in their children, consider children’s intentions in discipline, and use reasoning and withdrawal of rewards instead of physical punishment. In contrast, men who are in highly supervised jobs with little autonomy value conformity and obedience, focus on consequences rather than intentions, and use more physical forms of discipline. In short, they repeat their job-based experiences in their parenting roles. In extensions of Kohn’s original focus on the implications of job characteristics for parenting, scholars have explored the effects of these variations in parenting for children’s development. Fathers with more complex jobs (i.e., characterized by mentoring others versus taking instruction or serving others) spend more time alone with sons, more time developing their sons’ skills (e.g., academic, athletic, mechanical, interpersonal), behave more warmly and responsively, and use less harsh and less lax control, but this is not the case for daughters (Greenberger, O’Neil, and Nagel, 1994). In fact, fathers spend more time in work and work-related activities if they have daughters, but report more firm but flexible control with daughters. Fathers who have jobs characterized by a high level of challenge (e.g., expected to solve problems, high level of decision-making) devote more time to developing sons’ skills, give higher quality explanations to their sons, and use less harsh and more firm but flexible control in their interactions with their boys. Finally, fathers with time-urgent jobs (e.g., fast pace, few breaks) spend more time on work activities, less time interacting, and use less lax control if they have daughters. When fathers have complex, stimulating, and challenging jobs, boys seem to benefit much more than girls. Grimm-Thomas and Perry-Jenkins (1994) found that fathers with greater complexity and autonomy at work reported higher self-esteem and less authoritarian parenting. In a sample of European American, rural, dual-earner couples, Whitbeck et al. (1997) found that fathers with more job autonomy had more flexible parenting styles, which were linked to a sense of mastery and control in their adolescents. In another rural sample, poor job characteristics (e.g., low autonomy and flexibility, high pressure and supervisor criticism) were linked with lower levels of father engagement and less sensitive parenting (Goodman, Crouter, Lanza, and Cox, 2008) and lower quality of parent-infant interaction (Goodman et al., 2011). Some evidence suggests that these job characteristics effects may 99

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

be more evident for fathers than mothers (Parcel and Menaghan, 1994; Whitbeck et al., 1997). Perhaps mothers show fewer links due to the more heavily culturally- or evolutionarily-scripted nature of maternal roles with the focus on caregiving. However, as women’s involvement in the workplace continues, the effects of workplace characteristics on women may increase. Although these myriad factors have been discussed individually, as our earlier theoretical model suggests and as empirical evidence supports, the challenge for the future is to test the additive and interactive effects of these individual factors in comprehensive models so that the complexity of predictive patterns of determinants of father involvement can be better understood.

Consequences of Father-Child Relationships Variations in father involvement have implications for men themselves, their families, and their children.

Consequences of Fatherhood for Men Themselves Becoming a father impacts on a man’s own psychological development and well-being. As Parke (1981) noted, “The father-child relationship is a two-way process and children influence their fathers just as fathers alter their children’s development”(p. 9). Several aspects of this issue have been examined, namely (1) mother-father relationships, (2) work and occupational issues, (3) self-identity, (4) psychological adjustment, (5) physical health, and (6) social connectedness beyond the family.

Impact on Mother-Father Relationships Perhaps most attention has been devoted to the impact of the transition to parenthood on marriage. The general finding from a large number of studies is that there is a decline in marital satisfaction, especially on the part of men, as a consequence of the birth of a child (see Mitnick, Heyman, and Smith Slep, 2009, for a meta-analytic review). The psychological adjustments associated with the transition to fatherhood are clearly evident in the Cowan and Cowan (1992) longitudinal study. Their project followed families from pregnancy until the children were 5 years of age. Fathers’ marital satisfaction showed a modest decrease from pregnancy to 6 months, but a sharp decline between 6 and 18 months. In contrast, mothers show a linear decline beginning in the postpartum period and continuing across the first 2 years. In this same period of 18 months, 12.5% of the couples separated or divorced; by 5 years of age, this figure was up to 20%. Another study found lower marital satisfaction at 1 year postpartum than at 3 months (Shapiro, Gottman, and Carrere, 2000), a finding confirmed by a study of first-time fathers that found that marital satisfaction was lowest at 1 year post-birth (Condon, Boyce, and Corkindale, 2004). A more recent longitudinal study (Doss et al., 2009) compared couples who did and did not have children across 8 years of marriage. Both groups showed a decline, but in the case of the couples with children, there was a sharp drop-off in marital satisfaction after the onset of parenthood, whereas the decline was more gradual in childless couples. Perhaps most persuasive is the recent meta-analysis of 37 studies that followed couples from before to after birth (Mitnick et al., 2009). There were small-to-moderate effect sizes indicating a decline in marital satisfaction from pregnancy through 11–14 months after birth for men and women. In spite of the dip in marital satisfaction, two caveats should be noted. First, even though marital satisfaction decreases for men (and women) after the onset of parenthood, marital stability (i.e., the likelihood of staying in the marriage) increases relative to childless couples (Cowan and Cowan, 1992). Second, not all of the couples showed a decline in marital satisfaction; 18% of couples showed increased satisfaction with their marital relationship. This figure rose to 38% for couples who participated in a supportive intervention program during the transition to parenthood (Cowan and Cowan, 100

Fathers and Families

1992). During the transition to parenthood, marital quality declined in about 30% of the families, improved in another 30%, and in nearly 40% of the families showed no change (Belsky, Rovine, and Fish, 1989). Similar diversity in the pattern of change in marital satisfaction is evident in other studies (McDermid, Huston, and McHale, 1990; Shapiro et al., 2000) A variety of reasons has been suggested for this decline in men’s marital satisfaction, including (1) physical strain of childcare, (2) increased financial responsibilities, (3) emotional demands of new familial responsibilities, (4) the restrictions of parenthood, and (5) the redefinition of roles and role arrangements (Goldberg, 2014; Mitnick et al., 2009). Several lines of evidence suggest that discrepancies in expectations on the part of mothers and fathers concerning the relative roles that each will play may be an important determinant of postpartum marital satisfaction. When there was a larger discrepancy between the wives’ expectations of their husbands’ involvement in infant care and husbands’ level of actual participation, there was a greater decline in marital satisfaction (Cowan and Cowan, 1992). Similarly, McDermid et al. (1990) found greater negative impact of the onset of parenthood when there was a discrepancy between spouses’ sex role attitudes and the division of household and childcare labor, and McBride (1989) found that traditional fathers who held conservative sex-role attitudes, but were nonetheless involved in childcare, reported lower levels of dissatisfaction. On the positive side, when couple’s expectations and behaviors match, some evidence suggests that marital satisfaction is correspondingly high (Cowan and Cowan, 1992). In summary, discrepancies in parental expectations about roles, rather than the level of change per se, may be a key correlate of men’s marital satisfaction after the onset of fatherhood. It is important to underscore that marital relationships are both determinants as well as consequences of paternal involvement (Pleck, 2010). Much of the literature is focused on infancy. Less is known about the impact of being a father on marital satisfaction after infancy. An exception is the longitudinal study by Heath (1976; Heath and Heath, 1991) that followed a cohort of college men into their 30s and mid-40s. Competent fathers were in satisfying marriages. However, these two indices also related to psychological maturity, leaving open the possibility that fathering activities lead to marital satisfaction and maturity or that maturity is the common correlate of being both a competent father and husband. Snarey (1993) found support for the relation between paternal involvement in childhood or adolescence on marital satisfaction. In a follow-up longitudinal study, Snarey assessed the marital success of men at mid-life (age 47): Fathers who provided high levels of social-emotional support for their offspring during the childhood decade (0–10 years) and high levels of intellectual, academic and social emotional support during the adolescent decade (11–21 years) were themselves as men at mid-life, more likely to be happily married. (Snarey, 1993, p. 111) In summary, it is clear that there are hints of long-term positive effects of father involvement on marriage, but these data must be interpreted cautiously for several reasons. First, there are negative effects of increased father involvement as noted earlier in our discussions of maternal gatekeeping. Some women may view increased father involvement as intrusive and unwelcome. Second, some of the literature is based on cohorts studied several decades ago. In light of the changing work and family lives of both men and women in the new millennium, conclusions based on earlier periods may not be readily applicable (Pleck, 2010).

Fatherhood and Men’s Work Patterns There are two perspectives on this issue. First, a short-term perspective suggests that as fathers increase their involvement, they perceive higher levels of work-family conflict (Grzywacz and Carlson, 2007). 101

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

This work-family stress is more likely to be reported by fathers in dual- rather than single-earner families (Volling and Belsky, 1991). Many fathers wish they had more time for family and more flexible job arrangements (Parke and Brott, 1999), and, although there are clear trends toward more family-friendly policies, workplace barriers remain formidable A long term perspective suggests that father involvement is positively linked with occupational mobility, wage levels, and asset accumulation. Recent evidence suggests that the links between fatherhood and men’s work behaviors are a complex function of many factors including: human capital, marital status (non) resident status with children, age at the transition to fatherhood, race-ethnicity, desires and abilities to embrace “new” father ideals and selection effects. (Eggebeen, Knoester, and McDaniel, 2013, p. 349) Men who become fathers work longer hours, are more likely to be employed, receive higher wages and have more assets than men who are childless (Eggebeen, Dew, and Knoester, 2010; Hodges and Budig, 2010). However, married professional fathers, especially European American men, benefit more than others in terms of earnings and asset accumulation in part due to institutionalized discriminatory practices that penalize other groups of men such as African American fathers (Eggebeen et al., 2010; Glauber, 2008). Moreover, married professional European American men may be married to partners who assume a greater domestic burden, which allows men to specialize in outside employment. Young fathers, although their wages and assets are lower, often increase their commitment to work by increasing their employment hours in part due to the recognition that the onset of fatherhood requires greater responsibility including a heightened commitment to work (Astone, Dariotis, Sonensteon, Pleck, and Hynes, 2010; Settersten and Cancel-Tirado, 2010). Finally, occupational mobility is also affected by father involvement. In his longitudinal study, Snarey (1993) found that fathers’ childrearing involvement across the first two decades of the child’s life moderately predicted fathers’ occupational mobility (at age 47) above and beyond other background variables (e.g., parents’ occupation, his IQ, current maternal employment). In general, fatherhood and work are linked, but the patterns clearly vary across age, level of professionalism, and ethnicity. It is also evident that fathering practices and work involvement may mutually influence one another.

Fatherhood and Men’s Self-Identity Men’s sense of themselves shifts as a function of the transition to fatherhood. A variety of dimensions has been explored in prior research, including their role definitions, their self-esteem, and their sense of generativity. Roles change for both men and women after the onset of parenthood. Cowan and Cowan (1992, 2010) assessed role shifts during the transition to fatherhood and found that men who become fathers decreased the “partner/lover” aspect of their self and increased the “parent” percentage of their self-definition. In contrast, men who remained childless significantly increased the “partner/lover” aspect of their relationship over a nearly 2-year assessment period. Grossman (1987) found that first-time fathers who were both more affiliative (i.e., connected to others, empathetic relationships) and more autonomous had significantly higher life adaptation scores. Fathers of firstborns who were more affiliative at 1 year also reported being higher in emotional well-being than less affiliative fathers. Thus, it appears that “separateness and individuation are not sufficient for men’s well-being; they need connections as well” (Grossman, 1987, p. 107). Does fatherhood have a longer term impact on men’s self-identity? In a longitudinal study of college men, Heath (1977) found that fatherhood related to men’s ability to understand themselves, to understand others sympathetically, and to integrate their own feelings. 102

Fathers and Families

Fatherhood and Psychological Adjustment of Men Becoming a father is linked with both positive and negative psychological consequences for men themselves (Eggebeen et al., 2013). As Palkovitz (2002) reported in his qualitative examination of fathers, men report joy, anticipation, and excitement about being a father while also reporting increased stress, anxiety, frustration, depression and, as we noted earlier, marital conflict. Married or cohabitating men are less likely than single men to experience depression on becoming a father (Woo and Raley, 2005). Stepfathers may report more stress and lower levels of life satisfaction (Kohler, Behrman, and Skytthe, 2005). With longer duration of the stepfamily relationship, the negative effects increased stress, and altered perceptions of life satisfaction decrease (Umberson and Montez, 2010). The early-timed entry into fatherhood has clear negative effects on men’s psychological adjustment. A variety of disruptions in their lives associated with early fatherhood, such as interruptions in education, increased financial and social responsibilities, and unstable partner relationships, all contribute to lower levels of life satisfaction for young fathers (Hofferth and Goldscheider, 2010). In contrast, on-time and late-timed fathers are generally better adjusted psychologically, although later fatherhood may be complicated by divorce and remarriage (Setttersten and Cancel-Tirado, 2010). Some ethnicity-related effects have been found as well, with African American fathers reporting higher rates of depression than European American fathers (Gross et al., 2008). And fathers (and mothers) are often negatively affected (i.e., increases in depression) when adult children encounter stressful events such as job loss, financial problems, illness, or divorce (Pudrovska, 2009).

Fatherhood and Physical Health As in the case of psychological adjustment, the onset of fatherhood can have both positive and negative effects on men’s physical well-being but depends on the life stage, residential and marital status, and income level. Becoming a father may improve health by reducing risky behavior in part to provide a better model for children and to maintain their health to fulfill their parental role (Palkovitz, 2002). The majority of fathers attempt to curtail or quit smoking (Everett et al., 2005), and some have found that alcohol consumption decreases (Garfield, Isacco, and Bartlo, 2010). Even in the case of divorced fathers, who are likely to be stressed and potentially use excessive alcohol, those who are involved extensively in their children’s lives decrease alcohol and marijuana use (DeGarmo, 2010). Rearing a difficult child or encountering other life stressors, such as financial challenges, may increase alcohol consumption (Pelham and Lang, 1999). Or transitioning into fatherhood at a young age may lead to a continuation of risky behavior or patterns of drug abuse (Little, Handley, Leuthe, and Chassin, 2009), limited job opportunities, and more poverty, all of which may contribute to poorer long-term health outcomes (Williams, 2003). Even lower mortality is linked with fatherhood, especially in the context of marriage (Friedman and Martin, 2011) but decreases after the number of children increases (Lawlor et al., 2003).

Fatherhood and Social Connections Beyond the Family Becoming a father has consequences for the roles that men play beyond the family in the wider community. This effect of fatherhood is reflected in increased generativity, a concept derived from Erikson’s (1975) theoretical writings. Snarey (1993, pp. 18–19) provided a succinct summary: The psychosocial task of middle adulthood, Stage 7 [in Erikson’s Stage theory] is the attainment of a favorable balance of generativity over stagnation and self-absorption. Most broadly, Erikson (1975) considers generativity to mean any caring activity that contributes to the spirit of future generations, such as the generation of new or more mature persons, 103

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

products, ideas, or works of art. Generativity’s psychosocial challenge to adults is to create, care for, and promote the development of others from nurturing the growth of another person to shepherding the development of a broader community. Snarey (1993) described three types that apply to fathers, namely (1) biological generativity (indicated by the birth of a child), (2) parental generativity (indicated by childrearing activities), and (3) societal generativity (indicated by caring for other younger adults, such as serving as a mentor, providing leadership, and contributing to generational continuity). The concept of generativity is a useful marker for assessing the long-term relation between fathering behavior and other aspects of mature men’s lives. It also serves as a theoretical corrective to earlier views of fathers as inadequate and deficient (Hawkins and Dollahite, 1997; Palkovitz and Palm, 2009). The onset of fatherhood is linked with a strengthening of intergenerational ties (Eggebeen et al., 2010) as illustrated by more contact (letters, phone calls) with parents and relatives than nonfathers. There are more instrumental exchanges, such as giving and receiving monetary, social and caregiving assistance, by fathers as well. A series of studies has examined relations between fatherhood and community-based social generativity. Fathers compared with non-fathers are more involved in community service and volunteer activities not only with child-related activities, such as team sports or girl or boy scout groups, but also in a wide variety of community organizations (labor unions, professional societies, or local/national political groups; Eggebeen et al., 2013; Knoester and Eggebeen, 2006). Snarey found that men who nurtured their children’s socioemotional development during childhood (0–10 years) and who also contributed to both socioemotional and intellectual-academic development during the second decade (11–21 years) were at mid-life more likely to become generative in areas outside their family. In summary, although the processes are not yet well understood, it is clear that involved fathering relates in positive ways to other aspects of men’s lives. As Snarey (1993, p. 119) noted, “Men who are parentally generative during early adulthood usually turn out to be good spouses, workers and citizens at mid life.” Although further empirical work is necessary to adequately evaluate the utility of this generativity perspective, it represents a promising direction for fatherhood research. Palkovitz (2002; Palkovitz and Palm, 1998) argued that engagement in fatherhood roles may present a sensitive period for men in the development of religious faith and in religious practice. In support of this expectation, men become more religious and attend religious institutions more often after the onset of fatherhood (Knoester, Petts, and Eggebeen, 2007). This embrace of religion is important because religiousness (faith and practice) is linked not only with paternal and maternal warmth and parenting efficacy but also with increases in parental control. In turn, warmth and parenting efficacy are linked with higher social competence and school performance in children while parental control is related to increases in internalizing and externalizing (Bornstein et al., 2017). However, the conditions under which religiousness will yield positive or negative child outcomes remains unclear. The effects are evident across nine countries and religions (Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim) and underscore the importance of religion as a determinant of fathering.

Implications of Father Involvement for Children’s Development Three types of approaches to the issue of the impact of father involvement on children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development can be distinguished. First, in a modern variant of the earlier father-absence theme, sociologists, in particular, have examined the impact of nonresident fathers’ frequency and quality of contact on children’s development. In contrast to this paternal deprivation approach, a second strategy examines the impact of paternal enhancement. This approach asks about the lessons learned from focusing on unusually highly involved fathers, such as occurs in role sharing

104

Fathers and Families

and reversed role families. The third or normative approach focuses on the consequences of the quality and quantity of father-child interaction on children’s development in intact families.

Beyond Intact Father Families: Effects on Children’s Development Disadvantaged Fathers and Child Development What are the effects of contact between disadvantaged fathers and children on children’s development? It is noteworthy that unmarried fathers continue to see their children even though the ties with their partner have deteriorated. Some have suggested that the package deal whereby close ties between partners and involvement in child contact is a guiding principle may not apply to unmarried fathers who see contact with children and a relationship with the child’s mother as separate components (Edin and Nelson, 2013; Edin, Tach, and Mincy, 2009). However, the selective investment of many poor fathers in a subset of their biological children may leave the nonselected biological children at a developmental disadvantage. Not only do these nonselected children receive less contact with their biological fathers, but also they experience the added stress of multiple transitions in their lives, as their mothers may form new partnerships and, in turn, have more children. As Edin and Nelson (2013) noted, Children may be exposed to the confusion of new parental figures who come and go, and they will likely accumulate half siblings along the way. Kids are resilient but the rate of family change among children of unwed fathers has become so rapid and now leads to such complicated family structures that kids might have a hard time adjusting. (p. 226) Although child outcomes were not the focus of the Edin-Nelson project, other studies have found that the higher the rate of family transitions in and out of coresidential unions or significant romantic relationships, the more behavior problems exhibited by the children (Fomby and Cherlin, 2007; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007) and more problems with peers (Cavanaugh and Huston, 2006). However, as Furstenberg (2014) cautioned, “The research challenge is sorting out the selection of couples with very different demographic and psychological attributes from the social process generated when couples encounter the challenges of supporting and raising children across different households” (p. 22). Moreover, quality, not presence/absence alone, is important in assessing the impact of nonresident fathers. In a follow-up study of 18- to 21-year-old children of African American adolescent mothers, Furstenberg and Harris (1993) found little impact of contact alone on young adults’ outcomes but clear beneficial effects if the quality of the relationship were taken into account. Those who reported a strong bond or attachment with their father during adolescence had higher educational attainment, were less likely to be imprisoned, and were less depressed. These effects were especially evident in the case of children living with the father and were only marginally evident for nonresident biological fathers. The data suggest that both presence and quality matters, but quality is especially important because fathers’ presence is unrelated to outcomes when quality (degree of attachment to father) is controlled. Others report that paternal nurturing behaviors are related with better cognitive and behavioral outcomes (Martin et al., 2007; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004), and involvement by nonresidential fathers is related to lower rates of delinquency (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). Additionally, more father engagement in shared activities during adolescence is linked to more healthy cortisol responses to stressful events (Ibrahim, Somers, Luecken, Fabricius, and Cookston, 2017). The Amato and Gilbreth (1999) meta-analysis is consistent with findings; a measure of the

105

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

affective relationship between the father and child (feeling close) was positively associated with child academic success, and negatively with child internalizing and externalizing problems. The effect sizes were modest in magnitude. Second, fathers’ authoritative parenting was associated with higher academic success and fewer internalizing and externalizing problems. Authoritative parenting was a better predictor than either frequency of contact or the “feeling close” measure. In addition to quality of involvement, one other variable, namely, the amount of father’s payment of child support, was a significant predictor of children’s outcomes, including academic success and children’s externalizing behavior although not internalizing behavior. This finding is not surprising, because “fathers’ financial contributions provide wholesome food, adequate shelter in safe neighborhoods, commodities (such as books, computers, and private lessons) that facilitate children’s academic success and support for college attendance” (Amato and Gilbreth, 1999, p. 559). These findings were evident for both boys and girls and African American and European American families. Finally, in the Fragile Families project, few links have been found between father contact and child outcomes, but if the parents have an effective coparenting relationship, children have fewer behavior problems (Carlson and McLanahan, 2010) This work reflects earlier and recurring themes in the parent-child literature, namely, that quality of the father-child and couple relationship are the critical factors in determining children’s development.

Incarcerated Fathers and Children’s Development What are the effects of paternal incarceration on children? Murray, Farrington, and Sekol (2012) examined evidence on the associations between parental incarceration and children’s later antisocial behavior, mental health problems, drug use, and educational performance. In their meta-analysis, the most rigorous studies that controlled for sociodemographic risk factors (e.g., ethnicity, education, poverty), children’s antisocial behavior before parental incarceration, or parental criminality (e.g., prior criminal convictions), they found that parental incarceration was associated with children’s increased risk for antisocial behavior, but not for mental health problems, drug use, or poor educational performance. Although previous studies have found multiple types of adverse effects of parental incarceration on children’s outcomes, results suggest that when important co-occurring risk factors are taken into account, only children’s antisocial behavior is uniquely affected by parental incarceration: “Although incarceration is likely not the cause of these compromised outcomes, it instead serves as one indicator of other co-occurring risks and vulnerabilities that make these families particularly fragile” (Shlafer, Gerrity, Ruhland, Wheeler, and Michaels, 2013, p. 9). For example, incarceration increases financial insecurity and housing instability, heightens stigmatization, and increases the probability that a non-incarcerated mother will repartner (Sykes and Pettit, 2014). Together, these shifts will have negative effects on children, including an increase in homelessness (Wildeman, 2014) and elevated food insecurity (Cox and Wallace, 2013). Most evidence suggests that the parent-child attachment relationship is more likely to be negatively affected when the mother is incarcerated than when fathers are incarcerated because mothers are more likely to be the primary caregiver than fathers prior to incarceration. Only a quarter of fathers compared with three quarters of mothers reported providing primary care for their children prior to arrest (Maruschak, Glaze, and Mumola, 2010). However, the conditions surrounding the father’s incarceration are linked to the non-incarcerated caregiver-child relationship. Although no studies have directly examined the effects of paternal incarceration on children’s attachment to their fathers, paternal imprisonment is linked with poorer caregiver (mother)-child attachment, especially if the child is exposed to either their father’s crime or the arrest of their father. However, if the maternal caregiver was sensitive and provided a stimulating home environment, the levels of insecure attachment between child and the non-incarcerated caregiver were reduced (Poehlmann-Tynan, Burnson, Runyon, and Weymouth, 2017). 106

Fathers and Families

An examination of how the contact patterns are managed during incarceration suggests a complex picture. On the one hand, Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) found that no parent-child contact was associated with children’s feelings of alienation; on the other hand, visitation may not always be associated with positive outcomes. For example, there are associations between visits with parents (mothers) in corrections facilities and representations of insecure attachment relationships in children (Poehlmann, 2005). Children who experienced more frequent no contact barrier visits with their mothers in the jail setting exhibited more depression and anxiety symptoms, whereas the use of alternative forms of contact (mail, phone) was associated with fewer symptoms of internalizing behavior (Dallaire, Zeman, and Thrash, 2015). The child-unfriendly nature of visitation environments probably contributed to this link. As observations of children during visits with their jailed fathers (and mothers) indicate, children exhibit more emotional dysregulation in jail settings than at home (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2014). However, when the visitation setting is more child- and parent-friendly (direct physical contact between parent and child), visitation is associated with more positive outcomes for children (Snyder, Carlo, and Coats Mullins, 2001). In one small-scale intervention (weekly parent-child visit in a child-friendly setting) for incarcerated fathers and their young children, Landreth and Lobaugh (1998) found that children’s self-esteem increased across a 10-week intervention. Moreover, a longer term view suggests that the post-incarceration period needs to be examined. Some report more visitation and mail contact during incarceration was linked with more father-child contact and better father-child relationships and child outcomes in the post-­ incarceration period (LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, and Castro, 2005) as well as lower recidivism rates for inmates (Bales and Mears, 2008). In summary, the context and type of contact are important moderators of these links between contact and outcomes.

Transnational Fathers and Children’s Development Some evidence suggests that the frequency of contact is an important factor in child outcomes for transnational fathers. For example, Nobles (2011) found a positive association between the amount of father-child contact and school performance for both sons and daughters. In an internet survey, Cookston, Boyer, Vega, and Parke (2017) found a positive relation between frequency of telephone contact between transnational Mexican parents and their children and the quality of parent-child relationships. How is the quality of the father-child relationship modified by the frequency and by the quality of these contacts? How are contact patterns related to children’s perceptions of their father? Clearly, this topic needs more attention by father researchers, especially in view of the continuing increase in transnational parenting.

Deployed Fathers and Children’s Development Assessments of the impact of being separated from their families and children due to military deployment is a further avenue for exploring the effects of fathering on children’s development. A variety of negative outcomes on children of deployed parents (usually fathers) has been reported. In one study (Chandra et al., 2010) after controlling for family and service-member characteristics, children (11–17 years old) had more emotional difficulties compared with national samples. Older youth and girls of all ages reported significantly more school-, family-, and peer-related difficulties with parental deployment. Length of parental deployment and poorer non-deployed caregiver mental health were associated with a greater number of challenges for children both during deployment and deployed-parent reintegration. A study using deployment records and parent reports by primary caregivers revealed that greater exposure to deployment was linked with impaired family functioning and marital instability (Lester et al., 2016). Parental depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms were associated with impairments in socioemotional adjustment in young children, increased 107

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

anxiety in early childhood, and adjustment problems in school-age children. Conversely, parental sensitivity was associated with improved social and emotional outcomes across childhood. In another study (Mansfield et al., 2011) of over 300,000 children between 5 and 17 years of age, those with parental deployment had more mental health diagnoses during a 4-year period compared with children whose parents did not deploy. After the children’s age, gender, and mental health history were adjusted for, excess mental health diagnoses associated with parental deployment were greatest for acute stress reaction/adjustment, depression, and pediatric behavioral disorders and increased with total months of parental deployment. Boys and girls showed similar patterns within these same categories, with more diagnoses observed in older children within gender groups and in boys relative to girls within age groups. However, caution is needed because a meta-analysis found a small association between deployment and poorer adjustment. This association varied across several features of the studies. Age moderation was such that associations are strongest in middle childhood and weakest during adolescence (Card et al., 2011). However, more recent studies have found stronger effects (McDermid-Wadsworth, 2013). Together, these studies suggest that various forms of father-child separation and loss of contact are linked with several forms of negative developmental outcomes for children. However, this longstanding issue remains difficult to interpret because concurrent circumstances as a result of the separation (e.g., quality of caregiving, economic hardships associated with separation) may, in part, account for these negative outcomes. In spite of these problems, it is vital to better understand these various forms of fathering at a distance because significant numbers of children are developing under these family forms.

Impact of Normal Variations in Intact Families on Children’s Development A voluminous literature has emerged over the last three decades that clearly demonstrates relations between quality of paternal involvement and children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (Parke, 1996; Pleck, 2010). At the same time, considerable evidence shows a good deal of redundancy between fathers’ and mothers’ impact on children. However, accumulated evidence suggests that fathers make a unique contribution to children’s development independent of maternal influences. In a review of the effects of fathers on children, Marsiglio, Amato, Day, and Lamb (2000) found moderate negative associations between authoritative fathering and child internalizing and externalizing problems. The relation held for children and adolescents regardless of age. Aldous and Mulligan (2002), using a national data set, found that positive paternal engagement is linked to lower frequency of later behavior problems for boys and for “difficult to rear” children. Similarly, in a large sample of British teenagers, positive paternal engagement predicted positive school attitudes (Flouri, 2004) and lower rates of police contact (Flouri, 2004). Still other investigators have found that children of involved fathers have higher academic achievement (McBride, Schoppe-Sullivan, and Ho, 2005) and better language and cognitive competence (Cabrera, Shannon, and Tamis-LeMonda, 2007). A metaanalytic review of 22 studies found positive effects of paternal involvement on children’s cognitive and personality development, whereas negative effects of involvement were rare (McWayne, Downer, Campos, and Harris, 2013). Moreover, Amato and Rivera (1999) found that the positive influence on children’s behavior was similar for European American, African American, and Latin American fathers. Similarly, others have found similar links between positive fathering and fewer behavior problems in adolescents regardless of ethnicity (Latin American and European American) (Leidy et al., 2011). In spite of this consistent body of evidence that positive father involvement is advantageous to child and adolescent development, Marsiglio et al. (2000) offered three important caveats to this conclusion. First, most studies rely on a single data source, which raises the problem of shared method 108

Fathers and Families

variance. Second, many researchers do not control for the quality of the mother-child relationship when examining father effects. Because the behavior and attitudes of parents are often highly related, this step is critical. However, Pleck and Masciadrelli (2004) concluded that in over 70% of studies that were methodologically sound (control for maternal effects and independent data sources), there is evidence of a positive correlation of paternal involvement with child outcomes. Although there is overlap between the effects of mothers and fathers on their children’s academic, emotional, and social development, evidence is emerging that fathers make a unique contribution to their children’s development. A third caveat concerns problems of inferring direction of causality because studies are correlational and involve concurrent rather than longitudinal assessments. However, two strands of evidence suggest that the direction of effects plausibly flow from paternal behavior to child outcomes. First, longitudinal studies support the view that fathers influence their children (see Amato and Rivera, 1999; Cookston and Finlay, 2006; Parke and Buriel, 2006; Pleck, 2010; Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004, for reviews). Nor are the effects of fathering on developmental outcomes restricted to childhood. Boys who were separated from their fathers before age 10 due to paternal incarceration had more internalizing problems in adulthood (Murray and Farrington, 2008). In addition, father-adolescent closeness at age 16 predicted lower levels of depression and higher marital satisfaction at age 33 (Flouri, 2004). In a follow-up of Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), Koestner, Franz, and Weinberger (1990) found that the most powerful predictor of empathy in adulthood (age 31) for both men and women was paternal childrearing involvement at age 5 and it was a better predictor than several maternal variables. Franz, McClelland, and Weinberger (1991), reported that men and women with better social relationships (marriage quality; extrafamilial ties) at age 41 had experienced more paternal warmth as children. Although these studies support a father effects perspective, it is likely that reciprocal relationships will become evident, in which children and fathers mutually influence each other across the life course (Parke, 2013).

Reverse Role Families The other strand of evidence that supports the plausibility of a father-to-child direction of effects model comes from reports of reverse role families and intervention studies. A small minority of families has explored alternative family arrangements such as role sharing and reversing family roles. In spite of their rarity, these alternative family arrangements can inform us about the possible ways in which families can reorganize themselves to provide flexibility for mothers, fathers, and children (see Parke, 2013, for a recent review) and to assess the impact of increased father involvement on children’s development. Although this arrangement is a relatively recent phenomenon, it is on the rise. In 2007, stay-at-home fathers in the United States made up approximately 2.7% of the nation’s stay-at-home parents, triple the percentage from 1997 and has been consistently higher each year since 2005 (Shaver, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). According to a 2010 census report, there are 154,000 stay-at-home dads in the United States, up from 140,000 in 2008. These fathers cared for 287,000 children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The news from Canada is even more dramatic. The number of men self-identifying as stay-at-home dads has increased threefold over the past 30 years (Statistics Canada, 2010), with the number of stay-at-home dads gradually rising, reaching 60,000 in 2011, up from 20,000 in 1976. Canadian men now account for 12% of stay-at-home parents, compared with only 4% in 1986. To put these figures into perspective: One in every 100 stay-at-home parents were fathers in the 1970s and in 2011, it is 1 in every 8 fathers. There is a variety of reasons for the increase in this family arrangement but also challenges that may account for the small number of families who choose this alternative and persist in it. For many families, it is economic; perhaps the father is laid off, or the mother earns more money so it makes more financial sense for the father to stay home and the mother to assume the financial provider role. 109

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

In fact, between 2009 and 2010, during the recession the United States, the earnings of men with college degrees dropped, but women’s earnings increased. In some cases, the wife’s job provides a better set of health benefits than her spouse’s job. In fact, as unemployment rises, the number of men who are thrust into primary care roles rises, in part, because the unemployment rates for men tend to be higher than those for women (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). In some cases, women enjoy their job and prefer to work outside the home, and men may dread their work and prefer to become the primary caregiver. In other families, parents report that they simply believe that they should share the care of their children. There are distinct consequences for mothers, fathers, and children from parents’ role sharing. According to Russell’s (1983, 1986) study of Australian families in which fathers took major or equal responsibility for childcare, mothers reported increased stimulation as a result of outside employment, greater independence, and increased self-esteem. Nearly half of the fathers reported difficulties associated with the demands—the constancy and boredom—associated with their full-time caregiving role. On the positive side, 70% of fathers reported that their relationship with their children and their understanding of children improved, and they noted a greater awareness of mother-housewife roles, and enjoyed the freedom from career pressures. In a 2-year follow-up (Russell, 1986), nearly two thirds of both parents continued to view improved father-child relationships as the major advantage of this sharing arrangement, but there was an increase in tension and conflict in the father-child as well as the marital relationship. According to a study of 3,600 couples who participated in the National Survey of Families and Households, Sayer et al. (2011) found that rates of divorce were higher in role-reversal families. Others argue that we still view breadwinning and masculinity as linked, and some men feel that their sense of manhood is undermined by not being employed in an outside job and instead taking on a traditional female role of caregiver (Doucet, 2006, 2013). To combat this feeling of threatened loss of masculinity after giving up participation in the full-time labor force for a caregiving role, many fathers replace employment with “self-provisioning” work that allows them to contribute economically to the household economy as well as to display masculine practices, both to themselves and their wider community. For example, fathers play a role in children’s extracurricular activities such as sporting as well as in community work which emphasizes leadership, sports, construction, and building while also easing community scrutiny of their decision to give up work. (Doucet, 2004, pp. 278–279) In short, men who assume these primary caregiver roles adopt strategies to overcome some of the still remaining social isolation and prejudice associated with this new family form and the prevailing narrow definition of masculinity. To appreciate the potential impact of these changes in men’s roles on children, we need to examine the ways in which fathers’ styles of interaction shift when mothers and fathers reverse their customary roles as caregiver and outside-the-home worker. Evidence from the United States, Australia, and Israel suggests that when fathers stay home, their style of interaction becomes more like that of primary caregiving mothers with more imitative and vocal exchanges (Field, 1978); more indoor activities such as talking, singing and drawing, and less exclusive focus on roughhousing and outdoor games such as football (Russell, 1983); and more nurturance (Sagi, 1982). However, these stay-at-home fathers still played as physically as traditional fathers, which suggests that some aspects of paternal style may be resistant to change. How do the children reared in reverse role families fare? There are no apparent major negative effects, but there are some positive effects for children. Children were higher in problem-solving skills and personal and social skills (Pruett, 1987) and higher verbal ability than children reared in traditional families (Radin, 1993) and higher in internal locus of control and in empathy than children 110

Fathers and Families

of fathers with low involvement (Sagi, Koren, and Weinberg, 1987). Similarly, Pruett (2000) found that adolescents of primary caregiver fathers showed greater emotional balance, stronger curiosity, and a stronger sense of self-assurance than adolescents reared in homes with less involved fathers. Although this role-reversal arrangement clearly violates the notion of an “ideal” family form, it is clear that men as primary caregivers not only do an adequate job of rearing children but also their increased involvement may benefit their children’s development as well. At the same time, our cultural acceptance of men as primary caregivers is still slowly evolving. Finally, evidence suggesting that children from these families fare better must be treated cautiously because stay at home fathers may be different in other ways from parents who maintain more traditional roles. Perhaps they might have treated their children differently from traditional parents, no matter which parent stayed home with the children. At the same time, it is likely that parents who reverse roles are significantly affected by their choice, and that, therefore, the nontraditional environment in which children develop is at least partially responsible for the differences between children reared in role-reversal and traditional families.

Intervention Evidence of the Effects of Father Involvement Intervention studies in which parenting skills are taught show that changes in paternal parenting behavior are related to enhanced social and cognitive development in children and, in turn, suggest that the direction of effects flow, in part, from father to child (see Holmes, Cowan, Cowan, and Hawkins, 2013; Knox, Cowan, Cowan, and Bildner, 2011, for reviews). For example, intervention studies of fathers and infants have found that fathers who receive parenting training not only increase their involvement (Parke, Hymel, Power and Tinsley,1980), but also their infants show increased social responsiveness and more play initiations (Dickie and Gerber, 1980). Studies of fathers with older children, too, show positive changes in father involvement, which, in turn, improves the father-child relationship (Levant, 1988). Unfortunately, relatively few of these studies systematically assess children’s developmental outcomes. An exception is the work of the Cowans and their colleagues (Cowan, Cowan, and Heming, 2005), who used a randomized design to assess the effects of parental interventions on children’s outcomes. Prior to their children’s entry into elementary school parents of 5-yearold first children were assigned randomly to one of three intervention conditions: (1) a couples group in which facilitators focused more on parent-child issues (e.g., discipline), (2) a couples group in which facilitators focused more on issues between the parents as a couple, and (3) a brief consultation condition, which served as a control group. In comparison with parents in the control condition, parents in the group interventions displayed increases in positive parenting (e.g., greater warmth, engagement, structuring behaviors). Parents in the marital focus groups showed more positive parenting, reduced conflict in problem-solving as a couple, and positive changes in the overall quality of their relationship as a couple. Furthermore, children of parents in the marital-focus group displayed a greater reduction in externalizing behaviors between kindergarten and first grade and greater increases in achievement (Cowan, Cowan, Ablow, Johnson, and Measelle, 2005). Revisiting the families 10 years later when the children had made the transition to high school, they found that positive outcomes associated with parents’ relationship satisfaction, couple communication, and the teens’ externalizing behaviors had persisted for families in which parents had attended the groups with an emphasis on couple relationship issues (Cowan, Cowan, and Barry, 2011). The results of this study suggest that there is added and lasting value of including couple relationship content in parenting interventions. Later work focusing on low-income fathers confirmed and extended these findings. The Supporting Father Involvement program (SFI) was developed with the aim of enhancing fathers’ involvement with their children in low-income families (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, and Wong, 2009) as well as strengthening the relationship between the parents. A sample of low-income participants (two thirds were Mexican American) with a child from birth to age 7 were assigned randomly either to (1) a one-time, 3-hour informational meeting for a group of couples, (2) 16-week groups attended 111

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

by fathers only (32 hours), or (3) 16-week groups attended by both mothers and fathers (32 hours). Parents in the informational meeting showed significant declines in couple relationship satisfaction and increases in their children’s problem behaviors. Participants in the fathers-only groups showed increased involvement in the care of their children but declining relationship satisfaction, whereas parents who attended the groups as couples reported increases in fathers’ involvement, declines in parenting stress, and stable levels of both relationship satisfaction and child behaviors over 18 months. In a replication with a more diverse high-risk sample, Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, and Gillette (2014) found that participation in a couples group intervention produced significant positive effects on parents’ reports of their own well-being, their relationships with each other and their children, and their children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. The couple’s groups were equally effective for participants of different ethnic groups, different economic levels, and different levels of anxiety or depressive symptoms. From the perspective of policy, the SFI program demonstrates the importance of (1) early intervention, (2) explicitly inviting fathers to participate (versus recruiting fathers through mothers), and (3) focus on the coparenting and couple relationship as a means to engage men (Pruett, Pruett, Cowan, and Cowan, 2017). Although these studies involved both mother and fathers as the unit of intervention, these data suggest that experimental modification of fathering behaviors can be an effective way of more clearly establishing the direction of causality in fathering research.

Beyond Description: Processes Which Link Fathering and Child Outcomes Work that has focused on fathers’ special style of interacting, namely play, reveals processes through which fathers influence children’s development (see Leidy, Schofield, and Parke, 2013; Paquette, 2004, for reviews). As noted in Figure 3.1, three sets of mediating processes link father-child involvement and child outcomes, namely, emotional, attentional regulatory, and cognitive representational processes. Parke and his colleagues, for example, examined the relation between father-toddler play and children’s adaptation to peers. In one study (MacDonald and Parke, 1984), fathers and their 3- and 4-year-old girls and boys were observed in 20 minutes of structured play in their homes. Teachers ranked these sample children in terms of their popularity among their preschool classmates. For both girls and boys, fathers who were rated as exhibiting high levels of physical play with their children, and who elicited high levels of positive affect in their children during the play sessions, had children who received the highest peer popularity ratings. For boys, however, this pattern was qualified by the fathers’ level of directiveness. Boys whose fathers were both highly physical and low in directiveness received the highest popularity ratings, and the boys whose fathers were highly directive received lower popularity scores. Mize and Pettit (1997) found that preschool children whose play with fathers is characterized by mutuality or balance in making play suggestions and following partners’ suggestions were less aggressive, more competent, and better liked by peers. Similarly, Hart et al. (1998, 2000) found that greater playfulness, patience, and understanding with children, especially on the part of the father, are associated with less aggressive behavior with peers among both Western and Russian children. Flanders and colleagues (2009, 2010) found that rough-and-tumble play was associated with less aggression in preschoolers but only when the fathers control the flow of play and keeps the play from exceeding the fathers’ acceptable level of excitability. It is not any kind or level of physical play but modulated and regulated physical play that is positively linked to social outcomes such as less aggression and better emotional regulation.

Emotional Processes Possibly, children who interact with a physically playful father learn how to recognize and send emotional signals during these play interactions. Several studies reveal a link between children’s emotional 112

Fathers and Families

encoding and decoding abilities that are presumably acquired, in part, in these playful interchanges and children’s social adaptation to peers (Parke et al., 1988, 1992). In addition, fathers’ affect displays, especially anger, seem to be a potent correlate of children’s social acceptance. In studies in both the laboratory (Carson and Parke, 1996) and the home (Boyum and Parke, 1995), fathers’ negative affect is inversely related to preschool and kindergarten children’s sociometric status. By contrast, when fathers help their children cope with negative emotions, such as sadness and anger, at age 5, their children were more socially competent with their peers at age 8 (Gottman et al., 1997). Later work isolated other emotional processes such as emotional regulation (McDowell, Kim, O’Neil, and Parke, 2002; Parke, McDowell, Kim, and Leidy, 2006) and knowledge and use of display rules (McDowell and Parke, 2000) that, in turn, are influenced by paternal interaction patterns and are predictive of children’s social acceptance. Other aspects of children’s development that may be influenced by fathers’ arousing and unpredictable play style include risk-taking (Kromelow, Harding, and Touris, 1990; Le Camus, 1995), the capacity to manage unfamiliar situations (Grossmann et al., 2002), and the skill to manage competition (Bourcois, 1997). However, these topics have received less attention than the issue of social competence with peers.

Attention Regulation Closely related to emotional regulatory processes are a distinct but important additional mediator between fathering and child outcomes, namely, attention regulatory abilities. These processes include the ability to attend to relevant cues, sustain attention to refocus attention through such processes as cognitive distraction and cognitive restructuring and other efforts to purposely reduce the level of emotional arousal in stressful situations. Attentional processes organize experience and play a central role in cognitive and social development beginning in early infancy (Rothbart, 2011). It has been proposed that attention regulatory processes serve as a “shuttle” linking emotional regulation and social-cognitive processes because attentional processes organize both cognitions and emotions, and thus influence relationship competence (Katz,Wilson and Gottman, 1999). Using a national longitudinal study (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2008), it was found that both mother and father relationship quality at 54 months predicted children’s ability to sustain attention (using an independent laboratory-based measure) as well as ratings of attentional problems in first grade and, in turn, mediated the links between parenting and higher social skills ratings in first and third grade. Maternal and paternal interactions accounted for unique variance in these outcomes. In summary, the ability to regulate attention is a further important mediating factor through which paternal (and maternal) behavior may influence children’s social competence.

Cognitive Processes In addition to learning to manage emotions in social encounters, children also develop cognitive representations or cognitive scripts that serve as guides to social exchanges with peers. Attachment theorists offer cognitive working models, whereas social and cognitive psychologists have suggested scripts or cognitive maps, as guides for social action. Research within the attachment tradition has found support for Bowlby’s argument that representations vary as a function of child-parent attachment history (working models Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton and Munholland, 2008; Sroufe et al., 2005). For example, children who had been securely attached infants were more likely to represent their family in their drawings in a coherent manner, with a balance between individuality and connection, than children who had been insecurely attached. In turn, securely attached children have better peer relationships (Sroufe et al.,2005) Research in the social interactional tradition reveals links between parent and child cognitive representations of social relationships and, in turn, their peer relationships (Burks and Parke, 1996; 113

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

McDowell, Parke, and Spitzer, 2002). For example, children of fathers with confrontational strategies and goals for dealing with interpersonal conflict dilemmas were lower in peer competence. In contrast, children of fathers with relational goals were rated higher in social competence by peers and teachers. Similarly, Rah and Parke (2008) found that children who had positive interactions with their fathers in fourth grade had fewer negative goals and strategies for solving interpersonal problems with either their fathers or their peers in fifth grade. In turn, they were more accepted by their peers, which suggests that positive father-child interaction can lead to more constructive social scripts for dealing with peers. Other work suggests that father-child interaction is related to children’s “theory of mind” competence, a clear asset for achieving social skills (LaBounty et al., 2008). More recently, another cognitive mediator between father behavior and children’s outcomes has received attention, namely, father mattering. This aspect of the parent-child relationship is children’s appraisal of how much they “matter” to their parents (Rosenberg and McCullough, 1979). Beliefs that one is important to one’s parent may give children and adolescents a sense of security in their relatedness and connectedness to others which, in turn, may have important implications for their mental health (Elliot, 2009). In support of this expectation, parental mattering is related to fewer internalizing and externalizing problems, more self-esteem, healthier self-concepts and sense of efficacy, and reduced intrafamilial violence and suicidal ideation in adolescents (e.g., Elliott, Cunningham, Colangelo, and Gelles, 2011; Marshall, 2001, 2004; Wu and Kim, 2009). Suh et al. (2016) explored relations between parental mattering and adolescent mental health in the context of stepfather families (i.e., adolescents living with biological mothers and stepfathers but who also had a nonresidential biological father). Mattering to residential stepfathers or to nonresidential biological fathers was associated with adolescent mental health problems, over and above mattering to mothers. Results showed that mattering to nonresidential biological fathers significantly predicted fewer internalizing problems; mattering to residential stepfathers significantly predicted fewer internalizing and externalizing problems. For teacher-reported externalizing problems specifically, mattering to the two father types interacted such that mattering to either father predicted lower externalizing problems; perceived mattering to the second father did not predict a further reduction in problems. These data suggest that mattering to residential stepfathers and to nonresidential biological fathers is important for adolescent mental health and—for teacher-observed externalizing problems—that a sense of mattering to one father can buffer an adolescent against the potential negative effects of feeling unimportant to the second father (see also Stevenson et al., 2014). Further, it appears that children and adolescents make sense of their relationships with their fathers by forming attributions to explain his behaviors (Finlay et al., 2014) and by engaging in guided cognitive reframing with mothers, fathers, and others (Cookston et al., 2012; Cookston et al., 2015). Although father involvement in infancy and childhood is quantitatively less than mother involvement, the data suggest that both fathers and mothers have important and possibly unique impacts on their offspring’s social-emotional development. Just as earlier research indicated that quality rather than quantity of mother-child interaction was the important predictor of cognitive and social development, a similar assumption appears to hold for fathers. At the same time, there is a long history of documentation that maternal involvement is related to child outcomes independent of paternal effects (Parke and Buriel, 2006). More interesting is evidence suggesting that mothers’ verbal style of interaction may enhance children’s intellectual development including memory, problem-solving, and language advancement (Bornstein, 2002; Cabrera, Shannon, West, and Brooks-Gunn, 2006) as well as emotional understanding. For example, mothers’ emotional expressiveness is related to children’s understanding of emotions (LaBounty et al., 2008). Perhaps children’s knowledge of internal emotional states—a consequence of maternal labeling of emotions and feeling states during social and caregiving interactions—is learned through mother-child exchanges (Denham, Basset, and Wyatt, 2014).

114

Fathers and Families

Remaining Issues and Future Trends for Fathering Scholarship A number of issues remain to be examined in future research if we are to describe fully the complexities, specify the determinants and processes, and outline the consequences of father-child relationships. These include the choice of the levels of analysis, unit of analysis, the effects of family variation, types of developmental change, the role of secular trends, the need for interdisciplinary perspectives, increased attention to context, and methodological issues.

Levels of Analysis: Beyond Individual Levels Toward Multilevel Models In spite of calls for recognizing the multiple-levels of influence on fathering, most studies focus on single or, at most, several levels of analysis. However, as this review underscores a wide range of factors from biological to individual, couple, family, community, and culture operate together in determining father behavior. We need more studies that sample across levels of analysis and, in turn, analytic models that begin to reveal the complex mediating and moderating role of factors at these many levels of influence (see Feldman, 2016; Holmes and Huston, 2010).

Unit of Analysis Current work clearly recognizes the importance of considering fathers from a family systems perspective. However, our conceptual analysis of dyadic and triadic units of analysis is still limited (Barrett and Hinde, 1988; McHale and Lindahl, 2011; Parke, 1988). Considerable progress has been made in describing the behavior of individual interactants (e.g., mother, father, child) within dyadic and to a lesser extent triadic settings, but less progress has been achieved in developing a language for describing interaction in dyadic and triadic terms. However, such terms as “reciprocity,” “synchronicity,” and “co-regulation” are receiving empirical operationalization and evaluation in recent work (e.g., Feldman, 2007). In addition, greater attention needs to be paid to the family as a unit of analysis.

Fathers and Family Variation An advance of the last decade is recognition of the importance of individual differences in children; one of the next advances will be the recognition of individual differences among families and fathers. Recognition of individual variability across families implies the necessity of expanding sampling procedures. In spite of our greater awareness of family diversity, the range of family types that are studied is still relatively narrow. Although progress has been made in describing fathers and children in different cultures (Shwalb et al., 2013; Roopnarine and Hossain, 2013) and in different ethnic groups and social classes in the United States (Cabrera et al., 2013; Furstenberg, 2014) more detailed description as well as process-oriented work is necessary if we are to achieve an understanding of how cultural beliefs and practices influence fathering behaviors. Finally, recent work on gay and lesbian families has raised provocative issues for fatherhood research. The evidence suggests that children in families of same-gendered parents develop adequately in terms of socioemotional adjustment (Golombok, 2015; Patterson, 2016). As Parke (2013, p. 105) has argued: Our focus on the gender of the parent may too narrow; instead, it could be helpful to recast the issue and ask whether it is the extent to which exposure to males and/or females is critical or whether it is exposure to the interactive style typically associated with either mother or father that matters.

115

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

Perhaps the style of parenting and gender of the parent who enacts the style can be viewed as partially independent. More attention to the kinds of parenting styles evident in same-gendered parental households will help us address the uniqueness of father and mother roles in the family and help provide needed clarity on the important issue of how essential opposite-sex parental dyads are for children’s development (Parke, 2013; Silverstein and Auerbach, 1999).

Types of Developmental Change Moreover, we need to move beyond childhood and examine more closely father relationships with their adult children—if we are to achieve a life-span view of fathering. Although development traditionally has marked change in the individual child, this perspective is too limited, and fathers, as well as children, continue to develop across time (Elder et al., 2015; Parke, 1988). Fathers’ management of a variety of life-course tasks, such as marriage, work, and personal identity, will clearly determine how they will execute parental tasks; in turn, these differences may find expression in measures of father-child interaction. Because developmental shifts in children’s perceptual, cognitive, and social development, in turn, may alter parental attitudes and behaviors and/or the nature of the adults’ own developmentally relevant choices, such as work and family commitment, we need to recognize two developmental trajectories—a child developmental course and an adult developmental sequence. The description of the interplay between these two types of developmental curves is necessary to capture adequately the nature of developmental changes in a father’s role in the family.

Monitoring Secular Trends There is a continuing need to monitor secular trends and to describe their impact on father-child interaction patterns (Furstenberg, 2014). “Family is not a static institution but one that is constantly being re-worked, reshaped, reimagined and reenacted in complex and dynamic ways” (Goldberg, 2010, p. 186). Clearly, a historical perspective on fathers and families is necessary, because changing economic, social, political, and technological changes have real and measurable effects on family organization, form, and functioning. As historical events such as the Great Depression, the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, the tragedy of 9/11, and the recent Great Recession illustrate, families are altered by these secular events, and we need to continually monitor their effects. While these events are potential disruptive forces on families, these changes can be viewed as natural experiments that can be useful in evaluating theoretical models of family functioning, coping, and resilience. Secular change is complex and clearly does not affect all individuals equally or all behavior patterns to the same extent. In fact, it is a serious oversimplification to assume that general societal trends can isomorphically be applied across all individual fathers and families. Moreover, better guidelines are necessary to illuminate which aspects of processes within families are most likely to be altered by historical events and which processes are less amenable to change (Parke and Elder, in press). A variety of technological advances from the new reproductive technologies to new forms of electronic communication continues to play a major role in shaping fathers’ roles. Just as the introduction of television and phones altered family interaction patterns, new advances in communication technologies (i.e., internet, cellphones, instant messaging, video conferencing, social media) are reshaping the ways that families interact. Our understanding of the impact of these new advances on father relationships and processes is limited and lags behind the adoption of these new strategies by families themselves. As families become increasingly geographically dispersed, communication technologies offer new forms of “at-a-distance” contact that can benefit families. Advances such as video conferencing allow “face-to-face” contact with extended family members, such as distant grandparents or other relatives and for fathers who are separated from their children due to mobility, 116

Fathers and Families

divorce, military deployment, incarceration, and fragmented immigration patterns. More systematic examination of these issues is needed. Even more profound is the potential impact of the new reproductive technologies on parenting in general and fathering in particular (Parke, 2013). New reproductive technologies are expanding the ways in which individuals become parents and opening up new possibilities for infertile as well as same-sex couples (Golombok, 2015; Paulson and Sachs, 1999). The implication of these recent advances including in vitro fertilization, sperm and egg donors, and surrogate mothers for our definitions of parenthood, including fatherhood, are only beginning to be explored. Although knowledge about the impact of these alternative pathways to fatherhood on children’s development is limited, to date, the effects on children’s development are generally benign (Golombok, 2015). Increasingly, our definition of fatherhood is becoming divorced from biology and instead is recognized as a socially constructed category.

Methodological Issues No single methodological strategy will suffice to understand the development of the father’s role in the family. Instead, a wide range of designs and data collection and data analysis strategies is necessary. To date, there is still a paucity of information concerning interrelations across molar and molecular levels of analysis. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that a microanalytic strategy is not always more profitable in terms of describing relationships among interactive partners; in fact, in some cases, ratings may be a more useful approach. A set of guidelines concerning the appropriate level of analysis for different questions would be helpful. More attention to tasks used for the assessment of the effects of fathers on their children is needed in light of the work of Grossman et al. (2002) and Paquette and colleagues (Flanders et al., 2009, 2010; Paquette, 2004), which suggests that challenging situations may be well suited to uncovering the unique effects of father interaction on children. The continued utilization of similar tasks for mothers and fathers may, in fact, undermine our efforts to better understand the distinctive ways that fathers and mothers influence their children’s development. To address the important issue of direction of effects in work on the impact of fathers on children and families, experimental strategies are necessary. By experimentally modifying either the type of paternal behavior or level of father involvement, firmer conclusions concerning the causative role that fathers play in modifying their children’s and their wives’ development will be possible. Intervention studies (e.g., Doherty, Erickson, and LaRossa, 2006; Holmes et al., 2013) aimed at modifying fathering behavior provide models for this type of work, and studies (Pruett et al., 2017) that include measures of child, mother, and father development are providing evidence of the impact of changes in fathering behavior on developmental outcomes. Moreover, these experimentally based interventions have clear policy implications by exploring the degree of plasticity of fathering behavior and can serve as a vehicle for evaluation of alternative theoretical views of fatherhood.

An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Fatherhood In many ways, a psychological approach to fathering has a unique identity, with its focus on intrafamilial processes, such as actor attitudes, cognitions, and beliefs and the dynamic interchanges between and among family members. However, it is unlikely that we can fully understand fathers without recognizing the contributions of other disciplines. Sociologists inform us about issues of ethnicity, class, inequality, and demographic shifts (Edin and Nelson, 2013), anthropologists alert us to cross-cultural variations (Hewlett and Macfarlan, 2010), and economists document shifts in economic opportunities and struggles (Bishai, 2013). Medical professionals provide insights about family illness, disease, and wellness-promoting strategies (Yogman and Garfield, 2016), and legal scholars offer glimpses 117

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston

into the ways in which families can be helped or hindered by laws and social policies that directly affect families (Sugarman, 2008). Historians remind us that cross-time shifts in family forms, beliefs, and practices are constantly under revision (Pleck, 2004). Beyond these traditional contributors to the study of fathers, some disciplines have not received sufficient attention, namely, architecture and urban design (Parke, 2013). The effects of living in multifamily households or in intergenerational housing on father roles is poorly understood. Our challenge is to examine how innovations in housing arrangements alter various aspects of family life. Father scholars need to better understand how these cross-disciplinary insights modify process-oriented explanations of father functioning. Clearly, solutions to the problems facing contemporary families need scholars and practitioners from many disciplines.

Contextual Issues Greater attention needs to be paid to the role of context in determining father-child relationships. How do father-child interaction patterns shift between home and laboratory settings and across different types of interaction contexts such as play, teaching, and caregiving? Moreover, it is important to consider the social as well as the physical context. Recognition of the embeddedness of fathers in family contexts is critical, and, in turn, conceptualizing families as embedded in a variety of extrafamilial social settings is important for understanding variation in father functioning (Parke, 2013). The legal system is one of many institutions that affect father functioning as illustrated by the legal issues surrounding custody, adoption, and the regulation of the new reproductive technologies. The family links with educational institutions including schools as centers of academic learning and schools as social service systems (i.e., childcare centers and after-school programs) need more attention. Medical settings and social service providers all play central roles in family life and need more systematic scrutiny, especially in light of the need to make fathers more welcome in these settings. Work contexts have historically received attention beginning with maternal employment issues, but as work patterns have changed, new issues have emerged such as time management, work schedules and stress, and family leave policies for fathers as well as mothers. As intergenerational perspectives become more prevalent, family leave for both parents needs to accommodate not only infants and ill children but also elderly relatives as well because it is likely as family roles shift fathers as well as mothers will be called on to provide elder care. Another topic, fathers and religion, has not yet been fully embraced by our field in spite of some exceptions (e.g., Bollinger and Palkovitz, 2003; Bornstein et al., 2017; Vermeer, 2014). We still do not fully appreciate the myriad ways religious beliefs and practices and religious institutions and leaders play in family life as both moral guides and social supports. Nor are the attitudes, practices, and organization of family life across different religious groups such as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, who are becoming increasingly part of contemporary Western culture, fully understood. Clearly, the links among fathers, families, and community institutions continue to merit our attention.

Conclusion In spite of a relatively brief recent history of serious research devoted to fatherhood, considerable progress has been achieved in our understanding of the paternal role and the impact of fathers on themselves and others. Several conclusions are warranted. First, some modest increases over the past several decades have occurred in the level of father involvement with children. However, not all types of involvement shown have been equally affected, and managerial aspects of family life remain largely a maternal responsibility. Moreover, not all fathers have increased their involvement and the variability in involvement across social class, education and ethnicity needs to continue to be explored. Second, fathers are clearly competent caregivers and playmates in spite of 118

Fathers and Families

their limited overall involvement in childcare. Third, stylistic differences in interaction with children especially in play between mothers and fathers continue to be evident in spite of recent shifts toward greater father involvement in children’s daily lives, although some cross-cultural evidence suggests that the paternal physical play style may not be as universal as previously assumed. Fourth, the father role appears less scripted than the mother role, which may account for the variability that characterizes enactments of fathering. Fifth, evidence continues to suggest that fathers impact children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. However, quality of fathering remains an important determinant of paternal influence on children’s development, and the independent contribution of fathers relative to mothers remains only weakly documented. Sixth, recent evidence suggests that fathering activities alter men’s marital relationships as well as men’s own sense of self and their societal generativity. The study of father-child relationships has matured in the last several decades and is now a more fully contextualized issue. Fathers in the context of their social relationships both within and beyond the family are increasingly the appropriate point of entry for understanding the issue of both paternal roles and their impact on themselves and others. Because our conceptual paradigms continue to outstrip our empirical understanding, reducing this gap is the challenge of the next decades of research. Children, fathers, and families will benefit from this increased understanding.

References Adamsons, K. (2010). Using identity theory to develop a midrange level model of parental gatekeeping and parenting behavior. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 137–148. Aldous, J., and Mulligan, G. M. (2002). Fathers’ child care and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 624–647. Allen, J. M., and Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199–212. Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., and Raymond, M. (2009). Father–offspring resemblance predicts paternal investment in humans. Animal Behavior, 78: 61–69. Amato, P. A., and Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: Media analysis, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 15–73. Amato, R. R., and Rivera, F. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 375–384. Arditti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 8, 115–138. Arnett, J. (2011). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy. Oxford: Research and Policy, Oxford University Press. Astone, N. M., Dariotis, J. K., Sonenstein, F. L., Pleck, J. H., and Hynes, K. (2010). Men’s work efforts and the transition to fatherhood. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 3–13. Bandura, A. (1989). Cognitive social learning theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bales, W. D., and Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 287–321. Barak-Levy, Y., and Atzaba-Poria, N. A. (2013). Paternal versus maternal coping styles with child diagnosis of developmental delay. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2040–2046. Barr, R., Brito, N., Zocca, J., Reina, S., Rodriguez, J. and Shauffer, C. (2011). The baby elmo program: Improving teen parent-child interactions within juvenile justice facilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1555–1562. Barrett, J., and Hinde, R. A. (1988). Triadic interactions: Mother-first born-second born. In R. A. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Towards understanding families. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baruch, G. K., and Barnett, R. C. (1986). Fathers’ participation in family work and children’s sex-role attitudes. Child Development, 57, 1210–1223. Beitel, A., and Parke, R. D. (1998). Maternal and paternal attitudes as determinants of father involvement. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268–288. Belsky, J. (1984). Determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.

119

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Belsky, J., Rovine, M., and Fish, M. (1989). The developing family system. In M. Gunnar and E. Thelen (Eds.), Systems and development: Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 119–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Berndt, T. J., Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Hau, K. T., and Lew, W. (1993). Perceptions of parenting in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: Sex differences and societal differences. Developmental Psychology, 29, 156–164. Bhavnagri, N., and Parke, R. D. (1991). Parents as direct facilitators of children’s peer relationships: Effects of age of child and sex of parent age of child and sex of parent. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 423–440. Bianchi, S. M. (2009). “What gives” when mothers are employed? Parental time allocation in dual- and singleearner two-parent families. In C. D. Russell and E. J. Hill (Eds.), Handbook of families and work (pp. 305–330). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., and Milkie, M. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bishai, D. (2013). The economics of fatherhood. In N. Cabrera and C. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement (pp. 361–378). New York, NY: Routledge. Bollinger, B. and Palkovitz, R., (2003). The relationship between the expression of spiritual faith and parental involvement in three groups of fathers. Journal of Men’s Studies, 11, 117–130. Bonney, J. F., Kelley, M. L., and Levant, R. F. (1999). A model of fathers’ involvement in child care in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401–415. Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bornstein, M. H. (2007). On the significance of social relationships in the development of children’s earliest symbolic play: An ecological perspective. In A. Gönçü and S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives (pp. 101–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., and Suwalsky, J. D. (2017). Parenting cognitions → parenting practices → child adjustment? The standard model. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 301–319. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Chang, L., DeaterDeckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Steinberg, L., Tapanya, S., Uribe Tirado, L. M., Zelli, A., and Alampay, L. P. (2017). “Mixed blessings”: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 880–892. Boudin, K. (1997). The children’s center programs of Bedford hills correctional facility. In C. L. Blinn (Ed.), Maternal ties (pp. 55–86). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Bourçois, V. (1997). Modalités de présence du père et développement social de l’enfant d’âge préscolaire, Enfance, 3, 389–399. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Boyum, L., and Parke, R. D. (1995). Family emotional expressiveness and children’s social competence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 593–608. Braungart-Rieker, J., Courtney, S., and Garwood, M. M. (1999). Mother- and father-infant attachment: Families in context. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 535–553. Bretherton, I., and Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy and P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). New York: Guilford. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, April). Employment characteristics of families—2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Burks, V., and Parke, R. D. (1996). Parent and child representations of social relationships: Linkages between families and peers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 358–378. Cabrera, N. J., Aldoney, D., and Tamis-Lemonda, C. (2013). Latino fathers. In N. J. Cabrera, and C. S. Tamis-Lemonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 244–260). New York: Taylor and Francis. Cabrera, N. J., Hofferth, S. L., and Schae, S. (2011). Patterns and predictors of father–infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 365–375. Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H., Bradley, R., and Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father–child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6, 336–354. Cabrera, N., Shannon, J., West, J., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Parental interactions with Latino infants: Variation by country of origin and English proficiency. Child Development, 74, 1190–1207. Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., and Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2007). Fathers’ influence on their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 11, 208–213. Cabrera, N., Shannon, J., Mitchell, S., and West, J. (2009). Mexican American mothers and fathers’ prenatal attitudes and father prenatal involvement: Links to mother-infant interaction and father engagement. Sex Roles, 60, 510–526.

120

Fathers and Families Card, N. A., Bosch, L. A., Casper, D. M., Wiggs, C. B., Hawkins, S. A., and Borden, L. M. (2011). A meta-analytic review of internalizing, externalizing, and academic adjustment among children of deployed military service members. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 508–520. Carlson, M. J., and Furstenberg, F. F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility and urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 718–732. Carlson, M., and McLanahan, S. (2010). Fathers in fragile families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 241–269). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carson, J., and Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child interactions and children’s peer competency. Child Development, 67, 2217–2226. Cavanaugh, S. E., and Huston, A. (2006). Family instability and children’s early problem behavior. Social Forces, 85, 551–581. Chandra, A., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Burns, R. M., Ruder, T., and Han, B. (2010). Children on the homefront: The experience of children from military families. Pediatrics, 125, 16–25. Centers for disease control and prevention. (2016). Teen pregnancy in the United States. Atlanta, GA: CDC. Chao, R., and Kim, K. (2000). Parenting differences among immigrant Chinese fathers and mothers in the United States. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1, 71–79. Chao, R., and Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cheadle, J. E., Amato, P. R., and King, V. (2010). Patterns of nonresident father contact. Demography, 47, 205–225. Cherlin, A. (2009). The marriage-go-round. New York: Random House. Child Trends. (2006). Charting parenthood: A statistical report of fathers and mothers in America. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Chuang, S., and Su, Y. (2008). Transcending Confucian teachings on fathering: A sign of the times or acculturation? In S. Chuang and R. P. Moreno (Eds.), Understanding immigrant fathers in North America (pp. 217–229). New York: Lexington Books. Chuang, S. S., and Zhu, M. (2018). Where are you Daddy?: An exploration of father involvement in Chinese families in Canada and Mainland China. In S. S. Chuang and C. S. Costigan (Eds.), An international approach to parenting and parent-child relationships in immigrant families. New York: Springer. Cho, E., and Ciancetta, L. (2016). Child outcomes associated with parent work-family experiences. In T. D. Allen and L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and family. New York: Oxford University Press. Clarke, W. (2009). Delayed transitions of young adults. Canadian Social Trends Catalogue number 11-008XWE, number 84. Clements, M. L., Lim, K. G., and Chaplin, T. M. (2002, November). Marriage, parenting, and co-parenting: Effects of context, parent gender, and child gender on interactions. In F. Hughes (Chair), Bridging the marital dyad and the family triad. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Reno, NV. Coley, R. L., and Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1999). Stability and change in paternal involvement among urban African-American fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 416–435. Coley, R., and Medeiros, B. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132–147. Coltrane, S., and Adams, M. (2008). Gender and families (Gender Lens Series, 2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Coltrane, S., and Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1992) Men’s housework: A life course perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 43–57. Condon, J. T., Boyce, P., and Corkindale, C. J. (2004). The first-time fathers study: A prospective study of the mental health and wellbeing of men during the transition to parenthood. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 56–64. Conger, R. D., Ebert-Wallace, L., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., and Brody, G. H. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193. Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., Griffin, W., deLusé, S. R., and Miles, J. C. (2007). Effects of the dads for life intervention on interparental conflict and co-parenting in the two years after divorce. Family Processes, 46, 123–137. Cookston, J. T., and Finlay, A. K. (2006). Paternal involvement and adolescent adjustment: Longitudinal findings from add health. Fathering, 4, 137–158. Cookston, J. T., Olide, A., Adams, M., Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., and Parke, R. D. (2012). In L. Juang and A. Umana-Taylor (Issue Eds.), Family conflict among Chinese and Mexican-origin adolescents and their

121

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston parents. In L. Jensen and R. Larson (Eds.), New directions in child and adolescent development (pp. 83–103). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cookston, J. T., Olide, A., Parke, R. D., Fabricius, W. V., Saenz, D., and Braver, S. L. (2015). He said what? Guided cognitive reframing about the co-resident father/stepfather-adolescent relationship. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 263–278. Cookston, J. T., Boyer, C. J., Vega, E., and Parke, R. D. (2017, April). Transnational fathers (and mothers): Modes of contact and parent-child relationships. Paper presented at the 2017 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Austin, TX. Cooney, T. M., Pedersen, F. A., Indelicato, S., and Palkovitz, R. (1993). Timing of fatherhood: Is “on-time” optimal? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 205–215. Costigan, C., and Su, T. F. (2008). Cultural predictors of the parenting cognitions of immigrant Chinese mothers and fathers in Canada. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 432–442. Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. (1992). When parents become partners. New York: Basic Books. Cowan, P. A., and Cowan, C. P. (2010). How working with couples fosters children’s development: From prevention science to public policy. In M. Schulz, M. Pruett, P. Kerig, and R. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Ablow, J., Johnson, V., and Measelle, J. (Eds.). (2005). The family context of parenting in children’s adaptation to school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., and Barry, J. (2011). Couples’ groups for parents of preschoolers: Ten-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 240–250. Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., and Heming, G. (2005). Two variations of a preventive intervention for couples: Effects on parents and children during the transition to elementary school. In The family context of parenting in children’s adaptation to elementary school (pp. 227–312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., and Pruett, K. D., and Wong, J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 663–679. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., and Gillette, P. (2014). Evaluating a couples group to enhance father involvement in low-income families using a benchmark comparison. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 63, 356–370. Cox, M. J., and Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 193–196. Cox, R., and Wallace, S. (2013). The impact of incarceration on food insecurity among households with children. Fragile Families Working Paper 13-05-FF, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Cozza, S. J., Holmes, A. K., and van Ost, S. L (2013). Family-centered care for military and veteran families affected by combat injury. Clinical Child Fam Psychology Review, 16, 311–321. Craig, L., and Powell, A. (2011). Non-standard work schedules, work-family balance and the gendered division of childcare. Work, Employment, and Society, 25, 274–291. Crockenberg, S., and Langrock, A. (2001). The role of specific emotions in children’s responses to interparental conflict: A test of the model. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 163–182. Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. R., Maguire, M. C., and McHale, S. M. (1999). Linking parents’ work pressure and adolescents’ well-being: Insights into dynamics in dual earner families. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1453–1461. Cummings, E. M., and Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. New York and London: Guilford. Cummings, E. M., Keller, P. S., and Davies, P. T. (2005). Towards a family process model of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 479–489. Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., and Ward George, M. (2010). Fathers, marriages, and families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 154–176) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cummings, E. M., El-Sheikh, M., Kouros, C. D., and Keller, P. S. (2007). Children’s skin conductance reactivity as a mechanism of risk in the context of parental depressive symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 436–445. Daly, K. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 510–530. Dave, S., Nazareth, I., Sherr, L., and Senior, R. (2005). The association of paternal mood and infant temperament: A pilot study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 609–621. Dalliare, D. H. (2019). Incarcerated parents. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 590–617). New York: Routledge.

122

Fathers and Families Dallaire, D. H., Zeman, J. L., and Thrash, T. M. (2015). Children’s experiences of maternal incarcerationspecific risks: Predictions to psychological maladaptation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44, 109–122. Daniels, P., and Weingarten, K. (1982). Sooner or later: The timing of parenthood in adult lives. New York: Norton. Deater-Deckard, K., and Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161–175. DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Coercive and prosocial fathering, antisocial personality, and growth in children’s postdivorce noncompliance. Child Development, 81, 503–516. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., and Wyatt, T. (2014). The socialization of emotional competence. In J. Grusec and P. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook of socialization (2nd ed., pp. 590–613). New York: Guilford Press. Deutsch, C. (1999). Having it all. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dickie, J., and Gerber, S. C. (1980). Training in social competence: The effect on mothers, fathers and infants. Child Development, 51, 1248–1251. Doherty, W. J., Erickson, M. F., and LaRossa, R. (2006). An intervention to increase father involvement and skills with infants during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 438-447. Doherty, W. E. J., Kouneski, E. F., and Erikson, M. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277–292. Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., and Markman, H. J. (2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 601–614. Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and their children. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Doucet, A. (2004). Fathers and the responsibility for children: A puzzle and a tension. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture and Social Justice, 28, 103–114. Doucet, A. (2006). Do men mother? Fathering, care and domestic responsibility. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Doucet, A. (2013). Gender roles and fathering. In C. Tamis-LeMonda and N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 297–319). New York: Routledge. Duffy, A. (1988). Struggling with power: Feminist critiques of family inequity. In N. Mandell and A. Duffy (Eds.), Reconstructing the Canadian family: Feminist perspectives (pp. 111–139). Toronto: Butterworths. Durrett, M. E., Otaki, M., and Richards, P. (1984). Attachment and the mother’s perception of support from the father. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 7, 167–176. East, P. L. (2010). Children’s provision of family caregiving: Benefit or burden? Child Development Perspectives, 4, 55–61. Edin, K., and Nelson, T. (2013). Doing the best I can: Fathering in the inner city. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Edin, K., Tach, L., and Mincy, R. (2009). Claiming fatherhood: Race and the dynamics of father involvement among unmarried men. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 149–177. Eggebeen, D., Knoester, C., and McDaniel, B. (2013). The implications of fatherhood for men. In N. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 338– 357). New York: Routledge. Eggebeen, D. J., Dew, J., and Knoester, C. (2010). Fatherhood and men’s lives at middle age. Journal of Family Issues, 31(1), 113–130. Eickmeyer, K. J. (2016). Over 25 years of change in men’s entry into fatherhood 1987–2013. Family profiles. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family and Marriage Research. Elder, G H, Jr, Shanahan, M. l, and Jennings, A. (2015) Human development in time and in place. In T. Leventhal, and M. Bornstein, (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology developmental science: Ecological settings developmental processes in systems (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley Sons Elliott, G. C. (2009). Family matters: The importance of mattering to family in adolescence. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. Elliott, G. C., Cunningham, S. M., Colangelo, M., and Gelles, R. J. (2011). Perceived mattering to the family and physical violence within the family by adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1007–1029. Erikson, E. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. New York: W. W. Norton. Everett, K. D., Gage, J., Bullock, L., Longo, D. R., Geden, E., and Madsen, R. W. (2005). A pilot study of smoking and associated behaviors of low-income expectant fathers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 7, 269–276. Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., and Velez, C. E. (2010). Custody and parenting time: Links to family relationships and well-being after divorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 201–240). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fagan, J., and Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020–1043.

123

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Fauber, R. L., and Long, N. (1991). Children in context: The role of the family in child psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 813–820. Feldman, R. (2007). Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; Physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 329–354. Feldman, R., Gordon, I., Schneiderman, I., Weisman, O., and Zagoory-Sharon, O. (2010). Natural variations in maternal and paternal care are associated with systematic changes in oxytocin following parent–infant contact. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35, 1133–1141. Feldman, R. (2016). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 965–970. Feldman, R. (2019). The social neuroendocrinology of human parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting. (3rd ed., pp. 220–249) New York: Routledge. Feldman, R., Gordon, I., Influs, M., Gutbir, T., and Ebstein, R. P. (2013). Parental oxytocin and early caregiving jointly shape children’s oxytocin response and social reciprocity. Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(7), 1154–1162. Field, T. M. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary versus secondary caretaker fathers. Developmental Psychology, 14, 183–185. Finlay, A. K., Cookston, J. T., Saenz, D. S., Baham, M. E., Parke, R. D., Fabricius, W. V., and Braver, S. L. (2014). Attributions of fathering behaviors among adolescents: The role of depressive symptoms, ethnicity, and family structure. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 501–525. Flanders, J. L., Leo, V., Paquette, D., Pihl, R. O., and Séguin, J. R. (2009). Rough-and-tumble play and the regulation of aggression: An observational study of father-child play dyads. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 285–295. Flanders, J. L., Simard, M., Paquette, D., Parent, S., Vitaro, F., Pihl, R. O., and Séguin, J. R. (2010). Rough-andtumble play and the development of physical aggression and emotion regulation: A five-year follow-up study. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 357–367. Fleming, A. S., Corter, C., Stallings, J., and Steiner, M. (2002). Testosterone and prolactin are associated with emotional responses to infant cries in new fathers. Hormones and Behavior, 42, 399–413. Flittner O’Grady, A. E., Burton, T., Chawla, N., Topp, D., and MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2016). Evaluation of a multimedia intervention for children and families facing multiple military deployments. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 37, 53–70. Flouri, E. (2004). Fathering and child outcomes. London, UK: Wiley Flouri, E. and Buchanan, A. (2002). Childhood predictors of labor force participation in adult life. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 101–120 Fomby, P., and Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological Review, 72, 181–204. Franz, C. E., McClelland, D., and Weinberger, J. (1991). Childhood antecedents of conventional social accomplishment in midlife adults: A 26-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 709–717. Friedman, H., and Martin, L. R. (2011). The longevity project: Surprising discoveries for health and long life from the landmark eight decade study. New York: Hudson Street Press. Furstenberg, F. F. (1988). Good dads–bad dads: Two faces of fatherhood. In A. J. Cherlin (Ed.), The changing American family and public policy (pp. 193–218). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Furstenberg, F. F. (2014). Fifty years of change: From consensus to complexity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 654, 12–30. Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H. Jr., and Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Furstenberg, F. F., and Harris, K. M. (1993). When and why fathers matter: Impacts of father involvement on children of adolescent mothers. In R. I. Lerman and T. J. Ooms (Eds.), Young unwed fathers (pp. 117–138). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gadsden, V. L. (1999). Black families in intergenerational and cultural perspective. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 221–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gamble, W. C., Ramakumar, S., and Diaz, A. (2007). Maternal and paternal similarities and differences in parenting: An examination of Mexican-American parents of young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 72–88. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and Sanner, C. (2019). Divorced and remarried parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 311–344). New York: Routledge. Garfield, C. F., Isacco, A., and Bartlo, W. D. (2010). Men’s health and fatherhood in the urban midwestern United States. International Journal of Men’s Health, 9, 161–174. Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., and Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 16194–16199. Glass, J., and Owen, J. (2010). Latino fathers: The relationship among machismo, acculturation, ethnic identity, and paternal involvement. Psychology of Men and & Masculinity, 11, 251–261.

124

Fathers and Families Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Goldberg, W. A., Tan, E. T., and Thorsen, K. (2009). Trends in academic attention to fathers, 1930–2006. Fathering: A Journal of Research, Theory, and Practice, 7, 159–179. Goldberg, W. A. (2014). Father time: The social clock and the timing of fatherhood. London: Palgrave-MacMillan. Goodman, W. B., Crouter, A. C., Lanza, S. T., and Cox, M. J. (2008). Paternal work characteristics and fatherinfant interaction quality in low-income, rural families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 640–653. Goodman, W. B., Crouter, A. C., Lanza, S. T., Cox, M. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., and the Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2011). Paternal work stress and latent profiles of father-infant parenting quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 73, 588–604. Glauber, R. (2008). Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood wage premium. Gender and Society, 22, 8–30. Glaze, L. E., and Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Golombok, S. (2015). Modern families. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Golombok, S. (2019). Parenting and contemporary reproductive technologies. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 482–512). New York: Routledge. Goodnow, J. J. (1999). From household practices to parents’ ideas about work and interpersonal relationships. In S. Harkness, C. Super, and R. Niew (Eds.), Parenting ethnotheories. New York: Guilford. Goodnow, J. J., and Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources and consequences of parents ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Goodnow, J. J., and Lawrence, J. A. (2001). Work contributions to the family: Developing a conceptual and research framework. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 94, 5–22. Gornick, J. C., and Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., and Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gray, P. B., and Anderson, K. G. (2010). Fatherhood: Evolution and human paternal behavior Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greenberger, E., O’Neil, R., and Nagel, S. K. (1994). Linking workplace and home place: Relations between the nature of adults work and their parenting behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 30, 990–1002. Grimm-Thomas, K., and Perry-Jenkins, M. (1994). All in a day’s work: Job experiences, self-esteem, and fathering in working-class families. Family Relations. 43, 174–181. Grossman, F. K. (1987). Separate and together: Men’s autonomy and affiliation in the transition to parenthood. In P. W. Berman and F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men’s transition to parenthood (pp. 89–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grossmann, F. K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheurer-Englisch, H., and Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year-long study. Social Development, 11, 307–331. Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W. S., and Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the quality and quantity of fathers. Developmental Psychology, 24, 82–91. Grotevant, H. D., and McDermott, J. M. (2014). Adoption: Biological and social processes linked to adaptation. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 235–266. Grych, J. H., and Clark, R. (1999). Maternal employment and development of the father-infant relationship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 893–903. Grych, J. H., and Fincham, F. D. (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215–230. Grzywacz, J. G., and Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455–471. Gueron-Sela, N., Atzaba-Poria, N., Meiri, G., and Marks, K. (2015). The caregiving environment and developmental outcomes of preterm infants: Diathesis stress or differential susceptibility effects? Child Development, 86, 1014–1030. Guzzo, K. B. (2014). Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement among nevermarried young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 76, 826–842. Guzzo, K. B., and Furstenberg, F. F. Jr. (2007). Multipartnered fertility among American men. Demography, 44, 583–601.

125

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Han, W-J., and Fox, L. E. (2011) Parental work schedules and children’s cognitive trajectories. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 73, 962–980. Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., and McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687–697. Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., McNeilly-Choque, M. K., Porter, C. L., and McKee, T. R. (2000). Russian parenting styles and family processes: Linages with subtypes of victimization and aggression. In K. A. Kerns, J. M. Contreras, and A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Family and peers: Linking two social worlds. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Hawkins, A. J., and Dollahite, D. C. (Eds.). (1997). Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, D. H. (1976). Competent fathers: Their personalities and marriages. Human Development, 19, 26–39. Heath, D. B. (1977). Some possible effects of occupation on the maturing professional man. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 263–281. Heath, D. H., and Heath, H. E. (1991). Fulfilling lives: Paths to maturity and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hewlett, B., and Macfarlan, S. (2010). Fathers’ roles in Hunter-Gatherer and other small scale cultures. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 413–434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hodges, M., and Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Markers of hegemonic masculinity and the impact of first-time fatherhood on men’s earnings. Gender and Society, 24, 717–745. Hofferth, S. (1999, April). Race/ethnic differences in further involvement with young children: A conceptual framework and empirical test in two- parent families. Paper presented at the Urban Seminar on Fatherhood, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Hofferth, S. (2003). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53–77. Hofferth, S., and Goldscheider, F. (2010). Does change in young men’s employment influence fathering? Family Relations, 59, 479–493. Hofferth, S. L., Pleck, J. H., and Vesely, C. K. (2012). The transmission of parenting from fathers to sons. Parenting, Science and Practice, 12, 282–305. Hofferth, S. L., Pleck, J. H., Goldscheider, F., Curtin, S., and Hrapczynski, K. (2013). Family structure and men’s motivation for parenthood in the United States. In N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 57–80). New York: Routledge. Holmes, E. K., Cowan, P. C., Cowan, C. P., and Hawkins, A. (2013). Marriage, fatherhood, and parenting programming. In N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Ed.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 438–454). New York: Routledge. Holmes, E. K., and Huston, A. C. (2010). Understanding positive father-child interaction: Children’s, fathers’, and mothers’ contributions. Fathering, 8, 203–225. Hossain, Z., and Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). African-American fathers’ involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioning style, support, education, and income. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 175–184. Hughes, F. (1999). Children, play, and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hwang, P. (1987). The changing role of Swedish fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross cultural perspectives, Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum. Ibrahim, M. H., Somers, J. A., Luecken, L. L., Fabricius, W. V., and Cookston, J. T. (2017). Father-adolescent engagement in shared activities: Effects on cortisol stress response in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 485–494. Ishii-Kuntz, M. (2009). Paternal roles and child care: Current conditions, determinants, and its consequences on families. Japanese Journal of Research on Household Economics, 81, 16–23. Jankowiak, W. (2010). Father and child relations in urban China. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Parent-youth relations (Vol. 1, pp. 345–363). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine. Jain, A., and Belsky, J. (1997). Fathering and acculturation: Immigrant Indian families with young children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 873–883. Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., and Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Marital conflict, maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment: A test of mediation and moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 199–208. Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., and Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234–251. Katz, L. F., and Gottman, J. M. (1991). Marital discord and child outcomes: A social psychophysiological approach. In K. Dodge and J. Garber (Eds.), Emotion regulation in young children. New York: Cambridge University Press.

126

Fathers and Families Katz, L. F., and Gottman, J. M. (1993). Patterns of marital conflict predict children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 29, 940–950. Katz, L. F., Wilson, B., and Gottman, J. M., (1999). Meta-emotion philosophy and family adjustment: Making an emotional connection. In M. J. Cox and J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion in families: Causes and consequences. The advances in family research series, 131–165. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Keller, P. S., Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., and Petersen, K. (2009). Marital conflict in the context of parental depressive symptoms: Implications for the development of children’s adjustment problems. Social Development, 18, 536–555. Kelly, R. F., Redenbach, L., and Rinaman, W. (2005). Determinants of sole and joint physical custody arrangements in a national sample of divorces. American Journal of Family Law, 19, 25–43. Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 454–473. Kim, S. W., and Hill, N. E. (2015). Including fathers in the picture: A meta-analysis of parental involvement and students’ academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 919–934. Kim, P., Rigo, P., Mayes, L. C., Feldman, R., Leckman, J. F., and Swain, J. E. (2014). Neural plasticity in fathers of human infants. Social neuroscience, 9, 522–535. Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family interactions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36, 3-13. Knoester, C., and Eggebeen, D. J. (2006). The effects of transition to parenthood and subsequent children on men’s well-being and social participation. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1532–1560. Knoester, C., Petts, R., and Eggebeen, D. J. (2007). Commitments to fathering and the well being and social participation of new fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 991–1004. Knox, V., Cowan, P. A., Pape Cowan, C., and Bildner, E. (2011). Policies that strengthen fatherhood and family relationships: What do we know and what do we need to know? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635, 216–239. Kohler, H. P., Behrman, J. R., and Skytthe, A. (2005). Partner + Children = Happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well-being. Population and Development Review, 31, 407–445. Kohn, M. L., and Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Koestner, R., Franz, C., and Weinberger, J. (1990). The family origins of empathic concern: A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 709–717. Krishnakumar, A., and Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25–44. Kromelow, S., Harding, C., and Touris, M. (1990). The role of the father in the development of stranger sociability during the second year. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 521–530. LaBounty, J., Wellman, H. M., Olson, S., Lagattuta, K., and Liu, D. (2008). Mothers’ and fathers’ use of internal state talk with their young children. Social Development, 17, 757–775. Ladd, G. W., Profilet, S. M., and Hart, C. H. (1992). Parents management of children’s peer relations: Facilitating and supervising children’s activities in the peer culture. In R. D. Parke and G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 215–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s peer relations and social competence: A century of progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lamb, M. E., and Lewis, C. (2010). The development and significance of father—child relationships in twoparent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 94–153). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., and Levine, J. A. (1985). The role of the father in child development: The effects of increased paternal involvement. In B. Lahey and E. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Plenum. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J., Charnov, E. L., and Levine, J. A. (1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, and L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial perspectives. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Landreth, G. L., and Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157–165. Lapp, L.M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., and Cummings, E. M. (2004) Mothers’ and fathers’ psychological symptoms and marital functioning: Examination of direct and interactive links with child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 469–482. LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LaRossa, R. (2012). The historical study of fatherhood: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In M. Oechsle, U. Müller, and S. Hess (Eds.), Fatherhood in late modernity: Cultural images, social practices, structural frames. Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

127

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Larson, R., and Richards, M. (1994). Divergent realities. New York: Basic Books. Larson, R. W., and Sheeber, L. (2007). The daily emotional experience of adolescents. In N. Allen and L. Sheeber (Eds.), Adolescent emotional development and the emergence of depressive disorders. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lau, E. Y. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of parental involvement in Hong Kong. British Educational Research Journal, 42, 1023–1040. LaVigne, N. G., Naser, R. L., Brooks, L. E., and Castro, J. L. (2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and inprison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314–355. Lawlor, D. A., Emberson, J. R., Ebrahim, S., Whincup, P. H., Wannamethee, S. G., Walker, M., and Smith, G. D. (2003). Is the association between parity and coronary heart disease due to biological effects of pregnancy or adverse lifestyle risk factors associated with child-rearing? Findings from the British Women’s Heart and Health Study and the British Regional Heart Study. Circulation, 107, 1260–1264. Leadbeater, B. J. (2014). Growing up fast: Re-Visioning adolescent mothers’ transitions to young adulthood. New York: Psychology Press. Leavell, A. S., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ruble, D. N., Zosuls, K. M., and Cabrera, N. J. (2012). African American, White, and Latino fathers activities with their sons and daughters in early childhood. Sex Roles, 66, 53–65. Lee, C. Y., and Doherty, W. J. (2007). Marital satisfaction and father involvement during the transition to parenthood. Fathering, 5, 75–96. Lee, S. J., and Walsh, T. B. (2015). Using technology in social work practice: The mDad (Mobile Device Assisted Dad) case study. Advances in Social Work, 16, 107–124. Le Camus, J. (1995). Pères et bébés. Paris: L’Harmattan. Leidy, M. S., Parke, R. D, Cladis, M., Coltrane, S., and Duffy, S. (2009). Positive marital quality, acculturative stress, and child outcomes among Mexican Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 833–847. Leidy, M. S., Schofield, T., Miller, M., Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Cookston, J., Braver, S., Fabricius, W., Saenez, D., and Adams, M. (2011). Fathering and adolescent adjustment: Variations by family structure and ethnic background. Fathering, 9, 44–68. Leidy, M., Schofield, T., and Parke, R. D. (2013). Fathers’ contribution to children’s social development (2nd ed.) In C. Tamis-LeMonda and N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement (pp. 151–167). New York: Taylor & Francis. Lerman, R. I. (1993). A national profile of young unwed fathers. In R. I. Lerman and T. J. Ooms (Eds.), Young unwed fathers (pp. 27–51). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lerman, R., and Sorensen, E. (2000). Father involvement with their nonmarital children: Patterns, determinants, and effects on their earnings. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 137–158. Lester, P., Aralis, H., Sinclair, M., Kiff, C., Lee, K. H., Mustillo, S., and Wadsworth, S. M. (2016). The impact of deployment on parental, family and child adjustment in military families. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 47, 938–949. Lester, P., and Flake, L. C. E. (2013). How wartime military service affects children and families. The Future of Children, 23, 121–141. Levant, R. (1988). Education for fatherhood. In P. Bronstein and C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood today (pp. 253– 275). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Leventhal, T., Dupéré, V., and Shuey, E. A. (2015). Children in neighborhoods In R. M. Lerner (Editor in chief ), M. Bornstein, and T. Leventhal (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Li, X., and Lamb, M. E. (2013). Chinese culture: From stern disciplinarians to involved parents. In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb, and M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context. New York: Routledge. Li, M., and Fleming, A. S. (2019). Psychobiology of maternal behavior in non-human animals. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (3rd ed., pp. 30–77). New York: Routledge. Little, M., Handley, L., Leuthe, E., and Chassin, L. (2009). Substance use and early parenthood in a high risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 661–682. Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., and Scheffel, K. (2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 483–503 Losh-Hesselbart, S. (1987). The development of gender roles. In M. B. Sussman and S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and family (pp. 535–563). New York: Plenum. Low, S. M., and Stocker, C. (2005). Family functioning and children’s adjustment: Associations among parents’ depressed mood, marital hostility, parent-child hostility, and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 394–403. Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

128

Fathers and Families Maccoby, E. E., and Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen and E. M. Hetherington (Eds.). Handbook of child Psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley. MacDonald, K., and Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265–1277. MacDonald, K., and Parke, R. D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of children and parents. Sex Roles, 7–8, 367–379. Main, M., and Weston, D. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932–940. Mansfield, A. J., Kaufman, J. S., Engel, C. C., and Gaynes, B. N. (2011). Deployment and mental health diagnoses among children of US Army personnel. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 165, 999–1005. Maruschak, L. M., Glaze, L. E., and Mumola, C. J. (2010). Incarcerated parents and their children. In J. M. Eddy and J. Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 33–51). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Marshall, S. K. (2001). Do I matter? Construct validation of adolescents’ perceived mattering to parents and friends. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 473–490. Marshall, S. K. (2004). Relative contributions of perceived mattering to parents and friends in predicting adolescents’ psychological well-being. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 591–601. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., and Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173–1191. Martin, A., Ryan, R. M, and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). The joint influence of mother and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 423–439. Mazzucato, V., and Schans, D. (2011). Transnational families and the well-being of children: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 704–712. McBride, B. A. (1989). Stress and fathers’ parental competence: Implications for family life and parent educators. Family Relations, 38, 385–389. McBride, B. A., and Rane, T. R. (1997). Role identity, role investments, and paternal involvement: Implications for parenting programs for men. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 173–197. McBride, B. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Ho, M. (2005). The mediating role of fathers’ school involvement on student achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 201–216. McBride, B. A., Schoppe, S. J., and Rane, T. R. (2002). Child characteristics, parenting stress, and parental involvement: Fathers versus mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 998–1011. McDermid, S. M., Huston, T., and McHale, S. (1990). Changes in marriage associated with the transition to parenthood: Individual differences as a function of sex-role attitudes and changes in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 475–486. McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013). Understanding and supporting the resilience of a new generation of combat-exposed military families and their children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 415–420. MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M., Cardin, J. F., Christ, S., Willerton, E., Flittner O’Grady, A., Topp, D., Coppola, E., Lester, P., and Mustillo, S. (2016). Accumulation of risk and promotive factors among young children in US military families. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 190–202 McDowell, D. J., Kim, M., O’Neil, R., and Parke, R. D. (2002). Children’s emotional regulation and social competence in middle childhood: The role of maternal and paternal interactive style. Marriage and Family Review, 34(3–4), 345–364. McDowell, D. J., and Parke, R. D. (2000). Differential knowledge of display rules for positive and negative emotions: Influences from parents, influences on peers. Social Development, 9, 415–432. McDowell, D. J., and Parke, R. D. (2009). Family correlates of children’s peer relationships: An empirical test of a tripartite model. Developmental Psychology, 45, 224–235. McDowell, D. J., Parke, R. D., and Spitzer, S. (2002). Parent and child cognitive representations of social situations and children’s social competence. Social Development, 11(4), 469–486. McFadden, K., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Howard, K., Shannon, J. D., and Cabrera, N. (2009, April). Old roads, new paths: Men’s childhood relationships with their fathers and their current parenting. Presentation for the Society for Research in Child Development conference. McHale, J. P., and Lindahl, K. (2011). Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., and Whiteman, S. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125–148.

129

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston McWayne, C., Downer, J. T., Campos, R., and Harris, R. D. (2013). Father involvement during early childhood and its association with children’s early learning: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 24, 898–922. Milkie, M. A., and Denny, K. E. (2014). Changes in the cultural involvement of father involvement: Descriptions of benefits to fathers, children and mothers in Parents’ Magazine, 1926–2006. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 223–253. Miller, B. G., Kors, S., and Macfie, J. (2017). No differences? Meta-analytic comparisons of psychological adjustment in children of gay fathers and heterosexual parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation And Gender Diversity, 4, 14–22. Miller, D. R., and Swanson, G. E. (1958). The changing American parent. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Millikovsky-Ayalon, M., Atzaba-Poria, N. and Meiri, G. (2015). The role of the father in child sleep disturbance: Child, parent, and parent-child relationship. Infant Mental Health Journal, 36, 114–127. Mirande, A. (2008). Immigration and Latino fatherhood: A preliminary look at Latino immigrant and nonimmigrant fathers. In S. Chuang and R. P. Moreno (Eds.), Understanding immigrant fathers in North America (pp. 217–229). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books & Rowman and Littlefield. Mitchell, S., and Cabrera, N. (2009). An exploratory study of fathers’ parenting stress and toddlers’ social development in low-income African American families. Fathering, 7, 201–225. Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., and Smith Slep, A. M. (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 848–852. Mize, J., and Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers social coaching, mother-child relationship style and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332. Muller, M. N., Marlowe, F. W., Bugumba, R., and Ellison, P. T. (2009). Testosterone and paternal care in East African foragers. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences, 276, 347–354. Murphey, D., and Cooper, P. M. (2015, October). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Murray, J., and Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life-course. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273–290. Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., and Sekol, I. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175–210. Mustillo, S., Wadsworth, S. M., and Lester, P. (2015). Parental deployment and well-being in children: Results from a new study of military families. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24, 82–91. Myers, B. J., Smarsh, T. M., Amlund-Hagen, K., and Kennon, S. (1999). Children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 11–25. Nangle, S. M., Kelley, M. L., Fals-Stewart, W., and Levant, R. F. (2003). Work and family variables as related to paternal engagement, responsibility, and accessibility in dual-earner couples with young children. Fathering, 1, 71–90. Nakazawa, J., and Shwalb, D. W. (2013). Fathering in Japan: Entering an era of involvement with children. In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb, and M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 42–66). New York: Routledge. Neville, B., and Parke, R. D. (1997). Waiting for paternity: Interpersonal and contextual implications of the timing of fatherhood. Sex Roles, 37, 45–59. New, R., and Benigini, L. (1987). Italian fathers and infants: Cultural constraints on paternal behavior. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father role: Cross-cultural perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2008). Family-peer linkages: The mediational role of attentional processes. Social Development, 18, 875–895. Nobles, J. (2011). Parenting from abroad: Migration, nonresident father involvement, and children’s education in Mexico. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 729–746. Notaro, P. C., and Volling, B. L. (1999). Parental responsiveness and infant–parent attachment: A replication study with fathers and mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 345–352. O’Brien, M., and Moss, P. (2010). Fathers, work and family policies in Europe. In M. L. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 551–577) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Osborne, C., and McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065–1083. Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193–219. Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing involvement: Expanding conceptualizations of men’s caring in contemporary families. In A. J. Hawkins and D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 200–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and men’s adult development: Provisional balances. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

130

Fathers and Families Palkovitz, R., and Palm, G. (1998). Fatherhood and faith in formation: The developmental effects of fathering on religiosity, morals and values. Journal of Men’s Studies, 7, 33–51. Palkovitz, R., and Palm, G. (2009). Transitions within fatherhood. Fathering, 7, 3–22. Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., and Schermerhorn, A. (2004). Pathways among marital distress, parental symptomatology, and child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 368–384. Parcel, T. L., and Menaghan, E. G. (1994). Parents’ jobs and children’s lives. New York: Aldine. Parke, R. D. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parke, R. D. (1988). Families in life-span perspective: A multilevel developmental approach. In E. M. Hetherington, R. M. Lerner, and M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Child development in life-span perspective (pp. 159–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parke, R. D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 43–58. Parke, R. D. (2002). Parenting in the new millennium: Prospects, promises and pitfalls. In J. P. McHale and W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 65–93). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parke, R. D. (2013). Future families: Diverse forms, rich possibilities. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Parke, R. D., and Brott, A. (1999). Throwaway dads. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Parke, R. D., and Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon and R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., and Boyum, L. (1992). Family contribution to peer competence among young children: The role of interactive and affective processes. In R. Parke and G. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Power, J., Adams, M., Fabricius, W., Braver, S., and Saenz, D. (2004). Measurement of father involvement in Mexican American families. In R. Day (Ed.), Measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parke, R. D., and Elder, G. H. Jr. (Eds.). (in press). Children in changing worlds: Socio-cultural and temporal perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parke, R. D., Hymel, S., Power, T. G., and Tinsley, B. R. (1980). Fathers and risk: A hospital-based model of intervention. In D. B. Sawin, R. D. Hawkins, L. O. Walker, and J. H. Penticuff (Eds.), Psychosocial risks in infant-environment transactions (Vol. 4, pp. 174–189). New York: Bruner/Mazel. Parke, R. D., Killian, C., Dennis, J., Flyr, M., McDowell, D. J., Simpkins, S., Kim, M., and Wild, M. (2003). Managing the external environment: The parent and child as active agents in the system. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parke, R. D., Kim, M., Flyr, M., McDowell, D. J., Simpkins, S. D., Killian, C. M., and Wild, M. (2001). Managing marital conflict: Links with children’s peer relationships. In J. Grych and F. Fincham (Eds.), Child development and interparental conflict (pp. 291–314). New York: Cambridge University Press. Parke, R. D., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A., and Bhavangri, N. (1988). The interrelationships among families, fathers and peers. In R. Peters and R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family. New York: Bruner/Mazel. Parke, R. D., McDowell, D. J., Kim, M., Killian, C., Dennis, D., Flyr, M. L., and Wild, M. (2002). Fathers’ contributions to children’s peer relationships. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda and N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parke, R. D., McDowell, D. J., Kim, M., and Leidy, M. S. (2006). Family-peer relationships: The role of emotional regulatory processes. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, and J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotional regulation in families: Pathways to dysfunction and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Parke, R. D., Power, T. G., and Gottman, J. M. (1979). Conceptualization and quantifying influence patterns in the family triad. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi, and G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Parke, R. D., and Sawin, D. B. (1976). The father’s role in infancy: A reevaluation. The Family Coordinator, 25, 365–371. Parke, R. D., and Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in early infancy: Social interactional and attitudinal analyses. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-infant relationship: Observational studies in the family setting. New York: Praeger. Parke, R. D., and Stearns, P. N. (1993). Fathers and child rearing. In G. H. Elder, J. Modell, and R. D. Parke (Eds.), Children in time and place. New York: Cambridge University Press. Parke, R. D., and Suomi, S. J. (1981). Adult male-infant relationships: Human and nonhuman primate evidence. In K. Immelmann, G. Barlow, M. Main, and L. Petrinovich (Eds.), Behavioral development: The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project (pp. 700–725). New York: Cambridge University Press.

131

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Patterson, C. J. (2016). Parents’ sexual orientation and children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 45–49. Paulson, R. J., and Sachs, J. (1999). Rewinding your biological clock: Motherhood late in life Options, issues, and emotions. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. Pedersen, F. A., Anderson, B. J., Cain, R. L., Jr. (1980). Parent-infant and husband-wife interactions observed at age five months. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-infant relationship. New York: Praeger. Pelham, W. E., and Lang, A. R. (1999). Can your children drive you to drink? Alcohol Research and Health, 23, 293–298. Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., and Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990’s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 981–998. The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Research Center. (2015, September 15). Modern immigration wave brings 59 million to U.S., driving population growth and change through 2065. In views of immigration’s impact on U.S. society mixed. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Pike, A., Coldwell, J., and Dunn, J. F. (2005). Sibling relationships in early/middle childhood: Links with individual adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 523–32. Pinderhughes, E., and Brodinsky, D. (2019). Parenting adopted infants. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 1: Children and parenting, (3rd ed., pp. 322–367). New York: Routledge. Plattner, S., and Minturn, L. (1975). A comparative and longitudinal study of the behavior of communally raised children. Ethos, 3, 469–480. Pleck, E. (2004). Two dimensions of fatherhood: A history of the good dad–bad dad complex. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 32–57). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58–93). Hoboken, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Pleck, J. H., and Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by US residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222–271). Hoboken, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–696. Poehlmann-Tynan, J. (2014). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Summary and recommendations. In J. Poehlmann-Tynan (Ed.), Children’s contact with incarcerated parents: Implications for policy and intervention. New York: Springer. Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Burnson, C., Runion, H., and Weymouth, L. A. (2017). Attachment in young children with incarcerated fathers. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 389–404. Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., and Shear, L. D. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. The American Psychologist, 65, 575–598. Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Runion, H., Burnson, C., Maleck, S., Weymouth, L., Pettit, K., and Huser, M. (2014). Young children’s behavioral and emotional reactions to plexiglass and video visits with jailed parents. In J. Poehlmann-Tynan (Ed.), Children’s contact with incarcerated parents: Implications for policy and intervention: Advances in child and family policy and practice. New York: Springer. Poehlmann, J., Shlafer, R. J., Maes, E., and Hanneman, A. (2008). Factors associated with young children’s opportunities for maintaining family relationships during maternal incarceration. Family Relations, 57, 267–280. Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, G., and Cossotte, L. (1990). Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex Roles, 22, 359–367. Power, T. G., and Parke, R. D. (1982). Play as a context for early learning: Lab and home analyses. In I. E. Sigel and L. M. Laosa (Eds.), The family as a learning environment. New York: Plenum. Presser, H. (2004). Employment in a 24/7 economy. In A. Crouter and A. Booth (Eds.), Work-family challenges for low-income parents and their children (pp. 83–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pruett, K. D. (1987). The nurturing father. New York: Warner Books. Pruett, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care to your child. New York: Free Press. Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (2017). Enhancing father involvement in low-income families: A couples group approach to preventive intervention. Child Development, 88, 398–407. Pruett, M. K., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., and Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169–180. Pudrovska, T. (2009). Parenthood, stress, and psychological well-being in late midlife. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 68, 127–147. Putnick, D. L., and Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Girls’ and boys’ labor and household chores in low- and middleincome countries. In M. H. Bornstein, D. L. Putnick, J. E. Lansford, K. Deater-Deckard, and R. H. Bradley

132

Fathers and Families (Eds.), Gender in low- and middle-income countries. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 81, 104–122. Ramchandani, P. G., Stein, A., Evans, J., and O’Connor, T. G. (2005). Paternal depression in the postnatal period and child development: A prospective population study. Lancet, 365, 2201–2205. Radin, N. (1993). Primary caregiving fathers in intact families. In A. Gottfried and A. Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families. New York: Plenum. Rah, Y., and Parke, R. D. (2008). Pathways between parent–child interactions and peer acceptance: The role of children’s social information processing. Social Development, 17, 341–357. Rane, T. R., and McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers’ involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 347–366. Repetti, R. L. (1994). Short-term and long-term processes linking job stressors to father-child interaction. Social Development, 3, 1–15. Repetti, R. L. (2005). A psychological perspective on the health and well-being consequences of parental employment. In S. M. Bianchi, L. M. Casper, and R. B. King (Eds.), Work, family, health and well-being (pp. 245– 258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rheingold, H. L., and Cook, K. V. (1975). The content of boys and girls rooms as an index of parent behavior. Child Development, 46, 459–463. Roggman, A., Boyce, T. K., Cook, G. A., Christiansen, K., and Jones, D. (2004). Playing with daddy: Social toy play, early head start, and developmental outcomes. Fathering, 2, 83–109. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New york: Oxford University Press. Roopnarine, J. L., and Hossain, Z. (2013). African American and African Caribbean fathers. In N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 223– 243). New York: Routledge. Rose, H. A., and Halverson, C. F. (1996). A transactional model of differential self-socialization of parenting. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Rosenberg, M., and McCullough, B. C. (1979). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Research in Community and Mental Health, 2, 163–182. Ross, H., and Taylor, H. (1989). Do boys prefer daddy or his physical style of play? Sex Roles, 20, 23–33. Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: Temperament and personality in development. New York: Guilford. Rotundo, E. A. (1993). American manhood. New York: Basic Books. Roy, K. (2006). Father stories: A life course examination of paternal identity among low-income African American men. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 31–54. Roy, K. M., Buckmiller, N., and McDowell, A. (2008). Together but not “together”: Trajectories of relationship suspension for low-income unmarried parents. Family Relations, 57, 198–210. Roy, K., and Smith, J. (2013). Nonresident fathers, kin, and intergenerational parenting. In N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 320– 337). New York: Routledge. Russell, G. (1983). The changing role of fathers. St. Lucia, Australia: Queensland University Press. Russell, G. (1986). Primary caretaking and role-sharing fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Applied perspectives (pp. 29–57). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Russell, G., and Russell, A. (1987). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood. Child Development, 58, 1573–1585. Ryan, R. M., Martin, A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Is one good parent good enough? Patterns of mother and father parenting and child cognitive outcomes at 24 and 36 months. Parenting, 6, 211–228. Sagi, A. (1982). Antecedents and consequences of various degrees of paternal involvement in childrearing: The Israeli project. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 205–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sagi, A., Koren, N., and Weinberg, M. (1987). Fathers in Israel. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 197–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J. T., and Braver, S. L. (2008). Effects of father and mother parenting on children’s mental health in high- and low-conflict divorces. Family Court Review, 46, 282–296. Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P., and Kangas, N. (2011). She left, he left: How employment and satisfaction affect men’s and women’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1982–2018. Scaramella, L. V., and Conger, R. D. (2003). Intergenerational continuity of hostile parenting and its consequences: The moderating influence of children’s negative emotional reactivity. Social Development, 12, 420–439. Schwalb, D. W., Nakazawa, J., Yamamoto, T., and Hyun, J-H (2010). Fathering in Japan, China and Korea: Changing contexts, images and roles. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 341–387). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

133

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., and Cabrera, N. (2006). Fathering in infancy: Mutuality and stability between 6 and 14 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6, 167–188. Shapiro, A., Gottman, J., and Carrere, S. (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, 59–70. Schermerhorn, A. C., Cummings, E. M., and Davies, P. T. (2008). Children’s representations of multiple family relationships: Organizational structure and development in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 89–101. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Altenburger, L. E. (2019). Parental gatekeeping. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 167–198). New York: Routledge. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. L., and Cannon, E. A. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 389–398. Shwalb, D. W., Shwalb, B. J., and Lamb, M. E. (Eds.). (2013). Fathers in cultural context. New York: Routledge. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of childrearing. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson. Seifritz, E., Esposito, F., Neuhoff, J. G., Luthi, A., Mustovic, H., Dammann, G., and DiSalle, F. (2003). Differential sex-independent amygdale response to infant crying and laughing in parents versus nonparents. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1367–1375. Settersten, R. A., Jr., and Cancel-Tirado, D. (2010). Fatherhood as a hidden variable in men’s Development and life courses. Research in Human Development, 7, 83–102. Schwalb, D.W., Nakazawa, J.,Yamamoto,T., and Hyun, J-H (2010). Fathering in Japan, China and Korea :Changing contexts, images and roles. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child development 5th ed. (pp.341– 387). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., and Cabrera, N. J. (2006). Fathering in infancy: Mutuality and stability between 8 and 16 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6, 167–188. Shek, D. T. (2000). Parental marital quality and well-being, parent-child relational quality, and Chinese adolescent adjustment. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 147–162. Shaver, K. ( June 17, 2007). Stay-at-home dads forge new identities, roles. Washington, DC: Washington Post. Shlafer, R., Gerrity, E., Ruhland, E., Wheeler, M., and Michaels, C. (2013). Children with incarcerated parents: Considering children’s outcomes in the context of family experiences. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Shlafer, R. J., and Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment and Human Development, 12, 395–415. Shelton, K. H., and Harold, G. T. (2008). Interparental conflict, negative parenting, and children’s adjustment: Bridging links between parents’ depression and children’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 712–724. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. Shulman, S., and Klein, M. M. (1993). Distinctive role of the father in adolescent separation-individuation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 62, 41–57. Silverstein, L. B., and Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father. American Psychologist, 54, 397–407. Simon, S. (2011, September). Fatherhood, not testosterone, makes the man (NPR report). Retrieved from http// www.npr.org/2011/09/17 Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Snyder, Z. K., Carlo, T. A., and Coats Mullins, M. M. (2001). Parenting from prison: An examination of a children’s visitation program at a women’s correctional facility. Marriage and Family Review, 32, 33–61. Song, Y-J. (2004). Fatherhood and childcare: A comparative analysis of Chinese and Korean families (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations Abstracts. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., and Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. Statistics Canada. (2010). On shifts in rates of stay at home fathers. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada. Stearns, P. (1991). Fatherhood in historical perspective: The role of social change. In F. W. Bozett and S. M. H. Hanson (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context (pp. 28–52). New York: Springer. Stevenson, M. M., Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., and Votruba, A. M. (2013). In N. Cabrera and C. Tamis La Monda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 379–396). New York, NY: Routledge Stevenson, M. M., Fabricius, W. V., Cookston, J. T., Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Braver, S. L. and Saenz, D. (2014). Marital problems, maternal gatekeeping attitudes, and father-child relationships in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1208–1218. Storey, A. E., Walsh, C. J., Quinton, R. L., and Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2000). Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in new and expectant fathers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 79–95.

134

Fathers and Families Storey, A. E., and Walsh, C. J. (2013). Biological basis of mammalian parenting behavior. In M. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Strazdins, L., Korda, R. J., Lim, L. L., Broom, D. H., and D’Souza, R. M. (2004). Around-the-clock: Parent work schedules and children’s well-being in a 24-h economy. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 1517–1527. Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., and Cummings, E. M. (2006). The impact of hostility and withdrawal in interparental conflict on parental emotional unavailability and children’s adjustment difficulties. Child Development, 77, 1623–1641. Sugarman, S. (2008). What Is a “Family”? Conflicting messages from our public programs. American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly, 42, 231–261. Suh, G. W., Fabricius, W. V., Stevenson, M. W., Parke, R. D., Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., and Saenz, D. S. (2016). Effects of the interparental relationship on adolescents’ emotional security and adjustment: The important role of fathers. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1666–1678. Sun, L. C., and Roopnarine, J. L. (1996). Mother–infant and father–infant interaction and involvement in childcare and household labor in Taiwanese families. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 121–129. Suppal, P., and Roopnarine, J. L. (1999). Paternal involvement in child care as a function of maternal employment in nuclear and extended families in India. Sex Roles, 40, 731–744. Swain, J. E. (2008). Baby stimuli and the parent brain: Functional neuroimaging of the neural substrates of parent-infant attachment. Psychiatry, 5, 28–36. Swain, J. E., Kim, P., and Ho, S. S. (2011). Neuroendocrinology of parental response to baby-cry. Journal of Neuroendricronology, 23, 1036–1041. Swain, J. E., Lorberbaum, J. P., Kose, S., and Strathearn, L. (2007). Brain basis of early parent-infant interactions: Psychology, physiology, and in vivo functional neuroimaging studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 262–287. Swain, J. E., Kim, P., Spicer, J., Ho, S. S., Dayton, C. J., Elmadih, A., and Abel, K. M. 2014). Brain basis of human parental caregiving in mothers and fathers. Brain Research, 11, 78–101. Sykes, B. L., and Pettit, B. (2014). Mass incarceration, family complexity and the reproduction of childhood disadvantage. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 127–149. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2004). Playmates and more: Fathers’ role in child development. Human Development, 47, 220–227. Tamis-LeMonda, C., Baumwell, L., and Cabrera, N. J. (2013). Father’s role in children’s language development behavior. In N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement (2nd ed., pp. 135–150). New York: Routledge. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., and Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72, 748–767. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., and McFadden, K. E. (2010). Low-income fathers: Myth and evidence. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 296–318). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N., and Bradley, B. (2004). Mothers and fathers at play with their 2- and 3-year olds. Child Development, 75, 1806–1820. Taylor, B. A., and Behnke, A. (2005). Fathering across the border: Latino fathers in Mexico and the U.S. Fathering, 3, 99–120. Trinder, L. (2008). Maternal gate closing and gate opening in postdivorce families. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1298–1324. Tinsley, B. R., and Parke, R. D. (1984). Grandparents as support and socialization agents. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Beyond the dyad (pp. 161–194). New York: Springer. Tinsley, B. J., and Parke, R. D. (1987). Grandparents as interactive and social support agents for families with young infants. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 25, 259–277. Toth, J. F., and Xu, X. (1999). Ethnic and cultural diversity in fathers’ involvement: A racial/ethnic comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth and Society, 31, 76–99. Tuerk, E. H., and Loper, A. B. (2006). Contact between incarcerated mothers and their children: Assessing parenting stress. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 23–43. Umberson, D., and Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(Suppl), S54–S66. U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2005–2007 American community survey PUMS. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Vermeer, P. (2014). Religion and family life: An overview of current research and suggestions for future research. Religions, 5(2), 402–421.

135

Ross D. Parke and Jeffrey T. Cookston Volling, B. L., and Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father involvement during infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461–474. Wadsworth, S. M. (2013). Understanding and supporting the resilience of a new generation of combat-exposed military families and their children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 415–420. Wang, R., and Bianchi, S. M. (2009). ATUS Fathers’ Involvement in Childcare. Social Indictors Research, 93, 141–145. Weinraub, M., and Bowler, G. (2019). Single parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 271–310). New York: Routledge. Whiting, B. B., Edwards, C. P., Ember, C. R., and Erchak, G. M. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, B. L., Kaban, B., Shapiro, B., and Attonucci, J. (1976). Competence and experience. In I. C. Uzgiris and F. Weizmann (Eds.), The structuring of experience (pp. 115–152). New York: Plenum. Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Wickrama, K. A. S., Ackley, K. A., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). The effects of parents’ working conditions and family economic hardship on parenting behaviors and children’s self-efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 291–303. Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265–280. Wildeman, C. (2014). Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651, 74–79. Willerton, E., Schwarz, R. L., MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M., and Oglesby, M. S. (2011). Military fathers’ perspectives on involvement. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 521–530. Williams, D. R. (2003). The health of men: Structured inequalities and opportunities. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 724–731. Williams, J. (2010). Reshaping the work-family debate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E. K., Dalberth, B. T., and Koo, H. P. (2010). “We’re the heroes!”: Fathers’ perspectives on their role in protecting their preteenage children from sexual risk. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42, 117–124. Woo, H., and Kelly Raley, R. (2005). A small extension to “costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives”. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 216–221. Wong, M. S., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., Neff, C., and Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2009). Parental beliefs, infant temperament, and marital Quality: Associations with infant-mother and infant-father attachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 828–838. Wu, N. H., and Kim, S. Y. (2009). Chinese American adolescents’ perceptions of the language brokering experience as a sense of burden and sense of efficacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 703–718. Wyrobek, A. J., Eskenazi, B., Young, S., Arnheim, N., Tiemann-Boege, I., Jabs, E. W., Glaser, R. L., Pearson, F. S., and Evenson, D. (2006). Advancing age has differential effects on DNA damage, chromatin integrity, gene mutations, and aneuploidies in sperm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 9601–9606. Xu, A., and Zhang, L. (2008). Rural fathers’ will, acts and experience of parenting: Experienced researcher of Shanghai’s suburb, Hunan Normal University Bulletin of Social Science, 3, 72–76. Yarrow, A. (1991). Latecomers: Children of Parents over 35. New York: Free Press. Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J., Davis-Kean, P., and Hofferth, S. (2001). Children’s time-use with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 136–154. Yogman, M., and Garfield, C. F., and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2016). Fathers’ roles in the care and development of their children: The role of pediatricians. Pediatrics, 138, e20161128. Zaslow, M., Pedersen, F., Suwalsky, J., Rabinovich, B., and Cain, R. (April, 1985). Fathering during the infancy period: The implications of the mother’s employment role. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Zukow-Goldring, P. (2002). Sibling caretaking. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Being and becoming a parent (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 253–286). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

136

4 COPARENTING IN DIVERSE FAMILY SYSTEMS James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

Introduction In this chapter, we address a dynamic that lies inextricably at the core of most family systems around the world—that of the coparenting collaboration operative between the important adults who shoulder responsibility for the socialization and upbringing of each individual child. The acknowledgment by the Handbook of Parenting (2nd ed.) that across diverse families parenting of children is brokered not just dyadically, but also within a system that involves, at minimum, three people, made a bold, innovative, and transformative contribution to the landscape of the parenting field as it had taken shape in 2002. McHale and colleagues noted that there had been a recent groundswell of scholarly activity devoted to understanding coparenting, but “most of what we know about coparenting to date is based on research with heterosexual, married, European American or European two-parent families” (p. 76). This situation has gradually changed in the years since, with studies exploring, weighing, and documenting the nature of coparenting dynamics as they are revealed in a variety of different family collectives and structures around the globe in which adults parent children together. Progression has been, in one sense, very modest and, in another, extraordinarily expansive. Our aims in this chapter are to mark progress in the field and define vistas yet to be explored.

Historical Considerations in Coparenting In many accounts, the Women’s Movement in the United States is seen as a major impetus for modern-day perspectives on coparenting, challenging—and, in many ways, transforming—­longheld views of the appropriate roles of men and fathers in families. But well before this significant reframing of the “shared work” of parenting, the writings of family clinicians as early as the 1950s had drawn attention to mother-father-child family triangles and the effects of fractiousness between parenting adults on the well-being of children (McHale and Sullivan, 2008). Some of the themes identified by influential family therapists, such as contentiousness between wives and husbands in their marriage and disinterest in the family by one of the parenting figures—usually, fathers—remain pivotal in coparenting research. Other important concepts, including coparenting communication, cooperation, and solidarity (McHale, 2007) and joint management of family functions (Feinberg, 2002) are also derivative of concepts first introduced by family theorists and therapists. One important result of the Women’s Movement was to cast important light on the responsibilities of men and fathers, but other provocations in the 1980s further shaped the nature of coparenting

137

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

studies to come. Even as a handful of pioneering studies were taking up comprehensive study of mothers, fathers, and families as family units (Lewis, 1989), feminist commentators (Leupnitz, 1988; McGoldrick, Anderson, and Walsh, 1989; Walters, Carter, Papp, and Silverstein, 1988), augmented by the voices of other critics (Rich, 1976; Singh, 2004), challenged another decades-old gender bias in psychology’s theorizing about children and families. Their arguments converged on and laid bare implicit—and often explicit—views of mothers and mothering that had been formulaic, harmful, and even pathological. In the views of the field’s most influential theories and theorists, these writers noted, mothers were typically the ones held responsible for the ultimate adjustment—or ­maladjustment—of children (Caplan and Caplan, 1994; Kindlon and Thompson, 2000). This long-overdue reckoning with the myopic focus on mothers opened the doors not only for a breaking field of scholarship on fathers and fathering (Parke and Cookston, 2019), but also for intensive empirical work to come in the 1990s detailing coparenting coordination in two-parent families as a shared and co-constructed phenomenon. In this view of parenting as a triangular family-level phenomenon (Fivaz-Depeursinge and Corboz-Warnery, 1999; McHale, 1995; McHale and Cowan, 1996), movement was made to avoid casting prejudiced aspersions on the motives or competencies of either women or men (Belsky, Crnic, and Gable, 1995; McHale, 1995; McHale and Cowan, 1996). It was not so much that the individual propensities or inclinations of men and women were no longer of interest, but rather that coparenting and triangular dynamics themselves became the phenomena of interest. Contemporary studies of coparenting, if sometimes still unduly influenced by the constraining and ethnocentric view of families as limited to mothers, fathers, and children, have increasingly come to recognize and appreciate the variety of family systems and structures in which children are raised. Exemplary of this shift was a volume published by the American Psychological Association that examined the scholarship of coparenting across diverse families and structures (McHale and Lindahl, 2011). It seems safe to say that the field of coparenting has turned a corner and that studies of coparenting are now, appropriately, truly studies of all families.

Theory in Coparenting Coparenting is an enterprise undertaken by two or more adults who together take on the socialization, care, and upbringing of children for whom they share responsibility (McHale, Lauretti, Talbot, and Pouquette, 2002). Seen as a deep structure within families related to, but also separate from, adult-child and adult-adult dyadic subsystems, coparenting is rooted within Minuchin’s (1974) structural family theory, which stressed collaborative, supportive leadership provided by the family’s parenting adults. A central theme in Minuchin’s writings was that the most functional family systems are those characterized by clear generational boundaries between adults and children, with adults embracing and sharing their responsibilities and parental authority so that children will be protected and permitted to be children without having to care for adults’ sensibilities (Minuchin, 1974). This theme still resonates today. Surprisingly then, even although the writings of family theorists and therapists were both insightful and prolific through the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, it was not until the late 1970s that a rapprochement with the field of child development finally began. The scientific study of coparenting, calling on results from systematic empirical investigations of coparenting, initially only began making its way into the child development literature via studies focused on postdivorce cooperation and antagonism between parents (Ahrons, 1981; Hetherington, Cox, and Cox, 1982). Studies of coparenting in families in which parents were still together and had not divorced came only much later—with studies of coparenting in families where coparents numbered more than just a married, coresidential or divorced mother and father finally beginning with concerted deliberation and resolve only within the start of the twenty first century. 138

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

How best to understand coparenting phenomena in diverse family systems? With Minuchin’s flexible view of coparenting solidarity, hierarchy, and shared responsibility as a platform, the questions come more clearly into focus. As McHale (2011) explains, an essential “read” of any given family’s coparenting alliance cannot begin until the identities and involvement of all the important parenting adults in the child’s life have been established. Coparents are sometimes limited to the child’s biological mother and father, but as or more often, these two individuals are not the prime or sole coparents. Regardless of who is ultimately identified as the child’s “people,” an understanding of the functional coparenting alliance at work in the family necessitates developing an understanding of how that family’s unique coparental alliance functions regarding (1) mutual involvement/engagement by major coparents, (2) presence/extent of active solidarity and collaboration between these individuals, and (3) presence/extent of unresolved coparenting dissonance between them (McHale, 2011). Coparenting arrangements are many, and any can be functional when co-constructed by the involved adults and attuned to the child’s needs and sensibilities. Moreover, episodic disputes about what is best for children are expectable, normative, and growth promoting. Chronic, unresolved, or contentious disputes are more concerning; unchecked, they can lead to destructive conflict, to emotional or actual withdrawal by one or more important attachment figures in the child’s life, and, consequentially, to threats to the child’s core sense of safety and security within the family system.

Central Issues in Coparenting With greater cross-disciplinary infusion of scholarship on family adaptations throughout history and around the world into the study of child development, research on children and families has proceeded from a more mindful and worldly view of family processes in the new millennia. Of course, studies of coparenting can never be truly atheoretical. A few broad, core assumptions guide contemporary coparenting theory and research (McHale and Irace, 2011). First, honoring Minuchin’s formative arguments, any coparenting system that serves the needs of children must maintain functional hierarchies and appropriate boundaries. Life circumstances may dictate that children must sometimes be recruited to assist with adult responsibilities at an early age (caring for younger siblings, aiding with family work), but there is no confusion about reversal of roles in hierarchically organized systems. Such clarity allows both adults and children to tend appropriately to normative developmental and relationship challenges they confront. Second, proper understanding of coparental alliances dictates taking a triangular or family group level of analysis, in which the relationship between the adults with respect to a particular child is considered. In the 1980s, there was a burgeoning realm of scholarship that explored the effects of relationships on relationships (Hinde and Stevenson-Hinde, 1988). This work exemplified the intense focus paid at that time to parent-child relationships and to couple and marital functioning, and carries on today. At the same time, views of the family as interlocking dyads do not embrace the systems notion that the family whole is greater than, and transcends, the sum of the system’s distinct and interlocking parts (Kerig, 2019; McHale and Irace, 2011). Moreover, although it is useful to consider the coparents’ work with respect to rearing all children within their family collective—for this is the day-to-day reality of coparents—each child experiences a somewhat different coparent system. As McHale and Irace (2011) have outlined, the coparenting network that evolves for two different children within the same family can be constituted of different individuals, and the nature and dynamics of the same two people’s coparenting alliance may differ for different children within the family (McHale, 2007a). Moreover, children themselves contribute to the distinctive relationship dynamic that evolves between them and their coparents (Fivaz-Depeursinge, Frascarolo, Lopes, Dimitrova, and Favez, 2007). A third core assumption, and the one that guides this chapter, is that coparenting remains a centrally important dynamic not just in families headed by heterosexual or gay, married or common-law 139

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

couples, but also in all family systems. In 2011, McHale and Irace argued that the essence of coparenting is best understood from children’s perspectives, for Children see their families as a collection of individuals who loves and cares for them. And children are right; in the end, their welfare in the world will ultimately be protected and assured, to the extent maximally possible, by the collection of individuals who step up to take responsibility for their care and upbringing. (p. 15) This theme was exemplified by Crosbie-Burnett and Lewis (1999)’s treatise on the child-centered focus characteristic of countless African American family systems. In such families, coparents are all parental and family figures who contribute to the child’s well-being and become involved in the child’s support and nurturance. Arrangements are based on the child’s needs, assuring enduring responsibility for dependent children across changes in relationships among adults (McHale et al., 2002). It is this conceptualization that ties together diverse scholarship and supports the view that during their formative years, whether episodically or continuously, nearly all children will be coparented. The following sections update themes pursued in coparenting research in the years since the 2002 Handbook overview. At that time, evidence had begun to amass verifying the formative impact that coparenting dynamics exert in Western two-parent families. That line of work has continued and is summarized ahead. The remainder of the chapter turns its attention to new scholarship illuminating coparenting in diverse family systems.

Classical and Modern Research in Coparenting The First Wave: Initial Studies of Coparenting in Two-Parent Heterosexual Coresidential Families Married two-parent families have commanded extensive attention from child development and family researchers. Perhaps not surprisingly, such families were the first (besides postdivorce families) whose coparenting processes were explored in detail by coparenting researchers. Such studies continue vibrantly today. Among the most widely replicated findings in the coparenting field has been that marital quality is linked to the quality of coparenting (see Manglesdorf, Laxman, and Jessee, 2011, for a review). Prenatal relationship quality sets the tone for the developing coparenting relationship (McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, and Rao, 2004), with better adjusted couples demonstrating more positive and constructive coparenting relationships after birth (Bonds and Gondoli, 2007; Le, McDaniel, Leavitt, and Feinberg, 2016; Morrill, Hines, Mahmood, and Cordova, 2010; Van Egeren, 2004). In this sense, pre-child dyadic marital quality shapes the nature of the emergent three-person coparenting system, which, in turn, comes to influence later child outcomes (Baril, Crouter, and McHale, 2007; Katz and Low, 2004; McHale and Rasmussen, 1998). These systems are not static; Stroud, Meyers, Wilson, and Durbin (2015) showed that distressed marital functioning was related to preschool children’s internalizing and externalizing problems through reductions in coparenting warmth.

Direct and Indirect Effects Beyond the elementary linkage between marital and coparenting quality, much attention has been devoted to interrelations among marital functioning, parenting, and coparenting in families, with questions raised about the direction of effects among these family processes and dynamics and their 140

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

ultimate impact on children. These are complex questions to entertain and answer; indeed, there was a time when coparenting was conceptualized not as a distinctive family process in and of its own right, but rather as a subcomponent of marital unions and relationships. Among the early, formative findings often cited as an impetus for the development of the coparenting field is that child-related conflict (e.g., interparental disagreements on discipline, religious and moral values, dependence-independence, peer relationships, safety, and others) is significantly more disruptive for child well-being and more closely related to child outcomes than is marital conflict (Bearss and Eyberg, 1998; Camara and Resnick, 1989; Jouriles et al., 1991). The recognition that coparenting is a child-specific, triangular construct rather than a subsidiary of marital or conjugal relationship functioning has not guided every study of within-family dynamics, however. Perhaps as a result, reports studying their interrelations have sometimes provided contrary results or leads that have gone off in blind directions. One line of inquiry that gained traction is that coparenting appears to be a more proximal predictor of child outcomes than is marital functioning (Bonds and Gondoli, 2007; Holland and McElwain, 2013; Morrill et al., 2010). Morrill and colleagues (2010) reported that coparenting exerts impact on both marital relationships and parenting practices, although conceptually there is also reason to suspect that the relation between marital and coparenting dynamics is bidirectional. The tools and methods used to estimate coparenting are not inconsequential, and confusion has sometimes arisen when studies’ methodologies and instruments fail to recognize the triangular nature of coparenting as a co-constructed entity (McHale, 2015). One example of such confusion occurs when studies have relied on concepts such as “maternal coparenting” or “paternal coparenting.” Clearly, both maternal and paternal actions contribute to coparenting, and so, on the face of it, the concepts themselves have intuitive merit. But parsing coparenting into “maternal” and “paternal” elements also muddies the meaning of findings such as those reported by Holland and McElwain (2013), who found that marital quality fosters more positive paternal coparenting, which, in turn, has positive implications on father-child relationships during the toddler years. Holland and McElwain (2013) also concluded that although marital quality influences maternal coparenting, maternal coparenting is associated with better mother-son relationships but not mother-daughter relationships. The confusing element here is not that marital quality might exert an impact on maternal or paternal actions related to positive coparenting—that would not be controversial. Rather, it is the reported finding that maternal and paternal coparenting affects the coparents’ own parenting behavior and relationships—but not their partners’. One main benefit of supportive coparenting is that the solidarity can lift, enhance, and strengthen the parenting of a less apt or distressed parent. It is conceivable, therefore, that the finding that maternal and paternal coparenting affects coparents’ own parenting behavior and relationships—but not their partners’—reflects a response or social desirability bias on the part of the reporter rather than any true core family-level dynamic. Single-source method variance was a major issue in early studies of family and child development. Equally perplexing are studies that show that individual parenting patterns influence coparenting (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Cookston, Braver, Griffin, De Luse, and Miles, 2007; Jia and Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011). Certainly, there is evidence from early studies on transitions to parenthood indicating that in many families with small infants, fathers take their lead from mothers (Entwisle and Doering, 1981). Mothers often more quickly become “experts” on young infants’ signals simply by the greater amounts of time they have spent with them. In this instance, coparenting solidarity and consistency might improve if fathers take stock of and emulate maternal routines and soothing techniques. That is, mothering might be said to affect both fathering and coparenting. But other, more complex longitudinal designs have given pause in trying to understand the interplay between parenting and coparenting. For example, Jia and Schoppe-Sullivan (2011) reported that the more frequently fathers engaged in play activities with children, the more supportive and less undermining coparenting behavior was observed to be a year later. In contrast, greater father involvement 141

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

in caregiving was associated with a decline in supportive, and an increase in undermining, coparenting behavior a year later. What might this mean? On the face of it, this finding may seem contradictory to a common complaint by mothers that is sometimes linked to maternal reports of marital dissatisfaction—that fathers get to enjoy the benefits of play and positive engagement with young children while avoiding the drudgery of caregiving and of limit setting, which disproportionately falls to mothers. However, other evidence hints that paternal encroachment on mothers’ closeness with young children can be experienced negatively by mothers, especially those who may have insecure states of mind with respect to attachment (Talbot, Baker, and McHale, 2009), and so more intensive paternal caregiving may counterintuitively dampen rather than enhance coparental solidarity. This finding is deserving of greater scrutiny, for it may not have similar parallels in family systems where the coparent is not the child’s biological father. Less provocative have been studies whose primary purpose was to establish that coparenting can have direct effects as well as indirect effects on child adjustment (Barnett, Scaramella, McGoron, and Callahan, 2012; Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, and Dekovic, 2008; McHale and Rasmussen, 1998). Typically, studies that have examined both parenting and coparenting as predictors of children’s developmental outcomes found that the quality of coparenting explains additional variance in child adjustment that is not captured by what each parent does individually. For example, Karreman and colleagues (2008) reported that coparenting contributed to preschoolers’ effortful control beyond the contributions of maternal and paternal parenting. Heightened hostile-competitive coparenting was related to lower levels of effortful control in preschoolers. Of note, these results were confirmed both via observations and self-reports. Perhaps more important is the issue of whether coparenting solidarity augments the efforts of individual parenting behavior among children who face some form of risk. This, after all, was a core premise in S. Minuchin’s work with families—together, adults could mitigate their children’s risk by working effectively as a coparenting team. There is some empirical evidence consistent with this premise; Schoppe-Sullivan, Weldon, Claire Cook, Davis, and Buckley (2009) found that when parents engage in supportive coparenting, children with less effortful control were less likely to develop externalizing behaviors. In related work, Barnett et al. (2012) found that when children grow up experiencing supportive coparenting, they tend to display more prosocial behaviors even when their mothers use less inductive reasoning. In other words, supportive coparenting serves as a protective factor for children’s prosocial behavior (Scrimgeour, Blandon, Stifter, and Buss, 2013). Findings such as these usefully augment those that examine simply whether mistuned coparenting influences development of problem behaviors and indicate that coparenting can have a buffering effect depending on the nature and context of individual child adjustment or parenting behavior.

Development of Coparenting: Consistency and Change As children develop and acquire new abilities, parents need to renegotiate their coparenting patterns. It might be anticipated that coparents who establish coparenting solidarity when their children are young will be in better position to maintain solidarity as children grow older. To test this premise, several coparenting investigations charted the development of early coparenting from patterns of adjustment that existed even prior to the child’s birth. Van Egeren (2003), for example, identified parental age, education, occupation, concerns about childrearing, coparenting in the family of origin, differences in childrearing philosophies, and maternal ego development as important prenatal predictors of coparenting. Among these many differences, McHale and Rotman (2007) found that the degree of difference between the expectant parents in their parenting beliefs was predictive of post-birth coparental adjustment even beyond the child’s first 2 years of life; couples reporting larger

142

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

differences in their parenting beliefs prenatally were characterized by lower coparenting solidarity at 30 months postpartum. With respect to individual parental adjustment, Talbot et al. (2009) linked prenatal attachment security of the expectant parents to coparenting quality following the baby’s birth, and Altenburger, Schoppe-Sullivan, Lang, Bower, and Kamp Dush (2014) argued that expectant parents demonstrate coparenting tendencies even before their child’s birth that will remain relatively stable throughout the child’s first year of life. Whether coparenting, a triangular construct, can be documented prior to the baby’s birth remains an open question, but what has become clear is that there is at least moderate stability of coparenting from the early postpartum months through the first year of the child’s life (Laxman et al., 2013; Le et al., 2016; McHale, 2007a; Van Egeren, 2004). Furthermore, some studies (Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, and McHale, 2004) have found evidence for moderate stability in coparenting behavior for even longer periods—in the Schoppe-Sullivan study, spanning the developmental periods of infancy, toddlerhood, and preschool years from 6 months to 3 years of age. Laxman and colleagues (2013) likewise reported that both supportive and undermining coparenting remain stable over the first 3 years of children’s life, although child factors also moderate. There is hence converging evidence that coherence in coparenting adjustment is the rule rather than the exception in coresidential two-parent families (McHale, 2007). In non-coresidential families, coparenting arrangements may be more strongly impacted by external life circumstances. In analyzing data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study, Waller (2002) showed that father involvement in coparenting children sometimes diminished over times, sometimes remained relatively stable, and sometimes—prompted by life challenges destabilizing the child-mother household situation—reinvigorated over time as exigencies demanded. Such thoughtful looks at family systems beyond the more typically studied “nuclear family” arrangement add important nuance to scholarship on coparenting dynamics in families.

Coparenting at Different Stages of Child Development Children of all ages benefit when the coparenting adults in their lives provide adequate protection and safety, are mutually attuned to and in regular communication about the child’s needs and sensibilities and respect the child’s need to maintain a close and loving bond with all members of their coparenting system (McHale and Irace, 2011). When coparents support one another, and are interchangeable in this way, the child is far more likely to experience family-level security and stability. The benefits derived by children from positive and coordinated coparenting may differ at different points in the family life cycle (McHale and Irace, 2011). Coparenting efforts invariably shift in complexity as children develop. Most early studies of coparenting focused on coresidential, twoparent families with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Lindsey, Caldera, and Colwell, 2005; McHale, 1995, 2007a; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2004; Van Egeren, 2003). Investigations since have compared non-coresidential and residential families of young children and examined coparenting processes and child adjustment during elementary school years and adolescence. Studies of coparenting in families with very young children are described in comprehensive detail in McHale and Lindahl (2011). Here, we touch on a few major themes and findings. In a secondary analysis of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Lewin, Mitchell, Beers, Feinberg, and Minkovitz (2012) established that coparenting conflict between teen mothers and their children’s fathers affects child adjustment in both residential and non-coresidential family systems. Both mothers and fathers perceived fathers to be more involved coparents when fathers resided together with the children, but children’s mothers reported greater coparenting conflict when coparenting with resident fathers, whereas resident fathers reported lower coparenting conflict with children’s mothers than did non-coresidential fathers. Of interest, coparenting conflict was nonetheless

143

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

related to child behavior problems in much the same way as it has been in most studies of coresidential parents, with the associations stronger for boys than for girls. Links between paternal reports of coparenting and children’s social adjustment were moderated by child ethnicity and father education. One of the first studies to examine links between coparenting and children’s adjustment during the elementary school years was conducted by Stright and Neitzel (2003). They found that parents who supported each other in parenting had children who were more likely to pay attention in class, work actively and independently, and earn better grades in third grade. Furthermore, coparenting moderated relations between individual parenting and children’s attention, activity, independence, and grades. Specifically, if parents were critical of children’s efforts but engaged in supportive coparenting, children showed better attentional capacities, were more independent learners, and earned better grades. In contrast, when parents were not supportive of children’s efforts and did not support each other’s parenting, their children had poorer attention, were more passive and dependent in their learning, and earned lower grades. Also, in the realm of problematic child behavior, Jones, Shaffer, Forehand, Brody, and Armistead (2003) reported that 7- to 11-year-old African American children whose mothers reported greater coparent conflict exhibited more externalizing and internalizing problems, both concurrently and longitudinally. With respect to effects of coparenting on positive child functioning, Barnett and colleagues (2012) documented an association between coparenting cooperation and 4- and 6-year-old children’s social competence, closely replicating earlier findings linking cooperative coparenting and social adaptation that had been reported by McHale, Johnson, and Sinclair (1999). In one longitudinal investigation, Leary and Katz (2004) found that children who experienced hostile-withdrawn coparenting during the preschool years continued to struggle in their peer relationships during middle school. Moreover, not only were they more likely to engage in conflict with their peers and within this conflict, to evoke relationship damaging behaviors, such as name-calling and negative teasing, but also these children were less likely to engage in fun and connecting interactions with their peers. The authors suggested that children may have been emulating the negative relationship dynamics they witnessed between their coparents, carrying these forward to their relationships with peers. During adolescence, when children begin to test limits, coparenting conflict predicts adolescents’ antisocial and risky behavior. Riina and McHale (2014) reported that coparenting characterized by less shared decision-making is associated with more risky behavior among adolescent boys. By contrast, greater joint involvement in the adolescent children’s activities is associated with less risky behavior and with fewer depressive symptoms among girls and boys. However, the coparentingdepressive symptomatology link was less clear in reports by Baril, Crouter, and McHale (2007) and by Feinberg, Kan, and Hetherington (2007). Curiously, Riina and McHale (2014) also found that coparenting satisfaction among fathers tended to decrease during children’s early adolescent years but remained relatively stable among mothers. In a finding harkening the Lewin et al. (2012) report, Goodrum, Jones, Kincaid, and Cuellar (2012) found that in a sample of African American youth who coresided only with their mothers, coparenting was especially significant. Higher levels of conflict between mothers and children’s main coparents (whether fathers or grandmothers) were associated with adolescent externalizing problems, just as is the case for adolescents in dual-parent residences. Links were bidirectional, providing evidence that children’s behavior problems also undermine coparenting. Considering these findings, it seems safe to conclude that coparenting materially influences children’s development and wellbeing from early toddlerhood through late adolescence.

Coparenting and Child Adjustment Specific dynamics of adults’ coparenting relationships may be most important for different child outcomes; a meta-analysis of the relation between coparenting and child adjustment by Teubert and 144

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

Pinquart (2010) concluded that coparenting conflict is a more relevant predictor of child externalizing problems, with triangulation and lack of cooperation more likely to culminate in child internalizing problems (Buehler and Welsh, 2009). The quality of coparenting relationship may be especially important when considering children’s development of social skills (McHale, Kuersten, and Lauretti, 1996). First, competitive coparenting may be associated with incongruent infant-parent attachment, with children developing a secure attachment with one parent and an insecure one with the other (Caldera and Lindsey, 2006) and thereby having a compromised sense of family-level security. Second, children learn and adopt social behaviors partly through observations of their parents. Parents engaging in cooperative coparenting enhance children’s development of their own social skills (Mangelsdorf et al., 2011; McHale et al., 1999). However, not all studies are not successful in uncovering links between supportive coparenting and indices of positive child adjustment. For example, Kwon and Elicker (2012) reported that negative coparenting was associated with toddlers’ noncompliance with mothers, but there was no association between positive coparenting and toddler compliance. Other studies have likewise suggested links between high coparenting conflict and child maladjustment but found less support tying lower levels of positive coparenting to child maladjustment (Baril et al., 2007; McConnell and Kerig, 2002). Cabrera, Scott, Fagan, Steward-Streng, and Chien (2012), studying longitudinal effects of coparenting conflict, communication, and shared decision-making on children’s school readiness in families led by married and coresidential couples, found that coparenting conflict when children were toddlers predicted poorer child social and academic skills at age 48 months. Shared decisionmaking was relevant, though directly related only to children’s social skills. This finding is in line with prior summaries suggesting that positive features of coparenting—closeness, warmth, cooperation, and solidarity—may be most closely connected with children’s social adjustment (Mangelsdorf et al., 2011; McHale et al., 1999; McHale et al., 1996).

Coparenting and Its Relation to Attributes of Individual Parents and Children The capacity to co-construct a collaborative and supportive coparental relationship, especially given the inevitable and often deep-seated differences in beliefs that everyone has about what is best for children, is never simply realized. Adults vary significantly in both their capacity and their propensity to trust and collaborate with others, and hence it might be expected that coparental solidarity would be harder-won for families in which one or both adults entered the coparenting enterprise with some form of short- or longer term challenge. However, to the extent that that wholes truly are greater than the sum of their parts, events such as the birth of a baby and sharing that experience with the child’s other parent can create an emergent system that would never have been anticipated based on an individual parent’s personality traits alone. This said, researchers have been interested in determining whether coparenting adjustment can be tied to certain shorter term (e.g., parental well-being, a fluid and adaptable state) or longer term (personality traits, more rigid and tougher to influence) characteristics. Studies have been scattered, with no replicated consensus findings shining an especially helpful light on this question, but what we have learned is of interest. In 1980, Jeanne and Jack Block outlined two core concepts thought to be central personality dimensions—ego control and ego resilience, or flexibility. Some of the early studies of coparenting examined these and related constructs, with interesting but nonoverlapping findings. Van Egeren (2003) found that maternal personalities were especially important—she reported that greater maternal ego development predicted fathers’ perceptions of better quality of coparenting. Independently, Talbot and McHale (2004) found that paternal personalities had special importance—paternal flexibility and resilience predicted coparenting of 12-month-old infants. Specifically, when fathers were more flexibly able to adjust their behavior to changing or unfamiliar interpersonal demands, their coparenting relationships were more cooperative, child centered, and warm. Of interest, paternal 145

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

resilience moderated the effect of marital distress on coparenting—problems in the marriage did not have the anticipated adverse impact on coparenting in families where fathers were ego resilient— capable of “taking a hit” without retaliating or withdrawing. Given the neglect of the relevance of fathers in child development for so long, it was of great interest that Talbot et al.’s work identified a paternal strength that was serving as a protective factor and buffer for coparenting children in families where marriages were in disarray. Unfortunately, neither of these findings sparked replication studies, although a second indication of the importance of understanding fathers’ as well as mothers’ psychological adjustment came in a report by Talbot et al. (2009). In this study, early coparenting cooperation was predictably high in families where both fathers and mothers had secure states of mind with respect to attachment as assessed on the Adult Attachment Interview, with cohesion lowest (i.e., disconnection highest) in families where fathers had insecure states of minds with respect to attachment. What was especially compelling was the situation in families where fathers were secure but mothers insecure—in such families, coparenting conflict was highest of all families. Something about maternal insecurity in the context of paternal security triggered a dynamic in which patterns of coparental conflict during interactions with infants were most readily visible. Similar results were reported by Sheftall, Schoppe-Sullivan, and Futris (2010), who found that adolescent mothers with higher attachment avoidance had more conflictual coparenting relationships and a weaker parenting alliance, compared with mothers with lower attachment avoidance. There are several intriguing explanations for this pattern of results, but what is clear is that it is insufficient to simply ask what the role of maternal or paternal characteristics might be—understanding the psychological adaptations of both parents within the same family provides the most compelling leads. In other studies, parents’ psychological well-being, arguably a more transitory and malleable state, has been found to influence the emerging coparenting relationship. Lindsey and colleagues (2005) reported that both mothers and fathers with higher self-esteem demonstrated less intrusive coparenting. Mothers with higher self-esteem were also more supportive in their coparenting. Other investigations suggest that parents who report less well-being develop more negative coparenting relationships. In one study, fathers reporting higher levels of depressive symptoms also tended to report high-conflict and lower support in their coparenting relationship (Bronte-Tinkew, Scott, Horowitz, and Lilja, 2009). Another line of work illustrates how situational stressors amplify individual parent characteristics to influence coparenting quality. Fathers’ negative emotionality, when coupled with lower socioeconomic status, was associated with more undermining coparenting behavior (Schoppe-Sullivan and Mangelsdorf, 2012).

The Role of Child Gender Given indications in the parenting literature that there can be differential beliefs and practices of mothers and fathers with sons and daughters (Russell and Saebel, 1997), it is perhaps not surprising that coparenting researchers would be drawn to ask whether differential patterns of coparenting might characterize the nature of the triangular relationships coparents form with sons versus daughters. The short answer is that no singular distinctive set of relationship differences as a function of child gender have ever been identified. Rather, there has been mixed, and occasionally intriguing, evidence indicating some role for child gender in studies of distressed coparenting (Margolin, Gordis, and John, 2001; McHale, 1995; Stright and Bales, 2003). In one of the first studies to explore organizing effects of child gender, McHale (1995) documented a relation between marital distress and hostile-competitive coparenting that operated mainly in families of boys (greater distress, greater likelihood of hostile-competitive coparenting). In families of girls, there was also a link between marital distress and coparenting, but it took a different 146

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

form—greater marital distress was coincident with larger discrepancies in levels of parent engagement with the child (one parent either leaning in the direction of over- or under-involvement—and sometimes both), a dynamic not as present in maritally distressed families of boys. Echoes of this pattern also appear in a study by Elliston, McHale, Talbot, Parmley, and Kuersten-Hogan (2008), who found indications of conflictual dynamics in families with boys and disengaged patterns in families with girls. In a follow-up of the families in McHale’s (1995) study of families with infants, McHale and Rasmussen (1998) found differential cross-time predictions for patterns of hostile-competitive behavior during infancy (predicting children’s externalizing behavior during preschool) and patterns of parenting discrepancies during infancy (predicting internalizing behavior), although in their relatively small sample, the gendered effects of these findings fell short of statistical significance. However, Umemura, Christopher, Mann, Jacobvitz, and Hazen (2015) found that competitive coparenting during the toddler years could be linked to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder symptoms in boys, but not girls; competitive coparenting during the toddler years was linked to later somatic complaints in girls, but not boys. McConnell and Kerig (2002) likewise reported links between hostile-competitive coparenting and externalizing behavior problems among school-age boys, with coparenting that was characterized by discrepancies between coparents in warmth and investment correlated with internalizing problems among girls. Kolak and Vernon-Feagans (2008) also documented that lower warmth and less cooperation between parents was associated with more internalizing problems among toddler girls. Despite these intriguing leads, suggesting that in many families where there is fundamental marital distress, girls may be at comparatively greater risk for experiencing withdrawal by a coparent— whereas boys may be at comparatively greater risk for exposure to coparenting conflict—there is not a corpus of evidence fully bearing this possibility out. Other work examining effects of child gender have been less consistent, with no clear theme emerging. For example, Davis, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, and Brown, (2009) reported that parents of 1-year-old girls exhibited more supportive coparenting compared with parents of 1-year-old boys, and Kolak and Vernon-Feagans (2008) found that supportive coparenting benefited the social development of girls but not boys. However, Brown, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, and Neff (2010) found coparenting to be related to infantmother and infant-father attachment in families of boys but not girls. Still others find no significant influence of gender on coparenting. For example, Kamp Dush, Kotila, and Schoppe-Sullivan (2011) reported that child gender was not related to supportive coparenting following relationship dissolution of the parents. At this point, it seems premature to draw specific conclusions about patterns or forms of coparenting organized by child gender. There may be value in contextualizing coparenting-child links as they exist in confluence with other family risk factors.

The Influence of Child Temperament on Coparenting Beyond child gender, studies of child effects have been interested in the interplay between child temperament and coparenting. The relation is complex, and not surprisingly no consensus has been reached on the role child temperament might play in organizing coparenting systems (Lindsey et al., 2005; McHale et al., 2004; Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, and Sokolowski, 2007; Van Egeren, 2004). For some families, the family accommodation may be that one parent assumes the bulk of responsibility for the challenging child, but in other families, shared coparental responsibility may be the adaptation. In either of these cases, there may be shared agreement between the coparenting adults that the chosen division of responsibilities is the best form of supporting the child, but in others, there may be discord and animosity regarding the co-constructed arrangement. What does seem important is whether the coparenting adults succeed in helping the child. 147

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

Davis et al. (2009) provided evidence for bidirectional links between infant temperament and coparenting during children’s first year of life. Although early difficult temperament was associated with a decrease in supportive coparenting over time, so too was early supportive coparenting associated with a decrease in infant difficulty. Consistent with other reports (Lindsey et al., 2005; Van Egeren, 2004), difficult temperament challenged the coparenting system in an ongoing way, with families of more temperamentally difficult children exhibiting less stability in their cross-time coparenting patterns. One common first-year challenge sometimes related to, but also sometimes unrelated to, temperament is infant night waking and sleep quality. McDaniel and Teti (2012) found that infant night wakening predicted parent night wakening, which predicted parental sleep quality, parent distress, and perceptions of poorer coparenting. Burney and Leerkes (2010) found evidence that coparenting is most affected by difficult infant temperament when other risk factors are also present. They found that mothers of highly reactive infants reported more negative coparenting if their children were also difficult to soothe, or if they were dissatisfied with the sharing of parenting tasks with children’s fathers, and more positive coparenting if their infants were perceived as easier to soothe. By comparison, fathers of highly reactive babies reported more negative coparenting if prenatal marital functioning was low, and more positive coparenting if it was high. This latter finding is consistent with previous research that prenatal relationship quality sets a tone for the developing coparenting relationship. Couples with high relationship quality prenatally manage to work together in a more constructive and supportive manner in developing a coparenting alliance after the baby is born (Bonds and Gondoli, 2007; McHale et al., 2004; Morrill et al., 2010; Van Egeren, 2004). Ongoing challenges with children’s temperament that do not resolve during the infant and toddler years can wear on coparents over the longer run. Cook, Schoppe-Sullivan, Buckley, and Davis (2009) reported that parents of more temperamentally difficult preschool children tended to undermine each other’s parenting more frequently and intensely, even when their marital quality was high. Subsequently, Raffaele Mendez, Loker, Fefer, Wolgemuth, and Mann (2015) interviewed couples who were coparenting young children with challenging behaviors and learned of an “initial period of shock” that parents described as they’d become aware of and began adjusting to their child’s challenges. Parents also detailed how they subsequently then either moved together—or drew apart—as a parenting team. For children, staying the course matters; Altenburger, Lang, Schoppe-Sullivan, Kamp Dush, and Johnson (2015) found that children with more difficult temperaments who had experienced highly supportive coparenting environments exhibited low dysregulation, whereas children with difficult temperaments who had experienced lower levels of supportive coparenting exhibited higher dysregulation. The effect of child temperament on externalizing behavior was moderated by supportive coparenting, as has been found in other studies of toddlers and preschool children (Bradley and Corwyn, 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2009). Besides the import of the enduring effects of coparenting for difficult children, coparenting solidarity also is of important developmental impact during times of family disequilibrium, such as the addition of a new sibling. Examining associations between firstborn children’s temperaments and behavior problems during the transition to siblinghood, Kolak and Volling (2013) reported that children with difficult temperaments were more sensitive to parents’ undermining coparenting behavior as evidenced by higher rates of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Coparenting patterns are also affected by the new sibling’s temperament. When examining stability and change of coparenting and its relation to children’s temperament in families going through the transition of having a second child, Szabo, Dubas, and van Aken (2012) found that coparenting of the older children tended to change when the younger sibling had a difficult temperament but remained stable when the younger child had an easier temperament. Szabo and colleagues also found that coparenting of older children predicted coparenting of younger children only when the younger siblings had easy temperaments, but not when they had difficult temperaments. 148

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

Song and Volling (2015) found that coparenting quality moderated the association between children’s temperament and children’s cooperative behavior in response to maternal requests to assist in the care of a 1-month-old infant sibling. Low temperamental soothability predicted low levels of children’s cooperative responding in families where there was high undermining and low cooperative coparenting, indicating that child temperament and coparenting quality conjointly predicted individual differences in the firstborn children’s adaptation. Similar patterns were found by Leary and Katz (2004), who reported that difficulties with self-regulation under stressful circumstances by children in families with high levels of hostile-withdrawn coparenting were associated with greater peer conflict. It appears likely that there are cascading effects of temperamental difficulties across time for children whose parents are not able to find ways to work effectively together as coparents, with conflictual coparenting exacerbating child difficulties.

Interventions to Improve Coparenting Given the interplay between coparenting and child adjustment, it is not surprising that increasing attention has been paid to interventions that specifically address coparenting solidarity in families. The empirical study of coparenting interventions owes an intellectual debt to Philip and Carolyn Cowan’s (1992, 1995) Becoming a Family (BAF) Project. The Cowans tested whether a couple relationship-focused prevention program delivered at the transition to parenthood could reduce parenting frustrations and distress and increase postnatal marital satisfaction for couples. Community couples not presenting with any self-identified form of clinical distress were invited to meet for 24 weeks in semi-structured groups where they discussed topics in five different domains: (1) their couple relationship, (2) parenting, (3) family of origin influences, (4) outside-the-family stresses, and (5) social support. Participants in these groups improved their marital and their parenting quality, reported fewer negative changes in sexual relationships and role satisfaction, and showed less precipitous declines in marital satisfaction as compared with couples in a control condition (Schulz, Cowan, and Cowan, 2006). Subsequently, the Cowans’ Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) Study (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, and Wong, 2009) expanded on the BAF work and tested whether a couples group (CG) format was as or more effective than a father-only program or a control condition in enhancing father involvement and family relationships. Both father-only and CG interventions met 16 times, again guided by the five domain themes. Afterward, parental stress showed a greater decline among the CG participants, whereas relationship quality of CG mothers remained stable compared with that of control group mothers, who declined. Relevant to coparenting, both CG and father-only participants showed increases in fathers’ engagement with children and involvement in daily childcare tasks compared with the control group. However, although CG mothers reported greater increases in fathers’ share of parenting than did control group mothers, CG mothers also reported greater increases in conflicts with the father about child discipline than did mothers in the control group. A far-reaching impact on the family appears attainable if both parents take part in interventions. Although SFI was not explicitly focused on the triangular coparenting relationship, the study provided evidence that family outcomes beyond just couple relationship quality can be influenced through a curriculum addressing couple communication and relationship quality, if the curriculum explicitly focuses on those other family outcomes (as SFI did on father engagement). Feinberg’s Family Foundations (FF) provides an example of a program developed specifically to affect coparenting relationships rather than romantic relationships or parenting qualities. Designed as a universal program, FF involves four prenatal and four postnatal groups of 6–10 couples addressing conflict management, problem-solving, communication, mutual support strategies, emotional selfmanagement and parenting. Feinberg and Sakuma (2011) reported that in his initial FF randomized controlled trial, FF parents had lower levels of coparental competition and triangulation behaviors 149

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

than control parents at child age 1 year, with FF children reportedly better at self-soothing than control children. When children were 3 years old, FF participants had greater coparenting quality, and mothers reported fewer child externalizing and internalizing problems (Feinberg, Jones, Kan, and Goslin, 2010). At a 5–7 year follow-up, FF children had fewer problems reported by their teachers (Feinberg, Jones, Roettger, Solmeyer, and Hostetler, 2014). FF is a promising coparenting intervention. Doss, Cicila, Hsueh, Morrison, and Carhart (2014) likewise demonstrated that brief interventions over the transition to parenthood cam be effective in improving both coparenting and relationship functioning, with gains sustained for up to 2 years. While these coparenting-specific interventions for couples have shown desired benefits, Feinberg and Sakuma (2011) thoughtfully pointed out that universal interventions often do not reach higher risk and/or unmarried, uncommitted parents (see also McHale, Waller, and Pearson, 2012). As such, Florsheim’s pioneering work with adolescent mothers- and fathers-to-be (Florsheim, McArthur, Hudak, Heavin and Burrow-Sanchez, 2011; Florsheim et al., 2012) is noteworthy. Testing a 10-week intervention focused on the interpersonal skills needed to engage in supportive coparenting (the Young Parents Program, or YPP), Florsheim and colleagues documented positive effects on paternal engagement and on fathers’ reports of relationship quality with their partners after the baby’s birth. Mothers also reported improved relationship competence scores, although fathers did not. YPP couples were also significantly less likely than control group couples to report intimate partner violence (IPV) at a 3-month postpartum follow-up, although the strength of the IPV finding diminished over time. It is of note that Florsheim’s program, unlike the ones summarized earlier, did not inevitably exclude parents if IPV or substance abuse was initially reported at the point of recruitment and intake. While a couples-based program is contraindicated any time there is grave danger from IPV (see Bograd and Mederos, 1999; Stith, Rosen, and McCollum, 2003), Florsheim et al. (2012) argued that among moderate-risk couples, YPP-type interventions can be beneficial in curtailing situational aggressive acts like pushing or slapping. In this regard, YPP was particularly groundbreaking in enrolling and working together on coparenting issues with moderate-risk mothers and fathers. Most of the other coparenting-related interventions with at-risk samples have elected to tackle obstacles to successful coparenting by intervening with just mothers or with just fathers, but seldom with both together. For example, Fagan (2008) engaged fathers without mothers in a five-session coparenting intervention prior to their child’s birth. Stover (2015) individually engaged substanceabusing fathers who had perpetrated situational IPV, and only later involved those mothers who expressed willingness to take part in a few coparenting-focused sessions. Garneau and Adler-Baeder (2015) developed a coparenting-focused group education program for coparenting step-couples, although in most cases (58%), only one coparenting partner attended the groups. Fagan, Cherson, Brown, and Vecere (2015) worked with groups of unmarried mothers to address issues around their excluding their children’s fathers from coparenting. An innovative Coparenting Court initiative was designed to shift parents’ attitudes and behaviors so that both parents could take part in the child’s life, mandating (four 3-hour) coparent education sessions—but holding the sessions separately for mothers and fathers (Marczak, Becher, Hardman, Galos, and Ruhland, 2015). An exception to this propensity to deliver interventions separately to each parent in higher risk families was a seven-session dyadic mother-father coparenting intervention, based on principles outlined in McHale and Irace’s (2011) Focused Coparenting Consultation (McHale, Gaskin-Butler, McKay, and Gallardo, 2013).“Figuring It Out for the Child” (FIOC) was delivered by paraprofessional male-female Mentor teams (supervised by a licensed clinician) to unmarried, lower socioeconomic and largely non-coresidential African American parents expecting a first child together. Motherfemale interventionist and father-male interventionist rapport-building sessions were held prior to commencing the seven dyadic sessions. In the first field test of the program, McHale, Salman-Engin, and Coovert (2015) found that FIOC completers demonstrated statistically and clinically significant 150

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

gains in coparental communication as observed during videotaped problem-solving discussions, and that all were coparenting together at 3 months postpartum, regardless of whether they lived together. Observed triangular interactions among father, mother, and baby in the Lausanne Trilogue Play (Fivaz-Depeursinge and Corboz-Warnery, 1999) also captured clear evidence of rapport and comradery (McHale and Coates, 2014), and the observed family dynamic in over half the families was decidedly cohesive in nature. Because unmarried parents not in committed relationships are seldom ready to plunge wholeheartedly into coparenting work, interventions offered to just one coparent at a time can allow that person to reflect on their views concerning the importance of fathers, and on the costs versus benefits of staying connected and communicating regularly about the child as members of an allied coparenting team. Such single-parent only interventions may, in fact, be necessary, although singleparent only interventions seem unlikely to ever be sufficient in affecting coparenting change (see McHale and Negrini, 2018, for a more detailed discussion). To date, interventions that have worked with parents together have offered the most compelling evidence that brief interventions for coparents who are not yet married can affect the coparenting alliance itself (Epstein, Pruett, Cowan, Cowan, Pradhan, Mah, and Pruett, 2015; Florsheim et al., 2012; McHale et al., 2015). These coparenting interventions, designed to extend traditional parenting or marriage and relationship enhancement efforts by focusing more specifically on strengthening coparenting alliances, have charted an important new direction for future work with more diverse families.

The Breaking Wave: Research on Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems This section reviews research illustrating how, across diverse families and family circumstances, children’s development comes to be affected by the coparenting efforts of the adults who guide their upbringing (McHale, 2007b, 2009; P. Minuchin, 1985).

Postdivorce Coparenting Historically, studies of divorce were among the first to document empirically that children exposed to ongoing high levels of coparental conflict are at higher risk for various behavioral and emotional problems (Emery, 1999) and more problematic parent-child relationships (Buchanan, Maccoby, and Dornbush, 1991). Parents’ ability to effectively cooperate as coparents was found to affect children’s sense of well-being in divorced families, especially when the children were young (Adamsons and Pasley, 2006; Pruett, Arthur, and Ebling, 2007). After divorce, coparental communication and c­ oparent-child boundaries became confusing, as communication often passed through children. Family members became uncertain about who was in and out of the family (Caroll, Olson, and Buchmiller, 2007), and concerns about exclusion jarred both parents’ and children’s sense of family-level security. Without the security of a shared family domicile and the perceived sense of “wholeness” family members had historically experienced, even during times of strife, the children’s needs often take a back seat as the parents battle for authority, respect, autonomy, and decision-making power. This struggle for power typically militates against cooperative coparenting, as shared investment and “teamness” are impossible when competition and animosity take over the coparenting relationship. The recognition that coparental cooperation and collaboration are vital to enhancing children’s longer term postdivorce adjustment led to a search for means of fostering positive postdivorce coparenting. Although efforts continue 40 years on after the initial studies of effects of divorce on children, constructive models of shared coparenting and interventions to achieve this end have made progress. Empirical evidence has provided support for the usefulness of intervening to reduce parental conflict and promote civil coparental relationships (Pruett and Donsky, 2011). Different kinds of postdivorce interventions (parenting groups, mediation, parenting coordination) may be most ideally 151

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

suited for different kinds of families and children at varying developmental stages. Among alternative dispute resolution (ADR) interventions for divorcing families, mediation has the longest history. Some mediators incorporate therapeutic elements into the process, whereas others focus principally on settlement (Folberg, Milne, and Salem, 2004). Both mothers and fathers find mediation acceptable, and outcome studies with control groups have reported increased father involvement, reduced coparental conflict, increased cooperative decision-making, and successful parenting plans development (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, and Dillon, 2001; Pruett, Insabella, and Gustafson, 2005). Pruett and Donsky (2011) cautioned that data are not uniformly positive, however, and more work is needed (Beck, Sales, and Emery, 2004). Parenting coordination is a newer ADR that has proven effective in preventing relitigation and return court visits by high-conflict couples (Henry, Fieldstone, and Bohac, 2009) that may hold asyet untapped promise as a means for promoting postdivorce coparenting. It is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience (the Parenting Coordinator, or PC) works with parents to create or implement a parenting plan, resolve disputes, make recommendations and, with the prior approval of the parents and the court, even make limited decisions within the scope of the court’s order of referral (Florida Statute 61.125). To date, research on the intervention is scant, and there has been no research yet to ascertain whether parenting coordination reduces coparenting conflict or triangulation or improves child-related communication. Such efforts are just beginning and promise to further enhance the theory and practice of Parenting Coordination.

Coparenting in Cohabiting and Stepfamilies As many as half of U.S. children spend time in a cohabiting (biological or step-) parent family (Bumpass and Lu, 2000; Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008). Coparenting relationships in stepfamilies are very complex; when stepparents attempt to assume the same position of parental authority with stepchildren as they would with their own children, this creates conflict not just with the stepchild but also with their partner, the child’s biological parent. It is usually stepfathers who attempt to adopt this “birth parent” role, although about a quarter of stepmothers likewise do so (Ahrons and Wallisch, 1987). Child age also matters; younger children are far more likely than older children to ultimately consent to the stepparent as legitimate coparenting figure (Visher and Visher, 1990). Stepparents are often unclear as to their spouse’s expectations of them as coparents, and birth parents sometimes view their new parenting partner as a threat to the exclusive bond they share with their birth children (Erera-Weatherly, 1996). If birth parents exclude the stepparent from executive decisions in the reconstituted family, the stepparent never becomes fully integrated as either parent or coparenting partner. Because gatekeeping by the birth parent (especially, the child’s mother) is the rule and not the exception in stepfamilies, the family processes that follow are necessarily different from those of nuclear families (Bronstein, Clauson, Stoll, and Abrams, 1993). Ganong, Coleman, Jamison, and Feistman (2015) reported that mothers see themselves as “captains of the coparenting team,” deciding who should play what roles in parenting their children. They see their children’s fathers as important coparenting partners, but also use a variety of strategies to draw boundaries around the coparental subsystem when they or their ex-husbands repartner. In Ganong et al.’s analysis, if mothers felt secure as primary parent, were able to cooperatively coparent with and saw children’s biological fathers as good and responsible parents, and perceived new partners as adequate caregivers, they were likely to expand the coparental subsystem to include new partners. If any of these conditions were not met, however, mothers resisted including stepparents as part of the childrearing team. African American children are especially likely to be coparented in families where unmarried cohabiting partners are raising children from prior relationship(s) together; Kennedy and Bumpass (2008) estimated that almost half of African American children born to (non-cohabiting) single or 152

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

married mothers experience maternal cohabitation by age 12. The cohabiting stepfamily formation process for low-income African American mothers and their partners is gradual and deliberative; child well-being is central to a “vetting and letting” process (Reid and Golub, 2015). Less is known about coparenting as viewed from the perspectives of new partners of children’s biological fathers. Burton and Hardaway (2012) examined how often and when women in nonmarital multi-partner fertility (MFP) unions with men coparent partners’ children from other relationships; most women in MPF unions othermothered children of friends and relatives, but 89% did not coparent their partners’ children from any MPF relationship. The small proportion who did, did so either because the partners were the children’s custodial parents and the children’s mothers were not able to provide care for them, or because they wanted their own children to know their halfsiblings. Reasons why women did not coparent included the tenuous nature of pass-through MPF relationships, gendered scripts around second families (the authors invoked the term “casa chicas”), and mothers’ desires for their romantic partners to child-swap (Burton and Hardaway, 2012). Clearly, models of coparenting differ in the “normative family processes” of stepfamilies. Further research in this area will help expand the coparenting literature relevant to this increasingly large and important subset of modern families.

Coparenting in Unmarried Families The study of coparenting by unmarried fathers and mothers is a relatively new enterprise, with emerging research shaped by different forces. One set of forces has been an extension and emanation from fatherhood programs, launched in the early 1990s in the wake of welfare reform to help men to take on greater responsibility and roles in the lives of their children. Fatherhood programs historically targeted nonresident fathers in the child support system, or low-income fathers who might ultimately be participants. They sought to enable fathers to pay child support by improving employment and earnings through employment services, and to strengthen paternal relationships with children through peer support and parenting education. Certain programs also offered access and visitation services such as mediation efforts, and evaluations of initiatives supported by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), summarized by McHale, Waller, and Pearson (2012), suggested that brief interventions can result in parenting plans that encourage more parent-child contact and better child support payment. Although some limited data suggest AV programs can affect perceptions of cooperative parenting, the bigger picture is that potentially worthwhile programs aiming to help support coparenting between non-coresidential parents are met with resistance by parents they are designed to serve (McHale et al., 2012). A considerable percentage of parents offered services never participate (Davis, Pearson, and Thoennes, 2010). Fathers participating in federally funded fatherhood initiatives report ongoing frustration and conflict in their relationship with their child’s mother, with coordination complicated greatly if one or both parents have children with more than one partner. Curiously, despite voicing need for more help with coparenting relationships than they can get from programs, utilization of existing mediation services by non-coresidential parents—and even more so, by custodial parents—has remained poor (Martinson and Nightingale, 2008). Trust is one major reason fatherhood programs struggle to solicit coparental buy-in and participation; both mothers and fathers fear that programs may worsen rather than improve their fragile coparental relationship. Perhaps even more poignantly, the core model underlying these programs is flawed, as it is based on a “2 + 1” rather than a “3-together” model. McHale and Phares (2015) and Gaskin-Butler et al. (2015) describe common practice models in which fathers are implicitly conceptualized primarily as supports for mothers as “2 + 1”—father is helpful, not indispensable. By contrast, in 3-together conceptualizations, father is avowed, relentlessly, by all who engage and interact with the family as indispensable to child health and development—a coparent in his own 153

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

right. In 3-together models, coparents are understood as needing to work collaboratively, enduringly, to chart the healthiest, most positive course for their shared child. A triadic approach is the essence of the triangular model we have emphasized in this chapter—but it is not the one that guides most fatherhood programming. It has been unusual for fatherhood programs to also actively engage mothers or to provide significant support for developing cooperative coparenting skills. The creation of a “Fatherhood Research and Practice Network” (FRPN) in 2014 drawing together fatherhood researchers and practitioners from many different walks was intended to begin piecing together what had been learned from historical efforts with families, and to try to deal with the disconnect between mothers and fathers engendered by work to date. Creating a strong and enduring coparenting alliance can be challenging, and the obstacles formidable. The overwhelming majority of unmarried fathers’ desire to be involved in rearing their child, and most provide support to the mother early on (McLanahan, 2009). Yet within 3 years, about 53% are living apart from their children, and 45% of nonresident fathers have not had recent contact with their children. But patterns vary greatly; for example, Waller (2012) illustrated how many fathers “disengaged” by customary measures nonetheless remained involved in their children’s lives unless they had developed a conflicted coparenting relationship with the mother. Roy, Buckmiller, and McDowell (2008) described a pair-bonding paradigm for unresolved relationships not readily defined as marriage or cohabitation, with children at the core of the unmarried parents’ commitment to one another. Relationships often get “suspended,” but persevere through episodic emotional support women provide men, histories of relationships stretching back as far as childhood and adolescence, and mutual coparental involvement with children (Roy et al., 2008). Through a delinking of partnering from parenting, unmarried African American mothers and fathers create a basis for prolonged interaction and in many instances successful collaboration to rear their shared child, even when living separately and outside of conjugal relationships (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Edin et al., 2009). Research on children’s experiences of the coparenting dynamics between their mothers and fathers (and others) in families where mother and father never cohabitate or develop conjugal relationships is still sparse. Although such families are distinctively different from divorced families in nearly every regard, they have sometimes been lumped together for programming and policy purposes. A research agendum that traces various kinds of coparenting relationship profiles that evolve in unmarried families, guided by a triangular and not 2 + 1 frame, will advance our understanding of families, and of outcomes for children, in the years ahead.

Coparenting in Military Families The dynamics of coparenting in military families are unique again still, with known cycles of separation and parenting apart, and reunification and parenting together. The strains on coparents in such families have long been recognized but only recently studied empirically (DeVoe, Paris, and Acker, 2016). During deployment, the deployed father or mother must relinquish parenting and coparenting responsibilities and become highly dependent on at-home caregivers for parenting support and assistance. Recent web technology has provided encouraging means for sustained coparental relationships and continual emotional connection with children and partners through real-time communication with family members from overseas, but the deployed parent’s situation is still extraordinarily taxing. Deployed fathers describe competing demands of ensuring the safety of their own troops and themselves, caring for child nationals, and attending to their own children’s needs. Reintegration is a prolonged process that involves reexamining and recommitting to family and coparenting roles and expectations while adjusting to changes that have occurred individually and within the family during deployment. Upon reunification, the coparental relationship must be renegotiated as the returning service member and family seek to reconnect. 154

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

Common reintegration responses that affect coparenting include the at-home parent being reluctant to let the returning service member parent take on responsibilities, the service member parent jumping back in too quickly without reassessing the current “lay of the land,” the service member parent unthinkingly using “military communication” in discipline and/or to reestablish norms, and the service member allowing the children too much free reign because he or she feels guilty or worried about the children’s reaction to limit setting. Renegotiating the authority and shared parenting role can tax even the most prepared military families, and as a result, prevention and intervention programs, such as Strong Families Strong Forces (DeVoe, Paris, and Acker, 2016), offer promise as a conceptually grounded and military culturally informed approach to buffering children’s adjustment throughout the various stages of the deployment cycle.

Coparenting in Families Led by Same-Sex Partners Families led by same-sex parents are very diverse, and hence no one set of guiding principles helps to explain coparenting by LGBTQ parents. Although most of what is known about same-sex coparenthood has been gleaned from studies of division of labor in European American, middle-class, highly educated North American samples (Patterson and Farr, 2011), recent studies of same-sex European coparents have begun appearing in the literature (Carone, Baiocco, Ioverno, Chirumbolo, and Lingiardi, 2017; Smetana, Jennings, Herbrand, and Golombok, 2014). The sampling bias is significant; Cao, Mills-Koonce, Wood, and Fine (2016) point out ways in which the family adaptations of same-sex coparents are multifaceted and characterized by disparate crossings of individual characteristics, couple relational dynamics, LGBTQ community culture, and heterosexual socio-structural norms—all affected by social contextual factors such as social class, ethnicity, family structure, and social environment associated with geographic location. Pathways through which same-sex couples become coparents include prior heterosexual relationships, adoption, donor insemination, surrogacy, and foster care (Goldberg and Gartrell, 2014; McHale, Khazan et al., 2002). Each produces unique biological and related legal and social statuses (in regard to parental rights) between coparenting partners (Almack, 2005; Moore, 2008; Shelley-Sireci and Ciano-Boyce, 2002), and may also evoke of different varieties of coparenting dynamics and challenges (e.g., protectiveness, competition, conflicts). In families where partners adopt together, the coparents are often on more equal footing both as the child’s legal parents and as authority figures. While conventional provider-nurturer roles are sometimes adopted by the parents, perhaps in response to internalized heterosexual cultural norms, such partnerships are typically characterized by a more egalitarian division of labor than in most heterosexual couples (Patterson and Farr, 2011). Moreover, many partners break set and invent “new” family roles, expanding the definitions of conventional caregiving by integrating both masculine and feminine nurturing behaviors into parenting practices (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Doucet and Lee, 2014; Goldberg, Smith, and Perry-Jenkins, 2012; Wells, 2011). When a child is born within the partnership via natural childbirth with an outside donor, the birth mother is frequently the one more involved in childcare, although there is again greater egalitarianism in the division of labor than in heterosexual couples (Goldberg, 2013). One theme examined in the literature has been expansion of coparenting systems by lesbian mothers at the transition to parenthood to involve brothers, fathers, biological fathers, and sometimes male friends (Goldberg and Allen, 2007). This said, there is pronounced variability in the extent to which male adults become intimately involved in children’s lives, from never, to expectable visitations, to relating as a true coparent by sharing responsibility for childcare. Most common appear to be male adults who see the child intermittently but otherwise provide minimal ongoing parenting support (Gartrell, Rodas, Deck, Peyser, and Banks, 2006; Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Touroni and Coyle, 2002). Very little research is currently available on female involvement in same-sex male households, but some suggestive evidence hints that same-sex cofathers may feel even greater pressure to have a 155

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

female parental figure involved in their child’s or children’s life than do same-sex comothers (Doucet and Lee, 2014; Goldberg, 2012). With respect to intra-family dynamics, less is known about imbalances in parenting or the extent to which “gatekeeping” processes (Schoppe-Sullivan, 2019) of the sort described earlier occur in same-sex partnerships. Some reports indicate that birth mothers who bring a child to a new lesbian partnership from a prior heterosexual relationship may play a gatekeeping role with “their” children, similar to that seen in other stepfamilies; indeed, Erera and Fredrikson (1999) argue that lesbian stepfamilies confront many of the challenges of heterosexual stepfamilies. Yet evidence also indicates that most same-sex coparents effectively navigate their transitions to coparenthood, and employ specific strategies (e.g., parallel address terms, hyphenated surnames, second-parent adoption prior to the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States) to minimize potential negative effects of biological inequity to children (Bergen, Suter, and Daas, 2006; Goldberg, Downing, and Sauck, 2008; Pelka, 2009). In the years to come, far more scholarship is needed to better understand the diversity of same-sex couples with respect to intra-family coparenting adaptations (e.g., working-class, same-sex parents with lower income may have greater difficulty establishing an equal sharing of labor) and dynamics. Same-sex coparents live in both urban and rural communities and in socially progressive and conservative states (Gates, 2013), and the research base on contextual effects on coparenting would benefit from beginning to reflect this diversity. Finally, with a few noteworthy exceptions, research on transgender fathers’ and mothers’ transitions to parenthood and coparenthood has been absent from the research literature, but promises to provide important new insights into understanding mothering, fathering, and family dynamics (Biblarz and Savci, 2010; Doucet and Lee, 2014).

Coparenting in Extended Kinship Networks Coparenting in extended kinship networks may be the norm rather than the exception in most places around the world, and in the United States, coparenting with kin caregivers is a staple in many communities of color (Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn and Zamsky, 1994; Piontak, 2016). Latino and African American grandparents are more likely to coparent with the child’s parent, and family members expect intergenerational assistance in childrearing and other household tasks (Hayslip and Kaminski, 2005). Yet as is true of coparents in virtually all family systems discussed earlier, kin caregivers have the potential to serve a stabilizing or disrupting effect as coparenting figures (McHale, Salman, Strozier, and Cecil, 2013). It is not just the presence of additional caregivers but the quality of coparental support provided by these individuals that determines both parenting success and child outcome (Greenfield, 2011; Pittman and Boswell, 2008). In one seminal study, Apfel and Seitz (1991, 1999) found the most negative long-term consequences in families of young adolescent African American mothers when maternal grandmothers provided either too much aid (commandeering primary control as the grandchild’s main parenting figure) or too little aid (abandoning the daughter and leaving her with no caregiving support). Adolescent mothers in these situations were less often the primary parent for the first child at child age 12, and more often had another child in rapid succession. It is important that family researchers attune to what Demo and Cox (2000) termed the family’s parenting map before seeking to measure family process. Essential caregiving functions and important enrichment activities can be shared in an infinite number of permutations among two or more coparenting figures (McHale, Khazan et al., 2002). The division of roles and responsibilities is organized by cultural mores, but even so, there are nuances to be negotiated and worked out by individual families (McHale, Salman, Strozier, and Cecil, 2013). Regardless of who does what, socialization and acculturation of young children proceeds most efficiently when there is functional agreement and coordination among parenting figures, whoever these figures may be (McHale and Irace, 2011). In some families where coparenting is shared across multiple generations, an elder exerts greater authority in decision-making about the child; in some, the child’s parent does, and in others still, 156

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

there is equal and shared power between the coparents. What seems to matter most, whichever circumstance characterizes any given family, is whether each coparent is content and comfortable with the arrangement. That is, greater leadership by one coparent or another may sit well with the other, or there may be discontent by one or both parties about how their dynamic has evolved (McHale, Salman, Strozier, and Cecil, 2013). When the latter is the case, there is opportunity for growth and change, but also greater likelihood of friction and dissonance that will affect the child. Children in multigenerational family systems, as in other family systems, fare less well when they are receiving dissonant messages from different parenting figures or being drawn into age-inappropriate alliances with adult family members, one against another. Attention to functional coparenting arrangements in multigenerational and extended families, to individual differences in both the process and outcomes of such arrangements, and to distinctive coparenting dynamics unique to extended families are much needed in coparenting theory and research. Better understanding of multigenerational coparenting structures for sexual minority people of color is a particularly important area of future investigation; such individuals often take on significant coparenting responsibilities for grandchildren, younger siblings, nieces and nephews, and other children (Cahill, Battle, and Meyer, 2003; Orel and Fruhauf, 2013). Such research promises to expand the still relatively narrow characterization of “same-sex coparenting.”

Coparenting Between Biological and Foster Family Systems Perhaps no more important coparenting triangle for child health and well-being is the foster familybiological family-child triangle in circumstances where a child is removed from the home and placed in foster care, with hopes of reunification (Nesmith, Patton, Christophersen, and Smart, 2017). During the child’s time away, family visits (scheduled in-person contacts between child and parent or parents) are crucial to maintaining the parent-child relationship (Hess, 1988) and a critical component to family preservation and reunification efforts. More frequent visits predict reunification (Perkins and Ansay, 1998), sustain or restore parent-child attachment, and mitigate child anxiety while in foster care (McWey and Mullis, 2004). More frequent parent-child contact is facilitated by a positive biological-foster family coparenting relationship (Oyserman and Benbenishty, 1992), but there is unfortunately often a lack of communication or poor communication between the foster and biological families (Morrison, Mishna, Cook, and Aitken, 2011; Nesmith, 2013). As in all other family systems, tension and conflict between coparents in biological and foster families are noticed by, and have a negative impact on, even very young children (Leathers, 2006; Linares et al., 2010). Operating from a coparenting framework lessens unremitting grief children experience when removed from their natal home, if biological and foster families are helped to develop a functional coparenting alliance (McHale, 2016). Such alliances are most likely to evolve if the two sets of families are brought together from the very start, with either pre-removal conferences or, if not possible, facilitated “icebreaker” meetings (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012) as soon as possible after removal. A communication plan that sets parameters for regular and ongoing communications between parents and child (phone calls, FaceTime, Skype) that are facilitated by the biological family; regular child-related communications about the child between the foster and biological parents, respect for the biological families’ greater knowledge about the child’s sensibilities, and supervised visitations with foster parents serving as allies and resources before, during, and after visits are all components of an optimally established and functional alliance. When authentic relationships develop between the two sets of parents during the child’s time away, the likelihood of the foster family remaining in the child’s life post-reunification as “godparents” of sorts, and as a resource to the child’s parents, is far more likely to be welcomed by parents, thereby preventing another traumatic final goodbye for the child. Often-entrenched child welfare systems view the coparenting frame with skepticism, and their views are echoed by foster parents 157

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin

themselves. Some foster carers may be willing to participate in restoration work, but far fewer believe that supporting birth parents is part of their role (Thorpe, Klease, and Westerhuis, 2005). However, as more and more sites experiment with the tenets of a coparenting framework, there is hope that a greater number of children will benefit from the connections made between the two sets of families in their best interests (McHale, 2016). Toward this end, pioneering efforts have sought to bring biological and foster parents together via a structured intervention group format in an effort to encourage a coparenting alliance between the two families (Linares, Montalto, Li, and Oza, 2006). A two-component intervention consisting of a 2-hour parenting course and a 1-hour coparenting program offered to biological and foster parent pairs for 12 consecutive weeks yielded evidence for gains in positive parenting and coparenting among both the biological and foster parents as well as a reduction in reported externalizing problems of the children involved (Linares et al., 2006).

Summary This cursory review has only skimmed the surface of how coparenting evolves to serve children in family systems of every kind. Understanding coparenting demands a careful look at each family system, not just families headed by married or coresidential gay or straight fathers and mothers. The coparenting system in millions of families throughout the world involves someone besides just biological mother and father. When a mother and/or father is entirely absent (with other important adults shouldering responsibility for sharing in the child’s care and upbringing), the triangular relationships among these coparenting adults with reference to the child are every bit as salient and formative for child development. Coparenting is decidedly not a dynamic limited just to married or divorced heterosexual mother-father family systems; indeed, the most generative and fresh approach to this field would do well to proceed from the premise that between birth and young adulthood, all children will be coparented (McHale, 2009; McHale and Irace, 2011; McHale, Khazan et al., 2002; McHale and Phares, 2015).

Conclusion Exponential growth in the elucidation and understanding of coparenting in diverse family systems has done a great deal to foster the well-being of children around the world. At the same time, most research efforts examining adaptive coparenting to date have engaged relatively select groups of families (McHale, 2015, 2011; McHale, Khazan et al., 2002; Pleck, 2010). As a result, there are undoubtedly functional coparenting arrangements yet to be identified and understood. It is not just the case that cross-national studies of coparenting, carried out by culturally centered informants, remain few and far between—although this is certainly so. Even within the United States, P. Minuchin, Colapinto, and S. Minuchin (2007) have been critical of the practice by which uninformed child welfare professionals enter troubled family systems, ostensibly to be of aid to children, but instead end up pulling asunder the “invisible family structures” that the family had relied on to coparent and buoy their children through times of challenge and distress. Much needed is fresh scholarship, rivaling the inventive efforts of Burton in elucidating “othermothering” (Burton and Hardaway, 2012) and families’ kinscription work (Burton and Stack, 1993; Roy and Burton, 2007), to reveal the full range of coparenting adaptations families call on to promote children’s health, development, and well-being. These are growing points for a field of scholarship that has already contributed immeasurably to the field of parenting. Future endeavors must now take seriously the key core principles of triangles rather than dyads, of child-centric views of coparenting, and of emic approaches toward illuminating the full range of coparenting adaptations in cultural context. Such principles will further enhance the scope and reach of currently available coparenting knowledge to advance the best interests of all children. 158

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems

References Adamsons, K., and Pasley, K. (2006). Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In M. Fine and J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241–262). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing co-parental relationship between divorced parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 415–428. Ahrons, C. R., and Wallisch, L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and stepparents. New York: Guilford. Almack, K. (2005). What’s in a name? The significance of the choice of surnames given to children born within lesbian-parent families. Sexualities, 8(2), 239–254. Altenburger, L. E., Lang, S. N., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Kamp Dush, C. M., and Johnson, S. (2015). Toddlers’ differential susceptibility to the effects of coparenting on social-emotional adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1–10. Altenburger, L. E., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Lang, S. N., Bower, D. J., and Kamp Dush, C. M. (2014). Associations between prenatal coparenting behavior and observed coparenting behavior at 9-months postpartum. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 495–504. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012). Resources for holding icebreaker meetings between birth and foster parents. Unpublished manuscript. Apfel, N. H., and Seitz, V. (1991). Four models of adolescent mother-grandmother relationships in Black innercity families. Family Relations, 40(4), 421–429. Apfel, N., and Seitz, V. (1999, April). Style of family support predicts teen mothers’ subsequent childbearing and parenting success. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. Baril, M. E., Crouter, A. C., and McHale, S. M. (2007). Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 645–654. Barnett, M. A., Scaramella, L. V., McGoron, L., and Callahan, C. (2012). Coparenting cooperation and child adjustment in low-income mother-grandmother and mother-father families. Family Science, 2(3), 159–170. Bearss, K. E., and Eyberg, S. (1998). A test of the parenting alliance theory. Early Education and Development, 9, 179–185. Beck, C. J. A., Sales, B. D., and Emery, R. E. (2004). The impact of research on mediation practice. In J. Folberg, A. Milne, and P. Salem (Eds.), Mediating family and divorce disputes: Current practices and applications (pp. 447– 482). New York: Guilford. Belsky, J., Crnic, K., and Gable, S. (1995). The determinants of coparenting in families with toddler boys: Spousal differences and daily hassles. Child Development, 66, 629–642. Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., and Daas, K. L. (2006). “About as solid as a fishnet”: Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 201–220. Biblarz, T. J., and Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 480–497. Biblarz, T. J., and Stacey, J. (2010). Ideal families and social science ideals. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 41–44. Bograd, M., and Mederos, F. (1999). Battering and couples therapy: Universal screening and selection of treatment modality. Journal of Marital Family Therapy, 25, 291–312. Bonds, D. D., and Gondoli, D. W. (2007). Examining the process by which marital adjustment affects maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 288–296. Bronstein, P., Clauson, J., Stoll, M. F., and Abrams, C. L. (1993). Parenting behavior and children’s social, psychological, and academic adjustment in diverse family structures. Family Relations, 42(3), 268–276. Bronte-Tinkew, J., Scott, M. E., Horowitz, A., and Lilja, E. (2009). Pregnancy intentions during the transition to parenthood and links to coparenting for first-time fathers of infants. Parenting, 9, 1–35. Brown, G. L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Neff, C. (2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant-mother and infant-father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1–2), 121–137. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child development, 62(5), 1008–1029. Buehler, C., and Welsh, D. P. (2009). A process model of adolescents’ triangulation into parents’ marital conflict: The role of emotional reactivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 167–180. Bumpass, L., and Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children s family contexts in the United States. Population studies, 54(1), 29–41. Burney, R. V., and Leerkes, E. M. (2010). Links between mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of infant temperament and coparenting. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(2), 125–135.

159

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin Burton, L. M., and Hardaway, C. R. (2012). Low-income mothers as “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51(3), 343–359. Burton, L., and Stack, C. (1993). Conscripting kin: Reflections on family, generation and culture. In P. Cowan, D. Field, D. Hansen, A. Skol-nick and G. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family re-search (pp. 103–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cabrera, N., Scott, M., Fagan, J., Steward-Streng, N., and Chien, N. (2012). Coparenting and children’s school readiness: A meditational model. Family Process, 51(3), 304–321. Cahill, S., Battle, J., and Meyer, D. (2003). Partnering, parenting, and policy: Family issues affecting Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Race and Society, 6(2), 85–98. Caldera, Y. M., and Lindsey, E. W. (2006). Coparenting, mother-infant interaction, and infant-parent attachment relationships in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 275–283. Camara, K. A., and Resnick, G. (1989). Styles of conflict resolution and cooperation between divorced parents: Effects on child behavior and adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(4), 560–575. Cao, H., Roger Mills-Koonce, W., Wood, C., and Fine, M. A. (2016). Identity transformation during the transition to parenthood among same-sex couples: An ecological, stress-strategy-adaptation perspective. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 8(1), 30–59. Caplan, P. and Caplan, J. (1994). Thinking critically about research on sex and gender. New York: Harper Collins. Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. S., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45(2), 461–488. Carroll, J. S., Olson, C. D., and Buchmiller, N. (2007). Family boundary ambiguity: A 30-year review of theory, research, and measurement. Family Relations, 56, 210–230. Carone, N., Baiocco, R., Ioverno, S., Chirumbolo, A., and Lingiardi, V. (2017). Same-sex parent families in Italy: Validation of the Coparenting Scale-Revised for lesbian mothers and gay fathers. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 367–379. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Zamsky, E. S. (1994). Young African-American multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of mothering and grandmothering. Child development, 65(2), 373–393. Cook, J. C., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Buckley, C., and Davis, E. F. (2009). Are some children harder to coparent than others? Children’s negative emotionality and coparenting relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 606–610. Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., Griffin, W. A., De Luse, S. R., and Miles, J. C. (2007). Effects of the Dads for Life intervention on interparental conflict and coparenting in the two years after divorce. Family Process, 46, 123–137. Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. New York: Basic Books. Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (1995). Interventions to ease the transition to parenthood: Why are they needed and what they can do. Family Relations, 44, 412–423. Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., and Wong, J. J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Therapy, 71(3), 663–679. Crosbie-Burnett, M., and Lewis, E. (1999). Use of African-American family structures and functioning to address the challenges of European-American postdivorce families. In S. Coontz (Ed.), American families (pp. 455–468). New York: Routledge. Davis, E. F., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Brown, G. L. (2009). The role of infant temperament in stability and change in coparenting across the first year of life. Parenting, 9(1–2), 143–159. Davis, L., Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. (2010, July). Tennessee parenting project: Final report. Submitted to Tennessee Department of Human Services, Center for Policy Research, Denver, CO. Demo, D. H., and Cox, M. J. (2000). Families with young children: A review of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 876–895. DeVoe, E. R., Paris, R., and Acker, M. (2016). Prevention and Treatment for Parents of Young Children in Military Families. In Parenting and children’s resilience in military families (pp. 213–227). New York: Springer. Doss, B. D., Cicila, L. N., Hsueh, A. C., Morrison, K. R., and Carhart, K. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of brief coparenting and relationship interventions during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 483–494. Doucet, A., and Lee, R. (2014). Fathering, feminism(s), gender, and sexualities: Connections, tensions, and new pathways. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6(4), 355–373. Edin, K., Tach, L., and Mincy, R. (2009). Claiming fatherhood: Race and the dynamics of paternal involvement among unmarried men. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 149–177. Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment (Vol. 14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

160

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, M. C., Sbarra, D. A., Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 323–332. Entwisle, D. R., and Doering, S. G. (1981). The first birth, a family turning point. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Epstein, K., Pruett, M. K., Cowan, P., Cowan, C., Pradhan, L., Mah, E., and Pruett, K. (2015). More than one way to get there: Pathways of change in coparenting conflict after a preventive intervention. Family Process, 54(4), 610–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12138 Elliston, D., McHale, J., Talbot, J., Parmley, M., and Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2008). Withdrawal from coparenting interactions during early infancy. Family Process, 47(4), 481–99. Erera-Weatherly, P. (1996). On becoming a stepparent: Factors associated with the adoption of alternative stepparenting styles. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 25(3/4), 155–174. Erera, P., and Fredriksen, K. (1999). Lesbian stepfamilies: A unique family structure. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 80(3), 263–270. Fagan, J. (2008). Randomized study of a pre-birth coparenting intervention with adolescent and young fathers. Family Relations, 57(3), 309–323. Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(3), 173–195. Fagan, J., Cherson, M., Brown, C., and Vecere, E. (2015). Pilot study of a program to increase mothers’ understanding of dads. Family Process, 54(4), 581–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12137 Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Kan, M. L., and Goslin, M. C. (2010). Effects of family foundations on parents and children: 3.5 years after baseline. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 532–542. Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M. E., Solmeyer, A., and Hostetler, M. L. (2014). Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of family foundations: Effects on children’s emotional, behavioral, and school adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 821. Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., and Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. Feinberg, M. E., and Sakuma, K. L. (2011). Coparenting interventions for expecting parents. In J. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 171–190). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., and Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle. A developmental systems view of fathers, mothers and infants. New York: Basic Books. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Frascarolo, F., Lopes, F., Dimitrova, N., and Favez, N. (2007). Parents-child role reversal in trilogue play. Case studies of trajectories from pregnancy to toddler-hood. Journal of Attachment and Human Development, 9, 17–31. Florsheim, P., Burrow-Sánchez, J. J., Minami, T., McArthur, L., Heavin, S., and Hudak, C. (2012). Young parenthood program: Supporting positive paternal engagement through coparenting counseling. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1886–1892. Florsheim, P., McArthur, L., Hudak, C., Heavin, S., and Burrow-Sanchez, J. (2011). The Young Parenthood Program: A co-parenting counseling program for pregnant adolescents and young expectant fathers. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 10, 117–134. Folberg, J., Milne, A. L., and Salem, P. (Eds.). (2004). Divorce and family mediation: Models, techniques and applications. New York: Guilford. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Jamison, T., and Feistman, R. (2015). Divorced mothers’ coparental boundary maintenance after parents repartner. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 221–231. Garneau, C. L., and Adler-Baeder, F. (2015). Changes in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting following participation in community-based relationship education program. Family Process, 54, 590–599. Gartrell, N., Rodas, C., Deck, A., Peyser, H., and Banks, A. (2006). The USA national lesbian family study: Interviews with mothers of 10-year-olds. Feminism and Psychology, 16(2), 175–192. Gaskin-Butler, V. T., McKay, K., Gallardo, G., Salman-Engin, S., Little, T., and McHale, J. P. (2015). Thinking 3 rather than 2+ 1: How a coparenting framework can transform infant mental health efforts with unmarried African American parents. Zero to Three Journal, 35, 49–59. Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. UCLA: The Williams Institute. Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Gay dads: Transitions to adoptive fatherhood. NYU Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Doing” and “Undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(2), 85–104. Goldberg, A. E., and Allen, K. R. (2007). Imagining men: Lesbian mothers’ perceptions of male involvement during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 352–365.

161

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin Goldberg, A. E., and Allen, K. R. (2013). Donor, dad, or . . .? Young adults with lesbian parents’ experiences with known donors. Family process, 52(2), 338–350. Goldberg, A. E., and Gartrell, N. K. (2014). LGB-parent families: The current state of the research and directions for the future. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 46, 57–88. Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., and Sauck, C. C. (2008). Perceptions of children’s parental preferences in lesbian two-mother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 419–434. Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., and Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 812–828. Goodrum, N. M., Jones, D. J., Kincaid, C. Y., Cuellar, J. (2012). Youth externalizing problems in African American single mother families: A culturally-relevant model. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(4), 294–305. Greenfield, E. A. (2011). Grandparent involvement and parenting stress among nonmarried mothers of young children. Social Service Review, 85(1), 135–157. Hayslip, B., and Kaminski, P. L. (2005). Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A review of the literature and suggestions for practice. The Gerontologist, 45(2), 262–269. Henry, W. J., Fieldstone, L., and Bohac, K. (2009). The impact of parenting coordination on court re-litigation: A case study. Family Court Review, 47, 682–697. Hess, P. (1988). Case and context: Determinants of planned visit frequency in foster family care. Child Welfare, 67(4), 311–326. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., and Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 233–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hinde, R. A., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds.). (1988). Relationships within families: Mutual influences. Oxford: Clarendon. Holland, A. S., and McElwain, N. L. (2013). Maternal and paternal perceptions of coparenting as a link between marital quality and the parent-toddler relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 117–126. Jia, R., and Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Relations between coparenting and father involvement in families with preschool aged children. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 106–118. Jones, D. J., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Brody, G., and Armistead, L. P. (2003). Coparent conflict in single motherheaded African American Families: Do parenting skills serve as a mediator or moderator of child psychosocial adjustment? Behavior Therapy, 34(2), 259–272. Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., Farris, A. M., Smith, D. A., Richters, J. E., and Waters, E. (1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreements about child-rearing, and behavior problems in boys—Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development, 2, 1424–1433. Kamp Dush, C. M., Kotila, L. E., and Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Predictors of supportive coparenting after relationship dissolution among at-risk parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 356–365. Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A., and Dekovic, M. (2008). Parenting, coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 30–40. Katz, L. F., and Low, S. M. (2004). Marital violence, co-parenting, and family-level processes in relation to children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 372–382. Kennedy, S., and Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663–1692. Kerig, P. K. (2019). Parenting and family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 3–35). New York: Routledge. Kindlon, D., and Thompson, M. (2000). Raising cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York: Ballantine. Kolak, A. M., and Vernon-Feagans, L. (2008). Family—level coparenting processes and child gender as moderators of family stress and toddler adjustment. Infant Child Development, 17(6), 617–638. Kolak, A. M., and Volling, B. L. (2013). Coparenting moderates the association between firstborn children’s temperament and problem behavior across the transition to siblinghood. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 355–364. Kwon, K. A., and Elicker, J. G. (2012). The role of mothers’ and fathers’ parental control and coparenting in toddlers’ compliance. Early Education and Development, 23, 748–765. Laxman, D. J., Jessee, A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Rossmiller-Giesing, W., Brown, G. L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. (2013). Stability and antecedents of coparenting quality: The role of parent personality and child temperament. Infant Behavior and Development, 36(2), 210–222. Le, Y., McDaniel, B. T., Leavitt, C. E., and Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8), 918–926.

162

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems Leary, A., and Katz, L. F. (2004). Coparenting, family-level processes, and peer outcomes: The moderating role of vagal tone. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 593–608. Leathers, S. J. (2006). Placement disruption and negative placement outcomes among adolescents in long-term foster care: The role of behavior problems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(3), 307–324. Lewin, A., Mitchell, S. J., Beers, L. S., Feinberg, M. E., and Minkovitz, C. S. (2012). Coparenting in teen mothers and their children’s fathers: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study-birth cohort. Academic Pediatrics, 12(6), 539–545. Leupnitz, D. (1988). The family interpreted. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lewis, J. M. (1989). The birth of the family. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel. Linares, L. O., Li, M., Shrout, P. E., Ramirez-Gaite, M., Hope, S., Albert, A., Castellanos, F. X. (2010). The course of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms after foster placement. Pediatrics, 125, 489–498. Linares, L. O., Montalto, D., Li, M., and Oza, V. S. (2006). A promising parenting intervention in foster care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 32–41. Lindsey, E. W., Caldera, Y., and Colwell, M. (2005). Correlates of coparenting during infancy. Family Relations, 54, 346–359. Mangelsdorf, S. C., Laxman, D. J., and Jessee, A. (2011). Coparenting in two-parent nuclear families. In J. P. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 39–59). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Marczak, M. S., Becher, E. H., Hardman, A. M., Galos, D. L., and Ruhland, E. (2015). Strengthening the role of unmarried fathers: Findings from the Co-Parent Court project. Family Process, 54(4), 630–638. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/famp.12134 Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., and John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21. Martinson, K., and Nightingale, D. (2008). Ten key findings from responsible fatherhood initiatives. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. McConnell, M. C., and Kerig, P. K. (2002). Assessing coparenting in families of school-age children: Validation of the Coparenting and Family Rating System. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34(1), 44–58. McDaniel, B. T., and Teti, D. M. (2012). Coparenting quality during the first three months after birth: The role of infant sleep quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 886–895. McGoldrick, M., Anderson, C. M., and Walsh, F. (Eds.). (1989). Women in families: A framework for family therapy. New York: W. W. Norton. McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996. McHale, J. P. (2007a). Charting the bumpy road of coparenthood: Understanding the challenges of family life. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press. McHale, J. P. (2007b). When infants grow up in multiperson relationship systems. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 1–23. McHale, J. P. (2009). Shared child-rearing in nuclear, fragile, and kinship family systems: Evolution, dilemmas, and promise of a coparenting framework. In M. Schulz, M. Pruett, P. Kerig, and R. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development: Lessons from research and intervention (pp. 77–94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P. (2011). Assessing coparenting. In McHale, J. P. and Lindahl, K. M. (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P. (2015). Coparenting in Europe, 2015: Celebrations of advances and cautions about misdirection. Family Science, 6(1), 229–239.McHale, J. (2016, October). Coparenting between biological parents and both kin and non-kin caregivers. Paper presented at the ZERO TO THREE Safe Babies Court Teams’10th Annual Cross Sites Meeting: Making Every Connection Matter. Orlando, FL. McHale, J. P., and Coates, E. E. (2014). Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months postpartum. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(3), 435–451. McHaIe, J. P., and Cowan, P. A. (1996). Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development. In New Direction for Child Development (Eds.), Studies of two parent families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McHale J., Gaskin-Butler V., McKay K., and Gallardo G. (2013). Figuring it out for the child initiative: Fostering coparenting in unmarried expectant African American parents. Zero to Three, 33(6), 17–22. McHale, J. P., and Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. P. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 15–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., Johnson, D., and Sinclair, R. (1999). Family dynamics, preschoolers’ family representations, and preschool peer relationships. Early Education and Development, 10, 373–401.

163

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin McHale, J. P., Khazan, I., Erera, P., Rotman, T., DeCourcey, W., and McConnell, M. (2002). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 75–107). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., and Lauretti, A. (1996). New directions in the study of family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 74, 5–26. McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., and Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 221–234. McHale, J., Lauretti, A., Talbot, J., and Pouquette, C. (2002). Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of coparenting and family group process. In J. P. McHale and W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 127–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McHale, J. P., and Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J. P., and Negrini, L. S. (2018). How the assumption of a coparenting frame will transform social work practice with men and fathers, social work research, Volume 42(1), 9–21, https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svx024 McHale, J. P., and Phares, V. (2015). From dyads to family systems: A bold new direction for infant mental health practice. Zero to Three, 35(5), 2–10. McHale, J. P., and Rasmussen, J. (1998). Coparental and family group-level dynamics during infancy: Early family precursors of child and family functioning during preschool. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 39–58. McHale, J. P., and Rotman, T. (2007). Is seeing believing? Expectant parents’ outlooks on coparenting and later coparenting solidarity. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 63–81. McHale, J. P., Salman, S., and Coovert, M. (2015). Improvements in unmarried African American parents’ rapport, communication, and problem-solving following a prenatal coparenting intervention. Family Process, 54(4), 61–629. McHale, J. P., Salman, S., Strozier, A., and Cecil, D. K. (2013). Triadic Interactions in mother-daughter coparenting systems following maternal release from jail. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3), 57–74. McHale, J. P., and Sullivan, M. (2008). Family systems. In M. Hersen and A. Gross (Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology: Vol. 2, Children and adolescents (pp. 192–226). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. McHale, J. P., Waller, M. R., and Pearson, J. (2012). Coparenting interventions for fragile families: What do we know and where do we need to go next? Family Process, 51(3), 284–306. McLanahan, S. (2009). Fragile families and the reproduction of poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 111–131. McWey, L. M., and Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations, 53(3), 293–300. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129720 Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J., and Minuchin, S. (2007). Working with families of the poor (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Moore, M. R. (2008). Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 335–356. Morrill, M. I., Hines, A. A., Mahmood, S., and Cordova, J. V. (2010). Pathways between marriage and parenting for wives and husbands: The role of coparenting. Family Process, 49(1), 59–73. Morrison, J., Mishna, F., Cook, C., and Aitken, G. (2011). Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are crown wards. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1476–1482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.011 Nesmith, A. (2013). Parent–child visits in foster care: Reaching shared goals and expectations to better prepare children and parents for visits. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(3), 237–255. Nesmith, A., Patton, R., Christophersen, K., and Smart, C. (2017). Promoting quality parent–child visits: The power of the parent–foster parent relationship. Child and Family Social Work, 22(1), 246–255. Orel, N. A., and Fruhauf, C. A. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender grandparents. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications (pp. 177–192). New York: Springer. Oyserman, D., and Benbenishty, R. (1992). Keeping in touch: Ecological factors related to foster care visitation. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9(6), 541–554. Parke, R. D., and Cookston, J. T. (2019). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 64–126). New York: Routledge. Patterson, C. J., and Farr, R. H. (2011). Coparenting among lesbian and gay couples. In James J. P. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 127–146). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

164

Coparenting in Diverse Family Systems Pelka, S. (2009). Sharing motherhood: Maternal jealousy among lesbian co-mothers. Journal of homosexuality, 56(2), 195–217. Perkins, D. F., and Ansay, S. J. (1998). The effectiveness of a visitation program in fostering visits with noncustodial parents. Family Relations, 47(3), 253–258. Piontak, J. R. (2016). Household composition and maternal depression: Examining the role of multigenerational households. Journal of Family Issues, 37(7), 947–969. Pittman, L. D., and Boswell, M. K. (2008). Low-income multigenerational households variation in family functioning by mothers’ age and race/ethnicity. Journal of Family Issues, 29(7), 851–881. Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58–93). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pruett, M. K., Arthur, L. A., and Ebling, R. (2006). The hand that rocks the cradle: Maternal gatekeeping after divorce. Pace Law Review, 27(4), 709–739. Pruett, M. K., and Donsky, T. (2011). Coparenting after divorce: Paving pathways for parental cooperation, conflict resolution, and redefined family roles. In J. P. McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 231–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pruett, M. K., Insabella, G. M., and Gustafson, K. (2005). The collaborative divorce project: A court-based intervention for separating parents with young children. Family Court Review [Special Issue on Prevention: Research, Policy, and Evidence-Based Practice], 43(1), 38–51. Raffaele Mendez, L. M., Loker, T., Fefer, S., Wolgemuth, J., and Mann, A. (2015). “Either come together or fall apart”: Coparenting young children with challenging behaviors. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 4(2), 74–91. Reid, M., and Golub, A. (2015). Vetting and letting: Cohabiting stepfamily formation processes in low-income black families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(5), 1234–1249. Rich, A. (1976). Of woman born: Motherhood as institution and experience. New York: Bantam. Riina, E. M., and McHale, S. M. (2014). Bidirectional influences between dimensions of coparenting and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 257–269. Roy, K., and Burton, L. (2007). Mothering through recruitment: Kinscription of nonresidential fathers and father figures in low-income families. Family Relations, 56(1), 24–39. Roy, K. M., Buckmiller, N., and McDowell, A. (2008). Together but not “Together”: Trajectories of relationship suspension for low-income unmarried parents. Family Relations, 57(2), 198–210. Russell, A., and Saebel, J. (1997). Mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and father-daughter: Are they distinct relationships?. Developmental Review, 17(2), 111–147. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Altenburger, L. E. (2019). Parental gatekeeping. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 167–198). New York, NY: Routledge. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Frosch, C. A., and McHale, J. L. (2004). Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 194–207. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2012). Parent characteristics and early coparenting behavior at the transition to parenthood. Social Development, 22(2), 363–383. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., and Sokolowski, M. S. (2007). Goodness-of-fit in family context: Infant temperament, marital quality, and early coparenting behavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 82–96. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Weldon, A. H., Claire Cook, J., Davis, E. F., and Buckley, C. K. (2009). Coparenting behavior moderates longitudinal relations between effortful control and preschool children’s externalizing behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(6), 698–706. Schulz, M. S., Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (2006). Promoting healthy beginnings: A randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention to preserve marital quality during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 20–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.1.20 Scrimgeour, M. B., Blandon, A. Y., Stifter, C. A., and Buss, K. A. (2013). Cooperative coparenting moderates the association between parenting practices and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 506–511. Shelley-Sireci, L. M., and Ciano-Boyce, C. (2002). Becoming adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 6(1), 33–43. Sheftall, A. H., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Futris, T. G. (2010). Adolescent mothers’ perceptions of the coparenting relationship with their child’s father: A function of attachment security and trust. Journal of Family Issues, 31(7), 884–905. Shelley-Sireci, L. M., and Ciano-Boyce, C. (2002). Becoming lesbian adoptive parents: An exploratory study of lesbian adoptive, lesbian birth, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 6(1), 33–43. Singh, K. D. (2004). Feminism and postfeminism: The context of modern Indian women poets writing in english. Sarup & Sons.

165

James P. McHale and Yana Segal Sirotkin Smetana, M., Jennings, S., Herbrand, C., and Golombok, S. (2014). Family relationships in gay father families with young children in Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. In T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards (Eds.), Relatedness in assisted reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Song, J. H., and Volling, B. L. (2015). Coparenting and children’s temperament predict firstborns’ cooperation in the care of an infant sibling. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 130–135. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., and McCollum, E. E. (2003). Effectiveness of couples treatment for spouse abuse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29(3), 407–426. Stover, C. S. (2015). Fathers for change for substance use and intimate partner violence: Initial community pilot. Family Process, 54(4), 600–609. Stright, A. D., and Bales, S. S. (2003). Coparenting quality: Contributions of child and parent characteristics. Family Relations, 52, 232–240. Stright, A. D., and Neitzel, K. (2003). Beyond parenting: Coparenting and children’s classroom adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(1), 31–40. Stroud, C. B., Meyers, K. M., Wilson, S., and Durbin, C. E. (2015). Marital quality spillover and young children’s adjustment: Evidence for dyadic and triadic parenting as mechanisms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(5), 800–813. Szabo, N., Dubas, J. S., and van Aken, M. A. G. (2012). And baby makes four: The stability of coparenting and the effects of child temperament after the arrival of a second child. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 554–564. Talbot, J. A., and McHale, J. P. (2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 191–205. Talbot, J. A., Baker, J. K., and McHale, J. P. (2009). Sharing the love: Prebirth adult attachment status and coparenting adjustment during early infancy. Parenting Science Practice, 9(1), 56–77. Teubert, D., and Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A metaanalysis. Parenting, 10(4), 286–307. Thorpe, R. M., Klease, C. J., and Westerhuis, D. (2005) Challenging practice in foster care. Foster carers’ reflections on working with a child’s natural family: Implications for education, training and support. In: Papers from the Third Annual Conference on International Research Perspectives on Child and Family Welfare 2005. Challenging Practices: CROCCS 2005 Conference, 5–7 August 2005, Mackay, QLD, Australia (pp. 1–22). Touroni, E., and Coyle, A. (2002). Decision-making in planned lesbian parenting: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 194–209. Umemura, T., Christopher, C., Mann, T., Jacobvitz, D., and Hazen, N. (2015). Coparenting problems with toddlers predict children’s symptoms of psychological problems at age 7. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(6), 981–996. Van Egeren, L. A. (2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(3), 278–295. Van Egeren, L. A. (2004). The development of coparenting relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25(5), 453–477. Visher, E. B., and Visher, J. S. (1990). Dynamics of successful stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 14(1), 3–12. Waller, M. R. (2002). My baby’s father: Unmarried parents and paternal responsibility. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Waller, M. R. (2012). Cooperation, conflict, or disengagement? Coparenting styles and father involvement in fragile families. Family Process, 51, 325–342. Walters, M., Carter, E., Papp, P., and Silverstein, O. (1988). The invisible web: Gender patterns in family relationships. New York, NY: Guilford. Wells, G. (2011). Making room for daddies: Male couples creating families through adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7(1–2), 155–181.

166

5 PARENTAL GATEKEEPING Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

Introduction From the powerful patriarch and moral teacher roles that defined the earliest generation of fathers residing in the United States to the breadwinning and economic support functions that emerged during industrialization, fathers’ involvement in family life has undergone numerous transformations (Lamb, 2010). Today’s fathers spend more time with their children than fathers of previous generations and fulfill multiple, diverse roles in families (Sayer, Bianchi, and Robinson, 2004). When fathers are regularly engaged in childrearing and show high-quality parenting behaviors, including warmth, sensitivity, and emotional engagement, children are better adjusted, exhibiting reduced behavioral problems, enhanced cognitive development, and better social and relational functioning (Carlson, 2006; Coley and Medeiros, 2007; Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, and Bremberg, 2008). Fathers’ increased involvement in childrearing, and the corresponding benefits of sustained, highquality involvement for children’s adjustment, has brought attention to contextual factors that might enhance or hinder the quality and quantity of fathers’ parenting behaviors—especially in the early months following childbirth when patterns of parenting are established. Theoretical models of parenting have highlighted the role of relationships with other family members in fathers’ parenting (Bornstein, 2016; Cummings, Merrilees, and George, 2010). For example, family systems theory describes the family as an interdependent network of individual family members and relationships among family members—or subsystems—that collectively form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts (Minuchin, 1985). As the “executive subsystem” of the family (Cox and Paley, 1997; Kerig, 2019), the coparenting relationship captures the extent to which parents take a team-oriented, collaborative approach in rearing their child (Feinberg, 2003). The quality of interactions between coparenting partners can spill over and affect the quality of other relationships within the family system and the functioning of individual family members, especially children. In particular, when parents support the parenting strategies of their partner and exhibit low levels of competition and undermining behaviors, children show fewer externalizing behaviors and better social and emotional adjustment (Teubert and Pinquart, 2010). Furthermore, research has generally supported the notion that fathers’ parenting is more susceptible to environmental factors than is mothers’ parenting (Marsiglio, Roy, and Fox, 2005). This theory of fathers’ increased susceptibility, termed the fathering vulnerability hypothesis (Cummings et al., 2010), has been supported in a number of studies showing a stronger association between the quality of family interactions (i.e., coparenting and romantic relationship quality) and fathers’ parenting behavior compared with mothers’

167

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

parenting behavior (Brown, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, and Neff, 2010; Davies, Sturge-Apple, Woitach, and Cummings, 2009). An aspect of the coparenting relationship that might be particularly consequential for parenting behavior is parental gatekeeping, or beliefs and behaviors held and directed by one parent that regulate the other parent’s relationship with the child. Although all coparenting partners are theoretically able to engage in gatekeeping behaviors, current understanding of gatekeeping is centered primarily on maternal gatekeeping, or the ways in which mothers encourage (i.e., gateopen), discourage (i.e., gateclose), or control fathers’ parenting, in families in which the child’s key parental figures are a mother and a father. In its earliest form, research on maternal gatekeeping focused on the ways in which mothers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers in childrearing were associated with fathers’ parenting (De Luccie, 1995). Fathers were more likely to engage in higher quality parenting behaviors when mothers held beliefs that fathers were important for child development (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Melby, 1990). Maternal gatekeeping research and theory have since evolved to incorporate observations and reports of maternal gatekeeping behavior (Cannon, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown, and Sokolowski, 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan, Altenburger, Lee, Bower, and Kamp Dush, 2015; SchoppeSullivan, Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, and Sokolowski, 2008). In their seminal work, Allen and Hawkins (1999) introduced the first maternal gatekeeping conceptual model, which included multiple gatekeeping subdimensions focused largely on maternal gatekeeping of housework. Today, several conceptualizations of maternal gatekeeping have been advanced in the literature to provide a framework for better understanding the gatekeeping dynamic that might emerge between parents regarding parenting roles and responsibilities in the early months following childbirth (Puhlman and Pasley, 2013). However, these conceptual models of gatekeeping are limited in their exclusive focus on behaviors that mothers direct toward fathers as an attempt to regulate father involvement in childrearing. The purpose of this chapter is to describe theoretical rationale for the prior empirical focus on maternal (as opposed to paternal) gatekeeping, review previous maternal gatekeeping research, synthesize gatekeeping theory in a new model of maternal gatekeeping that can also apply to gatekeeping by other coparents, and identify future directions for gatekeeping research.

The Focus on Maternal Gatekeeping Even though parental gatekeeping can be engaged in by fathers as well as by mothers, the literature has focused almost entirely on maternal gatekeeping. There are a number of important practical reasons why this has been the case. First, in many societies around the world, despite movement toward more egalitarian views of men’s and women’s roles, today’s youth are not yet fully supportive of equality between men and women (Dotti Sani and Quaranta, 2016). In the United States, the egalitarian shift in attitudes about gender in families has appeared to stall or even reverse since the 1990s. In an analysis of young people’s attitudes about whether the male breadwinner-female homemaker family is the best household arrangement, Pepin and Cotter (2018) showed that in the mid-1990s, nearly 60% of young people disagreed with the notion that the male breadwinnerfemale homemaker arrangement is best, but by 2014 the level of disagreement had fallen to 42%. These results suggest that views of mothers as primary, essential parents and fathers as secondary caregivers are persistent. These attitudes reflect (and likely affect) persistent gender differences in parental involvement. U.S. fathers nearly tripled their childcare time from 2.5 hours per week in 1965 to 7 hours per week in 2011; however, fathers continue to spend significantly less time with their children than do mothers (Bianchi, Robinson, and Milkie, 2006; England, 2010; Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004). The largest differences in mothers’ and fathers’ parenting time are in routine childcare (Craig and Mullan, 2011; Kotila, Schoppe-Sullivan, and Kamp Dush, 2013), especially when children are young 168

Parental Gatekeeping

(Craig, 2006; Drago, 2009). Indeed, even as sharing housework between married men and women has approached equality prior to parenthood (Bianchi, Sayer, Milkie, and Robinson, 2012), becoming parents is strongly associated with a shift toward an unequal distribution of labor, as mothers become more heavily involved in childcare than fathers. New mothers allocate twice as much of their available time to routine childcare activities than fathers (Yavorsky, Kamp Dush, and Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015). Although these differences in parental involvement are most pronounced in the domain of routine childcare, they are present in other domains as well, including positive engagement (Lang et al., 2014), didactic play (Schoppe-Sullivan, Kotila, Jia, Lang, and Bower, 2013), and responsibility for the organizational and managerial aspects of parenting (McBride and Mills, 1993). These views of mothers and fathers and discrepancies in parental involvement are reflected in the legal system in the United States and many other countries. Since the mid-to-late nineteenth century, in the U.S. legal system, postdivorce custody was awarded to one parent who had both decision-making authority for the child as well as physical custody (Pruett and DiFonzo, 2014). In accordance with the “tender years” doctrine, postdivorce custody of children was typically awarded to mothers. As gender roles changed during the second half of the twentieth century, the influence of the tender years doctrine weakened, the best interests of the child in individual cases became a primary consideration, and support for joint decision-making, joint custody, and shared parenting increased. Shared parenting, however, remains controversial in family law (Pruett and DiFonzo, 2014). Moreover, primary caregivers—most typically, children’s mothers—tend to be given priority in custody arrangements. Thus, mothers are still most commonly the resident parent in the United States and around the world (DiFonzo and Herbie, 2015), and mothers are afforded a great deal of power in determining how much the father can remain involved with the child. It continues to be the case that fathers are more likely to withdraw from children or spend less time with them after a divorce or dissolution (Amato and Dorius, 2010). There are also two sets of theoretical perspectives that support the focus on gatekeeping by mothers, in particular, and its potential to influence father involvement in childrearing: “Gender perspectives” and “evolutionary perspectives.”

Gender Perspectives The set of theoretical perspectives that has been most consistently used as the foundation for studying maternal gatekeeping is gender perspectives. This set of perspectives emphasizes the social construction of gender; in particular, the significance of prescribed gender roles for men and women, especially with respect to parenting, and the extent to which parents’ identities are tied closely with societal expectations regarding gender. Gender perspectives have been most emphasized in studies of the division of household and childcare labor conducted by sociologists, gender studies scholars, and family scientists (Kan, Sullivan, and Gershuny, 2011; Kroska, 2004). Being and becoming a parent is often conceived of as adopting a gendered role (e.g., mother role, father role). Parsons and Bales (1955) outlined the complementary gendered roles of men and women in parenting, suggesting that men typically adopt an instrumental role focused on financial providing, protection, and discipline, whereas women adopt an expressive role focused on caregiving and companionship. Finley and Schwartz (2006) demonstrated that children’s perceptions of fathers as serving more instrumental than expressive functions remain dominant. However, there are clearly wide individual differences between families in the extent to which mothers and fathers endorse and adopt gendered parent roles. A gender ideology perspective suggests that individuals’ attitudes about gender should explain these differences (Kroska, 2004). Yet the evidence linking parents’ gender ideologies to the division of domestic labor and maternal gatekeeping is not especially consistent or compelling (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson, 2000; Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Sanchez and Thomson, 1997; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). 169

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

Kroska (2000) proposed that one reason stronger links are not found between gender ideology and the division of domestic labor is that the way attitudes about gender are typically measured does not assess the extent to which these attitudes are personalized or internalized. Kroska’s (2000) notion of gender-ideological identity introduced a way of conceptualizing and measuring gender ideology as it is applied to the self. Because gender-ideological identity focuses on the application of gender ideology to the self, and not just in the abstract, it should be a better predictor of gendered behavior in the home. Indeed, Kroska (2004) showed that women’s gender-ideological identity predicted the share of feminine household tasks (e.g., cleaning, washing clothes) that they engaged in relative to their husbands. Although Kroska did not apply gender-ideological identity directly to the phenomenon of maternal gatekeeping, the implications for gatekeeping are obvious—that the extent to which an individual applies socially constructed expectations for women and men to the self will affect individuals’ gendered behavior in the realm of parenting. Gender perspectives on gatekeeping also draw from the related but more dynamic notion of “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman, 1987). According to this notion, gender is not a static characteristic of the individual, but rather an emergent property of an individual’s social behaviors and interactions with other people. “Doing gender” does not require or imply purposeful or dramatic displays of one’s femininity or masculinity; rather, gender is something that people recreate over and over again through seemingly routine and mundane actions. As such, West and Zimmerman described gender as a “routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment” (1987, p. 126). According to this perspective, “doing gender” cannot be avoided, as women and men are accountable to society and their competence as members of society is dependent upon the production and reproduction of gender. For instance, mothers are accountable as women to society, and part of being feminine is being a nurturing mother. Thus, when a mother is the one who packs her child’s lunch every day and leaves work early to attend school events, she is doing gender appropriately. Similarly, fathers are accountable as men to society, and part of being masculine is being a provider for your family. Thus, a father who “doesn’t do diapers” and who often works late and misses dinner with the family is also doing gender appropriately. The focus of “doing gender” on routine, day-to-day interactions fits well with the research that has placed greater emphasis on maternal gatekeeping behavior in the context of family processes than on gatekeeping attitudes (Cannon et al., 2008). Evidence consistent with the gender perspectives comes primarily from the sociological literature on the division of household labor within families. Often, even after other differences between men and women are taken into account (e.g., economic contributions to the family and economic dependency, time availability), gender remains the most reliable determinant of the time women and men contribute to family labor (Craig and Mullan, 2011; Kroska, 2004). In comparing the division of labor of heterosexual couples in Sweden and the United States, Evertsson and Nermo (2004) found that gender was a significant factor in the division of labor for couples in both countries, but particularly in the United States. Specifically, U.S. couples in which the husband was economically dependent on the wife appeared to engage in a sort of compensatory behavior such that wives in these couples actually did more housework than couples in which breadwinning was more equally shared. Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre, and Matheson (2003), using Australian time use data, reported that women’s greater earnings decreased their weekly housework hours, but only up to the point at which husbands and wives contributed equally to family income. Beyond that point, as women’s earnings increased relative to those of their husbands, women’s weekly housework hours actually increased. Such intriguing reversals are known as “gender deviance neutralization” (Greenstein, 2000). These types of effects, although small, controversial, and context dependent, are interpreted as support for gender perspectives on the division of domestic work (Sullivan, 2011). Until recently, research on the role of gender in domestic labor had typically treated domestic work as a unitary phenomenon and paid little attention to distinguishing between housework and childcare (Sullivan, 2013). However, childcare differs from housework in several key ways. Whereas 170

Parental Gatekeeping

housework can be left undone—at least for a period of time—young children must be minded 24/7 (Bianchi et al., 2012). Childcare is enjoyable and rewarding; parents’ subjective perceptions of time spent with children are much more positive than perceptions of time spent doing routine housework (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, and Stone, 2004). Thus, women may be less likely to bargain out of childcare than out of housework (Raley, Bianchi, and Wang, 2012). Chesley and Flood (2017) compared breadwinner and stay-at-home mothers and fathers on time spent in childcare and found that mothers did more childcare when compared with their analogous breadwinner or stayat-home father counterparts. Thus, even as discrepancies between men’s and women’s contributions to housework have waned over time (Bianchi et al., 2012), discrepancies between men’s and women’s contributions to childcare have persisted (Kan et al., 2011). Indeed, parenthood involves heightened enactment of gendered behavior by men and women, as demonstrated by the wealth of empirical work indicating that the division of household labor becomes more traditional after the birth of a child, particularly with respect to the additional burden of childcare (Baxter, Hewitt, and Haynes, 2008; Yavorsky et al., 2015). Moreover, the transition to parenthood also appears to invoke a shift toward more traditional gender-role attitudes (Endendijk, Derks, and Mesman, 2018; Katz-Wise, Priess, and Hyde, 2010). A culture of “intensive mothering” (Hays, 1996), which dictates that mothering must be time-, resource-, and emotion-intensive, particularly among higher socioeconomic status mothers in the United States (Lareau, 2003), may contribute to the maintenance of inequalities in involvement in childcare.

Evolutionary Perspectives Evolutionary theory has been all but ignored as a foundation for the study of maternal gatekeeping. However, its tenets also provide an important, albeit provocative, backdrop for understanding this phenomenon. Evolutionary psychologists explain current human behavior in terms of psychological mechanisms that evolved to maximize survival and reproductive success (Buss, 1995a). These mechanisms are purported to have emerged during the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA)—the Pleistocene era—when human beings lived in hunter-gatherer societies. According to the evolutionary psychology perspective, psychological gender differences, including those between mothers and fathers with respect to parenting children, emerged because of different environmental pressures on men and women that led them to adopt different strategies for survival and reproduction. A major influence on the thinking of evolutionary psychologists with respect to gender differences is the theory of sexual selection (Trivers, 1972). According to this theory, male reproductive behavior prioritizes short-term mating and focuses on competition for mates, whereas females’ behavior prioritizes long-term mating and hinges on careful mate choice. These evolved preferences are rooted in biological differences between men and women: Women can produce fewer children than men in a lifetime, and the bearing and rearing of children necessitate significant physical and psychological investment for women. Reproduction requires much less investment on the part of men. Thus, “choosiness” in women was selected for because women who chose mates who could provide resources for the family (e.g., food, money, protection, power) were more likely to experience reproductive success (Buss, 1995b). More broadly construed, the evolutionary perspective suggests that mothers evolved psychological mechanisms focused on protecting their significant investment in children. When applied to maternal gatekeeping, the evolutionary perspective suggests that beyond picking long-term mates with money, ambition, and connections, women may have a strong interest in directing the father’s parental investment and controlling his involvement with children. In today’s world, parental investment is understood as going beyond material resources to include social capital and the cognitive and socioemotional benefits of high-quality parent-child relationships. Contemporary perspectives on the evolution of fathering (Gray and Crittenden, 2014) recognize greater diversity in terms of 171

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

paternal provisioning, by positing that various aspects of paternal care evolved at different times, and that the patterns of human fathers’ investments in children vary significantly due to contextual factors (Hrdy, 2008). However, human paternal care must be understood in the context of the triad: Father, mother, and offspring (Gray and Crittenden, 2014). Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, mothers’ roles in paternal involvement are critical. An evolutionary perspective on maternal gatekeeping suggests that mothers may evaluate the father’s motivation and fitness for parenting, and encourage his involvement if he is judged to be a committed and skilled father, but discourage his involvement if he is judged unmotivated, has undesirable characteristics, or engages in risky behaviors. There is some empirical evidence to support this notion. Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2015) found that mothers were more likely to engage in gateclosing behavior toward fathers when fathers had lower parenting self-efficacy. Claessens (2007) reported that a common reason mothers gave for closing the gate to nonresidential fathers’ involvement was that fathers were engaged in illegal or dangerous activities involving drugs or violence. In the context of intimate partner violence, mothers who refrain from encouraging fathers’ involvement with children may protect children from fathers’ harsh-intrusive parenting (Zvara, Mills-Koonce, and Cox, 2016). In keeping with an evolved preference for long-term mating, mothers may seek early signs from fathers of their commitment to the couple relationship and to the child and engage in gateclosing or opening accordingly. Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2015) reported that expectant mothers who perceived their romantic relationships with children’s fathers as less stable were more likely to engage in gateclosing behavior after the child’s birth. Moreover, mothers who are no longer romantically involved with their children’s fathers may make fathers’ access to children contingent on the provision of financial or material resources (Edin and Lein, 1997; Marsiglio and Cohan, 2000), using provision as an indicator of the father’s motivation and fitness to parent. The criticisms of the evolutionary psychology perspective are many. Even if evolved psychological mechanisms exist, they may influence—but do not determine—behavior (Eagly and Wood, 1999). However, evolutionary psychology has given much less weight to the contextual factors that shape behavior than to presumed inherited preferences. Regarding maternal gatekeeping, gender perspectives and evolutionary perspectives need not be at odds with each other, and many pieces of empirical evidence can support both views. For instance, evidence in support of the critical role of mothers in father-child relationships—that is, that fathers are more involved in childrearing when mothers endorse the importance of fathers’ roles in children’s lives (Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Rane and McBride, 2000)—is consistent with both the gender and evolutionary perspectives. Combined, these perspectives converge to explain why the study of gatekeeping has focused predominantly on mothers.

Maternal Gatekeeping: Literature Review Maternal gatekeeping—as it was originally introduced in the research literature—focused exclusively on the role of mothers’ attitudes about gendered family roles as a precursor to fathers’ involvement in domestic work in general, including housework (Allen and Hawkins, 1999). Since its introduction, however, the construct of maternal gatekeeping has evolved to include a variety of beliefs and behaviors mothers might direct toward fathers in an effort to regulate fathers’ parenting. Today, several multidimensional models of maternal gatekeeping exist in the literature (Adamsons, 2010; Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Austin, Pruett, Kirkpatrick, Flens, and Gould, 2013; Fagan and Cherson, 2017; Puhlman and Pasley, 2013; Saini, Drozd, and Olesen, 2017). Researchers have distinguished maternal gatekeeping attitudes (Allen and Hawkins, 1999) from maternal gatekeeping behaviors (Fagan and Barnett, 2003). Further distinctions have been drawn between discouraging, gateclosing attitudes or behaviors and encouraging, gateopening attitudes or behaviors (Cannon et al., 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008; Trinder, 2008) as well as between adaptive gatekeeping and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors (Saini et al., 2017). To reflect the current state of the literature on maternal gatekeeping, we trace maternal 172

Parental Gatekeeping

gatekeeping research from its historical underpinnings to foundational theory and research to more recent advancements and applications. It is important to note that although a parental gatekeeping dynamic can occur in any coparenting relationship, the majority of previous research has centered on maternal gatekeeping in families headed by different-sex couples in which fathers reside with mothers.

Historical Underpinnings Scholars of child development and family science have long been interested in how different parenting practices support or hinder child adjustment (Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, and Deković, 2008; Maccoby and Martin, 1983; Rollins and Thomas, 1979). With the advancement of theoretical conceptualizations highlighting the interdependence of family relationships (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994; Cox and Paley, 1997), however, this focus expanded to also include an examination of factors that might be linked to parenting quality and, in turn, child adjustment. This approach has recognized that parents have direct influences on their children, and they have indirect influences through their relationships with other adults present in children’s microsystems (i.e., other coparenting partners; Feinberg, 2003). As theoretical models of parenting and child adjustment were progressing to account for direct and indirect influences, demographic trends in the early 1990s indicated that— even as fathers’ involvement in childrearing was on the rise—mothers still reported higher levels of involvement than fathers (Sayer et al., 2004). In an effort to explain these differences in parenting, researchers speculated that mothers might serve as “gatekeepers” to fathers’ involvement in childrearing by overtly or covertly limiting fathers’ interactions with their children (De Luccie, 1995; Pleck, 1983). Citing evidence that only 42% of working mothers want more help with childcare from their husbands, scholars hypothesized that mothers might actively limit fathers’ interactions with children because they believe men are not competent in performing child-related tasks (Pleck, 1983). Early work seeking to validate this claim reported associations between mothers’ beliefs that fathers’ parenting had a significant impact on child development and fathers’ observed constructive parenting, defined as warmth, authoritative parenting, child monitoring, and communication (Simons et al., 1990). This association held even when fathers’ own beliefs about the importance of their roles were taken into account. Similar work found mothers’ satisfaction with fathers’ involvement, judgments about fathers’ motivations to participate in childcare activities, and evaluations of fathers’ competence predicted fathers’ quantity of involvement in childrearing (Beitel and Parke, 1998; De Luccie, 1995). Mothers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers also played a mediating role between variables such as social support, marital satisfaction, and age of the child and the amount of father involvement (De Luccie, 1995). Although these studies provided a first step toward better understanding the roles of mothers in father involvement, they were limited in their focus on maternal gatekeeping beliefs rather than actual gatekeeping behaviors directed toward fathers. Furthermore, data on maternal beliefs and measures of fathers’ parenting were collected at the same time point. Thus, it is equally possible that mothers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers might be shaped by fathers’ concurrent level of involvement in childrearing. In other words, if fathers are relatively uninvolved, mothers might come to believe they have limited importance for child development. Finally, in some cases (i.e., Beitel and Parke, 1998; De Luccie, 1995), mothers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers and reports of father involvement in childrearing were both reported by mothers, and thus subject to common reporter bias.

Maternal Gatekeeping Foundations Maternal Gatekeeping to Limit Father Involvement Unsatisfied with the predominant theoretical explanations for the unequal distribution of childcare and family labor, and guided by the notion that gender is socially constructed, Allen and Hawkins 173

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

(1999) were the first to develop a conceptual model and corresponding survey measure of maternal gatekeeping to explore how mothers might limit fathers’ involvement in domestic work. Originally defined as “a collection of beliefs and behaviors that ultimately inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women in family work by limiting men’s opportunities for learning and growing through caring for home and children” (Allen and Hawkins, 1999, p. 200), maternal gatekeeping emerged as a potential explanation for men’s reduced levels of involvement in domestic labor and also as a factor that might, ultimately, hinder a mutually satisfactory arrangement for sharing family responsibilities and childcare duties. They proposed three dimensions of maternal gatekeeping, all predicated on the internalization of cultural expectations for mothering and fathering: Standards and responsibilities (mother’s resistance to relinquishing ultimate responsibility for the successful conduct of housework and childcare), maternal identity confirmation (desire for external validation of the mothering role), and differentiated family roles (gendered attitudes regarding the family roles of men and women). In their empirical assessment of maternal gatekeeping, Allen and Hawkins (1999) identified 21% of mothers who scored high on the standards and responsibilities, maternal identity confirmation, and differentiated family roles dimensions as “gatekeepers,” and 37% of mothers who scored low on these three dimensions as “collaborators.” Gatekeepers reported doing significantly more family work (about 5 hours more) than other participating mothers scoring lower on the Allen and Hawkins (1999) dimensions. Subsequent research indicated an association between mothers who held stronger maternal gatekeeping attitudes—as assessed using Allen and Hawkins’ (1999) measure—and lower father involvement in childcare following the transition to parenthood in a sample of dualearner, working-class families (Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins, 2010). This research provided a glimpse into the different aspects of maternal gatekeeping and the role of maternal gatekeeping attitudes in fathers’ involvement. However, it is important to note that Allen and Hawkins’s (1999) conceptual model focused mainly on maternal gatekeeping attitudes in the domains of housework and childcare, rather than maternal gatekeeping behaviors in other domains more directly relevant to fathers’ parenting, such as father-child interactions. Following Allen and Hawkins’s (1999) work, Fagan and Barnett (2003) developed a measure of maternal gatekeeping of fathers’ involvement in childcare tasks and sought to examine associations between mothers’ gatekeeping behaviors, maternal attitudes about the father role, father competence, and father involvement in childrearing. The positive association between fathers’ competence and involvement was partially mediated by maternal gatekeeping behavior, such that mothers inhibited father involvement in childrearing when they perceived fathers to be incompetent, which, in turn, was associated with lower levels of father involvement. Notably, maternal gatekeeping behavior was not correlated with maternal attitudes about the importance of the father role and did not mediate the association between maternal attitudes and fathers’ involvement, as originally hypothesized. Although De Luccie (1995) and others included both maternal attitudes and reports of gatekeeping behavior as a single variable to represent “maternal gatekeeping,” the findings from Fagan and Barnett (2003) suggested maternal gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors should be considered separately, as they might have different implications for fathers’ parenting. However, it is important to note that although Fagan and Barnett (2003) refer to their measure as an assessment of maternal gatekeeping behavior, the items focus more generally on preferences for which parent should be the one to perform child-related responsibilities (i.e., “If a decision has to be made about who my child(ren) will play with (or spend time with), I think that I am the one to make that decision, not their father (father figure)”). Although Fagan and Barnett’s (2003) work highlighted the role of maternal gatekeeping preferences in predicting fathers’ parenting, it raised questions about the implications of maternal gatekeeping attitudes for fathers’ parenting. Namely, Fagan and Barnett (2003) did not find evidence that maternal beliefs about fathers’ importance for child development predicted fathers’ parenting. This finding stood in contrast to other earlier research, which had reported such associations (De Luccie, 174

Parental Gatekeeping

1995; Simons et al., 1990). To understand better the role of maternal gatekeeping beliefs, McBride and colleagues (2005) examined the complex relations between mothers’ and fathers’ beliefs about the parental role and father involvement in childrearing. Fathers’ perceptions of themselves as highly committed to parenthood were associated with higher father accessibility to their children—but only when mothers believed that fathers had an important role in childrearing. Fathers’ own beliefs about their importance did not play a role in this association, thus providing compelling evidence that maternal beliefs, more so than fathers’ own beliefs, were consequential for fathers’ involvement. However, McBride and colleagues (2005) did not examine the role of maternal gatekeeping behavior. Thus, the extent to which maternal gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors were related and whether the claim that “maternal attitudes lead to behavior that in turn limits father involvement and constitutes a form of gatekeeping” (Parke, 2002, p. 40) was accurate remained an empirical question. Although links between parenting cognitions and behaviors have been demonstrated (Bornstein, Putnick, and Suwalsky, 2017), such connections are complex and not observed consistently.

Maternal Gatekeeping Backlash In the early 2000s, accumulating empirical evidence highlighted the role of mothers’ beliefs and behaviors in hindering fathers’ involvement in childrearing. As this body of research continued to grow, critics challenged the Allen and Hawkins (1999) model of maternal gatekeeping, arguing that the gatekeeping construct placed unwarranted blame on mothers for fathers’ lack of involvement in childrearing and did not adequately account for the father’s own motivation for parenting. Researchers argued that the proposition that women are ambivalent about father involvement or act as gatekeepers does mothers a “disservice,” as—rather than working to gateclose or limit fathers’ involvement—some mothers might facilitate father involvement in childrearing (Walker and McGraw, 2000). Consistent with this perspective, Sano, Richards, and Zvonkovic (2008) reported that in low-income families with a nonresident father, mothers want to increase father involvement. Other critics argued that father involvement is more dependent on fathers’ own characteristics than on mothers’ beliefs and behaviors (Bonney, Kelley, and Levant, 1999; Nangle, Kelley, FalsStewart, and Levant, 2003). For example, heightened contextual barriers to father involvement are associated with fathers’ lower involvement. However, fathers’ role beliefs and efficacy functioned as mediators of this association (Freeman, Newland, and Coyl, 2008). Thus, when fathers’ efficacy and role beliefs were accounted for, contextual barriers, including mothers’ desires to limit father involvement, were no longer associated with actual father involvement.

An Expanded View of Maternal Gatekeeping In response to criticisms that the Allen and Hawkins (1999) conceptual model of maternal gatekeeping was too narrow to capture the full range of maternal gatekeeping behaviors, researchers developed an expanded definition of maternal gatekeeping that acknowledged mothers’ capacity to exhibit both encouraging, gateopening and discouraging, gateclosing beliefs and behaviors (Cannon et al., 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). Early work examining this expanded conceptualization found higher levels of maternal gateopening were associated with greater father involvement in childcare, even when controlling for both mothers’ and fathers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers’ parenting for child development (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). Additionally, maternal gateopening moderated the positive association between coparenting support and fathers’ observed involvement in family interaction, such that when maternal gateopening was low, associations between coparenting support and father involvement were no longer statistically significant. Greater levels of maternal gateopening have also been linked to fathers’ perceptions of having more influence in making major decisions in areas such as healthcare for their child (Zvara, Schoppe-Sullivan, and Kamp Dush, 2013). 175

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

At about the same time, Adamsons (2010) introduced a conceptualization of gatekeeping emphasizing the role of parental identity, similar to Allen and Hawkins (1999), and in particular the intersection of societally prescribed roles for parents (e.g., primary caregiver, financial provider) with the role expectations dictated by gender (i.e., mothers are primary caregivers, fathers are financial providers). However, unlike Allen and Hawkins’s model, Adamsons’s conceptualization allowed for gateopening as well as gateclosing behavior. According to Adamsons, because gender is a “master status” (Stryker, 1987), it influences the expectations that women and men have for their own and each other’s roles as parents, and thus the identity standards individuals hold for themselves and their partners. Parents seek verification from their partners about the extent to which they are appropriately enacting their parental identities, and thus mutually influence each other’s identity and behavior. Within this framework, maternal gatekeeping attitudes are those about proper performance or enactment of roles or identities. These gatekeeping attitudes influence mothers’ behaviors, which provide feedback to fathers about their enactment of their fathering identities. If there is a mismatch between what mothers expect of fathers and what fathers are actually doing, fathers may respond with changes in their behavior or adjustments to their identity. The emphasis on maternal influences on fathers stems from the proposition that the parent with greater power in the coparenting relationship is likely to have greater influence on the other parent’s behavior and identity (i.e., power moderates the extent to which one parent influences the other). In light of the greater social value placed on mothering than fathering, such that mothers are judged harshly for not fulfilling their maternal responsibilities, whereas variability in fathers’ performance of their roles is more socially acceptable, mothers are assumed to have greater power in the coparenting relationship. In yet another conceptualization of maternal gatekeeping, in contrast to models that assumed encouraging and discouraging gatekeeping behaviors represented opposite ends of a single continuum (see Fagan and Barnett, 2003; McBride et al., 2005), Puhlman and Pasley (2013) separated encouragement from discouragement in their conceptualization of gatekeeping. Arguing that positive and negative family processes can occur simultaneously in families (Fincham and Beach, 2010), Puhlman and Pasley (2013) proposed a framework for researchers to examine the individual, unique contributions of each dimension in a maternal gatekeeping process. In this new model of maternal gatekeeping, a third “control” dimension, which captures mothers’ attempts to manage or regulate information, resources, or people (Puhlman and Pasley, 2013), was also introduced. At the intersection of control, encouragement, and discouragement, Puhlman and Pasley identified two broad types of gatekeepers: (1) polarized mothers, who clearly indicate their preference for father involvement and behave in ways consistent with this position—whether encouraging, discouraging, or controlling, and (2) ambivalent mothers, who engage in relatively equal levels of discouragement and encouragement, leaving families confused about mothers’ overall desire for father involvement. Within each type of gatekeeping, there are four specific subtypes of maternal gatekeepers that vary in degree of control, encouragement, and discouragement. Within the polarized type, the four subtypes of gatekeepers are (1) “traditional gate blockers,” who exhibit high control, low encouragement, and high discouragement (i.e., speak negatively about the father to children or actively dictate terms of father involvement); (2) “passive gate snubbers,” who exhibit low control and low encouragement, but high discouragement (i.e., passively discourage the father’s involvement by accidentally missing father-child time or redoing parenting tasks after he’s completed them); (3) “facilitative gateopeners,” who exhibit high control and high encouragement, but low discouragement (i.e., schedule father-child time and direct fathers’ interactions with children); and (4) “passive gate welcomers,” who exhibit low control, high encouragement, and low discouragement (i.e., share coparenting equally or are disengaged from family interactions). Within the ambivalent type, the four subtypes of gatekeepers are (1) “confused gate managers,” who exhibit high degrees of control, encouragement, and discouragement (i.e., manage family interactions and boundaries but show strong and inconsistent behaviors toward fathers); (2) “apathetic gate managers,” who exhibit 176

Parental Gatekeeping

high control, low encouragement, and low discouragement (i.e., assume leadership in the family but take a neutral stance toward father’s involvement); (3) “opinionated gate watchers,” who are low on control but high on both encouragement and discouragement (i.e., engage in passive behaviors that criticize and compliment fathers and send mixed signals); and (4) “invisible gate ignorers” who are low on all three dimensions (i.e., share in coparenting or follow the father’s lead). Although Puhlman and Pasley (2013) provide a conceptual model that gives researchers more precision in measuring complex maternal gatekeeping behaviors, additional work is needed to evaluate the extent to which mothers can be classified into different gatekeeping subtypes and whether maternal gatekeeping can be conceptualized more parsimoniously. As did Puhlman and Pasley in their conceptual model, empirical work has also highlighted the complexity of maternal gateopening. For example, Fagan and Cherson (2017) differentiated maternal gateopening into two components: (1) encouragement, which is a construct they claimed is conceptually identical to coparenting support, or the extent to which parents take a cooperative, teamoriented approach in rearing their children, and (2) facilitation, or “mothers’ attempts to increase fathers’ involvement with their children, which she may do for reasons other than supporting the fathers’ own parenting goals” (p. 5). According to Fagan and Cherson (2017), mothers are more likely to facilitate father involvement in childrearing if fathers are relatively uninvolved and mothers have egalitarian views about the parental role. Notably, using the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being data set, Fagan and Cherson (2017) found that greater levels of mother-reported facilitation at one time were associated with decreased father and mother perceived father engagement 2 years later. Maternal encouragement, however, was associated with increased subsequent father engagement. These associations between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement held across families with a resident or a nonresident father. Although Fagan and Cherson (2017) concluded that maternal facilitation might be harmful for father involvement, their findings should be confirmed in a different sample using a richer measure of maternal gatekeeping that can better account for facilitation and encouragement elements of gateopening.

Predictors of Maternal Gatekeeping As evidence indicating associations between maternal gateopening, maternal gateclosing, and fathers’ involvement in childrearing continued to mount, researchers sought to understand better individual differences between mothers in their gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors. Theoretical conceptualizations of maternal gatekeeping proposed that maternal gatekeeping, especially gateclosing, is more likely to occur when women fear losing responsibility for family work, seek to conform to traditional gender roles, or want to validate their maternal identity (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Gaunt, 2008). Using the Allen and Hawkins (1999) maternal gatekeeping model as a guide, researchers found Israeli mothers with low self-esteem, a strong feminine gender orientation, and a prominent maternal identity were more likely to hold maternal gatekeeping attitudes (Gaunt, 2008; Kulik and Tsoref, 2010). Furthermore, the stronger mothers’ religious views, fewer her work hours, less importance she attached to her work, and lower her income and education level, the more she resisted fathers’ participation in family work (Gaunt, 2008). Gaunt and Pinho (2017) reported that British mothers with more hostile sexist attitudes toward men and women had stronger gateclosing tendencies, which were, in turn, associated with a greater total and relative investment in childcare compared with fathers. Other research has examined the role of women’s employment characteristics as a predictor of maternal gatekeeping. Specifically, Pederson and Kilzer (2014) examined mothers’ work-to-family conflict as a predictor of maternal gateclosing, as measured using Allen and Hawkins’s (1999) survey measure. These researchers developed competing hypotheses to test whether mothers would gateclose less or more when experiencing high levels of work-to-family conflict. Role theory, which suggests 177

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

that mothers experiencing work-to-family conflict would seek to preserve personal resources and maintain father involvement in childrearing (Barnett and Gareis, 2006; Goode, 1960), would predict less gateclosing. Alternatively, identity theory suggests that mothers would gateclose even when experiencing high levels of work-to-family conflict, as an attempt to protect their maternal identity (see Adamsons, 2010). Results supported the identity theory hypothesis. Namely, researchers found a positive association between women’s work-to-family conflict and maternal gateclosing. Mothers also engaged in higher levels of gateclosing when fathers experienced greater work-to-family conflict. These findings highlight the centrality of the maternal identity, even in families headed by dual-earner couples in which parents face increased pressures to balance work and family (Pedersen and Kilzer, 2014). Researchers have also examined determinants of maternal gatekeeping in samples of couples making the transition to parenthood, which is a critical period in the development of father-child relationships, as patterns of parenting that are established in the early months following childbirth generally persist over time (see Doherty, Erickson, and LaRossa, 2006; Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, and Cabrera, 2006). For example, Cannon and colleagues (2008) examined predictors of observed maternal gatekeeping behavior when infants were 3.5 months of age. Although parent characteristics (i.e., idealization of own parents, beliefs about the role of fathers, and parental personality) did not predict maternal gatekeeping behavior, parents’ beliefs about fathers’ roles moderated the association between parents’ negative emotionality and maternal gateclosing behavior. Specifically, high negative emotionality in one parent was associated with higher levels of maternal gateclosing when the other parent held less progressive beliefs about fathers’ roles. Following this work, Schoppe-Sullivan and colleagues (2015) examined predictors of both parents’ perceptions of maternal gateopening and gateclosing as well as predictors of maternal gatekeeping attitudes. Results indicated that maternal gatekeeping is more strongly tied to maternal expectations and psychological well-being than it is to traditional gender attitudes, in conflict with prior maternal gatekeeping theory (see Allen and Hawkins, 1999). For example, mothers with poorer psychological functioning demonstrated greater levels of maternal gateclosing, whereas mothers’ traditional gender attitudes were not associated with maternal gateclosing behavior, gateopening behavior, or gateclosing attitudes. Furthermore, mothers’ personal characteristics were more predictive of maternal gatekeeping than fathers’ characteristics, as greater levels of maternal parenting self-efficacy, partner-oriented parenting perfectionism (i.e., unreasonably high standards for fathers’ parenting), and perceptions of relationship instability were associated with greater maternal gateclosing. Maternal gateclosing was also higher when mothers perceived low levels of fathers’ parenting self-efficacy. This body of evidence generally supports the theoretical notion that mothers might evaluate fathers’ motivation and fitness for parenting and gatekeep as an attempt to protect their investment in their offspring (see Geary, 2000). To date, the total body of research on predictors of maternal gatekeeping suggests that maternal gatekeeping is multiply determined. Notably, the majority of research in this area has included only parents’ reports of maternal gatekeeping. Future research should examine predictors of maternal gatekeeping in more naturalistic settings, such as in family interactions with both parents and child present. Disentangling the predictors of maternal gatekeeping continues to be important work that might increase the effectiveness of intervention efforts targeted at increasing father involvement or promoting positive coparenting relationships.

Maternal Gatekeeping Advancements and Applications To advance theory and research, maternal gatekeeping cannot be considered in isolation. Rather, researchers and practitioners must examine the larger context of the relationship between parents, fathers’ position within the family and desire for involvement, and children’s own characteristics (i.e., disability status, age, temperament; see Walker and McGraw, 2000). Furthermore, as the number 178

Parental Gatekeeping

of families headed by same-sex couples and by single mothers—who often coparent with another adult such as the child’s grandmother—is on the rise, the gatekeeping framework must continue to evolve to encompass these diverse family forms. Although much of the foundational maternal gatekeeping research has focused on mothers’ gatekeeping of fathers’ involvement in childcare or housework tasks in middle-class, two-parent families headed by a different-sex couple (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Cannon et al., 2008; McBride et al., 2005; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008), researchers have expanded their view of maternal gatekeeping and considered maternal gatekeeping in families with a nonresident father (Austin et al., 2013; Trinder, 2008), in families with an adolescent child (Holmes, Dunn, Harper, Dyer, and Day, 2013; Stevenson et al., 2014), in families with a child with special needs (Kaufman and Pickar, 2017), and in families headed by same-sex couples (Sweeney, Goldberg, and Garcia, 2017). Moreover, the concept of “parental gatekeeping” is gaining momentum in the divorce literature, as practitioners and researchers have acknowledged that gatekeeping is not limited by the biological sex of the parent and can be a bidirectional process of parents regulating each other’s involvement in childrearing (see Adamsons, 2010). According to Austin, Pruett, and colleagues (2013), “parental gatekeeping encompasses attitudes and behaviors by either parent that affect the quality of the other parent-child relationship and/or level of involvement with the child” (p. 486), and can occur in any dual-parenting relationship where both parents are invested in their child’s development and must coparent.

Parental Gatekeeping in Families With a Nonresident Father Following foundational maternal gatekeeping work, researchers have turned to examine maternal gatekeeping in families with a nonresident father (Austin, Pruett, et al., 2013; Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Saini et al., 2017; Trinder, 2008). Maternal gatekeeping processes in these families likely serve a different function compared with families in which both parents are living together. On the whole, nonresident fathers have less involvement in their children’s lives (Carlson and Berger, 2013; Carlson, VanOrman, and Turner, 2017). Mothers might restrict fathers’ access to children for a variety of reasons, such as feelings of resentment, high levels of interparental conflict, or fathers’ insufficient financial contributions. In one study examining maternal gateclosing in families with resident and nonresident fathers, mothers reported higher levels of gateclosing in families with a nonresident father (Fagan and Barnett, 2003). Mothers also reported that nonresident fathers were less competent; thus, it is possible some mothers reported higher levels of gateclosing of nonresident fathers in an effort to protect the child from a less competent parent. Parental gatekeeping theory and research on families with a nonresident father have largely taken place in the context of separation and divorce. Concern about the implications of gatekeeping becomes prominent in the field of family law when the influence of one parent prevents the other parent from maintaining a relationship with the child and the best interests of the child are ultimately at stake (Pruett, Williams, Insabella, and Little, 2003; see Austin, Pruett, et al., 2013). Following separation and divorce, parents must appropriately negotiate parenting responsibilities and redefine their relationship and roles in the family. Gatekeeping, especially gateclosing, might be most overt during this transitional period, as there is likely greater potential for the child’s primary caregiver to limit the nonresident parent’s involvement with their child. Notwithstanding the challenges of redefining family roles in the context of the dissolution of a romantic relationship, it is important for parents to carefully navigate this period and maintain a positive coparenting relationship, as children show better adjustment following parental divorce when parents coparent effectively (Amato and Sobolewski, 2004; Sobolewski and King, 2005; Whiteside and Becker, 2000) and when children maintain a positive relationship with both parents (Flouri, 2005). Researchers and practitioners interested in child custody and gatekeeping processes in the context of divorce have suggested multiple conceptualizations of parental gatekeeping. For example, Austin 179

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

and colleagues described a gatekeeping continuum ranging from facilitative to extremely restrictive (Austin, Fieldstone, and Pruett, 2013). On this continuum, facilitative gatekeeping reflects proactive and constructive beliefs and behaviors that ultimately support the other parent’s relationship with the child. Facilitative gatekeepers typically prioritize a cooperative coparenting arrangement and agree on a plan for parenting without litigation (Austin, Fieldstone, et al., 2013; Austin, Pruett, et al., 2013). At the opposite end of the spectrum, restrictive gatekeeping includes beliefs and behaviors that prevent the other parent’s involvement in childrearing. Restrictive gatekeeping might include behaviors such as ignoring phone calls, withholding information, or informing the other parent about child activities at the last minute. In more extreme instances, restrictive gatekeepers might even abduct the child to keep him or her separated from the other parent (Austin, Pruett, et al., 2013). Restrictive gatekeeping has been further differentiated into unjustified and justified forms. Unjustified restrictive gatekeeping occurs when the behaviors or attitudes of one parent interfere with the other parent’s relationship with the child without basis for these behaviors (i.e., the other parent is competent and interacts appropriately with the child). Justified restrictive gatekeeping occurs when the behaviors or attitudes of one parent occur because the other parent poses a risk to the child (i.e., the gatekeeper believes the other parent might harm the child) and the gatekeeper seeks to protect the child from danger. Pruett, Arthur, and Ebling (2007) found evidence of both facilitative and restrictive forms of gatekeeping in parents experiencing a divorce. Similarly, other scholars of divorce have suggested that parental gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors should be conceptualized in relation to their ultimate impact on the child. Saini and colleagues suggested that gatekeeping should be assessed based on the nexus between the gatekeeping behaviors (facilitative or restrictive) and the consequences (either positive or negative) on the impact of children’s sense of safety and well-being and the quality of time they spend with each parent. (2017, p. 265) This model of maternal gatekeeping prioritizes assessing the role of gatekeeping in affecting the child’s safety and well-being when determining whether a particular gatekeeping behavior is adaptive or maladaptive. Adaptive gatekeeping is related to the previously defined facilitative gatekeeping or justified restrictive gatekeeping, as the best interests of the child are given premier consideration. Maladaptive gatekeeping, in contrast, does not consider the best interests of the child and can be ­facilitative-apathetic if the other parent knowingly poses a threat to the child but the primary caregiver does not adequately protect the child from the other parent. Alternatively, maladaptive gatekeeping could take the form of unjustified restrictive gatekeeping if the primary caregiver interferes with the child’s relationship with the other parent without warrant (Saini et al., 2017). Researchers also proposed “inconsistent gatekeeping” when no organized pattern of gatekeeping can be identified. This type of gatekeeping might occur when the primary caregiver is uncertain about the other parent’s intentions or struggles to see the value in coparenting (Saini et al., 2017). Qualitative work examining maternal gatekeeping in postdivorce families with a nonresident father has revealed the complexity of family interactions during the postdivorce transition, including the range of gatekeeping behaviors that might emerge. For example, Trinder (2008) explored the roles of maternal gateclosing and gateopening in nonresident fathers’ involvement in childrearing and identified five types of maternal gatekeeping: Proactive and contingent gateopening, passive gatekeeping, and justifiable and proactive gateclosing. Proactive gateopening occurs when resident mothers work to monitor and troubleshoot nonresident fathers’ involvement in childrearing, as an attempt to ensure that father involvement in childrearing continues and is positive for children. Proactive gateopeners try to build positive images of fathers and engage in behaviors to make sure 180

Parental Gatekeeping

fathers’ involvement continues (i.e., maintaining a flexible schedule, sharing travel arrangements, and providing a way for contact to continue). In contrast, contingent gateopeners support father involvement in childrearing, but have concerns that the father poses a risk to the child. Thus, these mothers use similar strategies as proactive gateopeners but take extra steps to ensure the child is protected. Both proactive and contingent gateopening could be categorized as forms of adaptive gatekeeping because they prioritize the best interests of the child (see Saini et al., 2017). Passive gatekeepers do not attempt to increase or decrease father involvement in childrearing. Rather, these mothers place the responsibility on fathers and children to maintain a relationship. Justifiable gateclosers report attempts to reduce or end fathers’ contact with their child because fathers display poor, insensitive, or abusive parenting. This form of gatekeeping behavior is similar to other types of maternal gatekeeping defined by family scholars: Protective gatekeeping (Austin and Drozd, 2013), justified restrictive gatekeeping (Austin, Fieldstone, et al., 2013), and adaptive gatekeeping (Saini et al., 2017). Justifiable gateclosing behaviors have been reported in similar samples. For example, Sano et al. (2008) found that 20% of divorced mothers did not trust children’s fathers and controlled their access to children because they were concerned about children’s safety. It is important to note that nonresident fathers might not agree with the reason for maternal gatekeeping. For example, when mothers reported engaging in justifiable gatekeeping, none of the fathers perceived the behavior to be justifiable (Trinder, 2008). Rather, fathers interpreted mothers’ behavior to be more reflective of proactive gateclosing, or attempts to monopolize parenting for other reasons such as vindictiveness (Trinder, 2008)—conceptually similar to unjustified restrictive gatekeeping (Austin, Fieldstone, et al., 2013). Thus, it is important to recognize the complex and dynamic process of gatekeeping behavior to better understand its ultimate role in promoting or hindering nonresident parents’ parenting and, in turn, child adjustment. Maternal gatekeeping behaviors, in the context of divorce and separation, occur for numerous reasons. For instance, Trinder (2008) found that mothers adjusted their gatekeeping strategies in response to perceived father competence, child welfare, and relationship quality. Furthermore, Pruett et al. (2007) reported that mothers’ gatekeeping might vary in relation to their perceptions of predivorce marital quality, with custodial mothers who had more positive marriages more likely to facilitate father involvement after divorce. In some cases, maternal gatekeeping might serve as mothers’ attempt to exercise power and authority postdivorce. To understand better the reciprocal, systemic nature of maternal gatekeeping, Moore evaluated how both parents exercise power and authority when interacting with their ex-spouse, and specifically explored the ways in which fathers try to gain power over their ex-spouse post-separation. Moore (2012) found evidence that some fathers engaged in “paternal banking” strategies designed to limit or enhance mothers’ financial provisions in response to maternal gatekeeping—especially during the prelegal settlement period. The maternal gatekeeping-paternal banking dynamic emerged when parents had “segregated conjugal roles,” or a strong, gendered division of labor during marriage. According to qualitative interviews, in the face of proactive gateclosing, some fathers reported restricting or refusing to pay bills to make their wives feel more economically vulnerable and regain control. The growing body of research on maternal gatekeeping in postdivorce families has indicated that gatekeeping is context specific and depends—in part—on the reason for divorce (i.e., violence, infidelity, conflict), the quality of parents’ relationship prior to divorce, time passed since separation, the child’s age, and the child’s disability status (Kaufman and Pickar, 2017; Saini et al., 2017). Following a divorce, it is important for custody evaluators to assess gatekeeping, as the involvement of nonresident parents, oftentimes fathers, has long-standing implications for positive child development (Sarkadi et al., 2008), and children of divorced parents are better adjusted when they have high-quality relationships with both parents (Amato and Sobolweski, 2004). As outlined by Austin (2011), custody evaluators should consider a number of important factors when evaluating gatekeeping, including— to name a few—parents’ patterns of involvement, the type of gatekeeping, whether restrictive gatekeeping is justifiable, and taking care to distinguish protective gatekeeping behaviors from unjustified 181

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

gateclosing behaviors. Even when mothers hold restrictive gatekeeping attitudes, sustained father involvement has been linked to positive child adjustment (Pruett et al., 2003). Thus, it is important for practitioners to facilitate strong coparenting relationships following divorce.

Measuring Maternal Gatekeeping Although theoretical models of maternal gatekeeping have proliferated, maternal gatekeeping measurement has lagged behind. A review of the literature revealed five survey measures (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Pruett et al., 2007; Puhlman and Pasley, 2017; Van Egeren and Hawkins, 2004), one bench book (designed to provide a guide for practitioners and legal professionals to identify gatekeeping in the context of divorce and separation; Austin, Fieldstone, et al. 2013), and one observational measure (see Cannon et al., 2008) of maternal gatekeeping that have been used in published empirical research. However, there is no consensus among researchers on which measures best capture maternal gatekeeping. The earliest measures of maternal gatekeeping focused on mothers’ beliefs about the importance of fathers as well as the general division of household and childcare responsibilities. For example, Allen and Hawkins’s (1999) 11-item survey assesses three dimensions of maternal gatekeeping, including the extent to which mothers maintain high standards and feel responsible for housework and childcare (i.e., “I frequently redo some household tasks that my husband has not done well.”), maternal identity confirmation (i.e., “I care about what my neighbors, extended family, and friends think about the way I perform my household tasks.”), and belief that family work is primarily for women (i.e., “Most women enjoy caring for their homes and men just don’t like that stuff.”). Fagan and Barnett’s (2003) 9-item survey assesses mothers’ preferences for completing child-related tasks (i.e., “If an adult needs to talk to my child about his/her behavior, I think that I am the one to do the talking, and not the father/father figure.”). In addition to these early measures of maternal gatekeeping attitudes, researchers also developed surveys to assess gatekeeping in the context of parental separation and divorce. For example, Pruett and Pruett (see Pruett et al., 2007) developed a gatekeeping questionnaire, which assesses the cognitive components of gatekeeping, specifically the extent to which mothers value fathers and believe it is important to support father involvement in their child’s life (i.e., “It is part of my job as a parent to positively influence my child’s relationship with his/her other parent.”). Researchers also created two items designed to assess mothers’ perceptions about past parenting support within the marriage (i.e., “During my marriage, it was my job to help my spouse be the best parent she/he could be.”; Pruett et al., 2007). Similarly, Austin et al.,(2013) developed a Bench Book to aid judges, family law professionals, and mental health professionals in assessing facilitative (i.e., “having photographs of the other parent in view of or easily accessible to the child”) or restrictive (i.e., “denigrating or withholding gifts or cards from other parent; not allowing other parent to attend child’s birthday party”) parental gatekeeping. In a legal context, because the primary concern is the best interests of the child, custody evaluators should document specific gatekeeping behaviors and consider if the behavior created conflict or separation between the child and the other parent. In addition to surveys designed to measure maternal gatekeeping attitudes, division of household tasks and childcare, or beliefs concerning the parental role, researchers have also developed measurement tools to capture the frequency of maternal gatekeeping behaviors. For example, SchoppeSullivan and colleagues (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2015; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008) used a subset of items taken from the Parental Regulation Inventory (PRI; Van Egeren, 2000) to measure maternal gateopening (i.e., “How often do you do the following things to encourage your baby’s father to be involved in childcare and with your baby, including feeding, play, and emotional support . . . tell your baby’s father how happy he makes your baby?”) and gateclosing behaviors (i.e., “When your baby’s father does something that you don’t approve of regarding childcare or with your baby, how often do you . . . take over and do it your own way?”). Grounded in a new conceptualization of maternal 182

Parental Gatekeeping

gatekeeping, Puhlman and Pasley (2017) used items from the PRI, as well as items adapted from other measures and some they created themselves, to construct a measure of maternal gatekeeping that asked mothers to report how often they behaved in ways that were controlling (i.e., “make him do what you want him to do with the child”), encouraging (i.e., “say positive things about how he talks/interacts with the child”), and discouraging (i.e., “attempt to undermine his parenting decisions”) toward fathers’ involvement in childrearing. An initial test of the psychometric properties of this measure using data from a sample of mothers and fathers of preschool-age children confirmed the three-factor structure. However, some items retained differed for mothers and fathers, and the correlations between the control and discouragement factors exceeded .80 for mothers and fathers. Scholars have also used observational techniques to assess maternal gatekeeping behavior. For example, Cannon and colleagues (2008) coded observations of parents interacting with their child using a coding scheme, originally developed by Bayer (1992), for maternal negative control (i.e., “verbal and nonverbal attempts to limit the father’s interactions with the infant; for example, mother criticizes father’s care or monopolizes the interaction”) and facilitation (i.e., “positive support for the father’s interactions with the infant; for example, mother may refer to father during play or turn the baby towards dad”; see Cannon et al., 2008, p. 507). Although several measures of parental gatekeeping exist, consensus among researchers on which measures best capture gatekeeping is lacking. Key to the advancement of parental gatekeeping theory and research is the need to clarify and improve maternal gatekeeping measurement. Furthermore, researchers should be careful to distinguish between maternal gatekeeping attitudes and behaviors, as the two constructs are not always correlated and might have different implications for fathers’ parenting. Scholars have also pointed out that the “lack of measures of gatekeeping behaviors is a concern,” and the advancement of gatekeeping research would be supported by a consensus in the field among family researchers of operational definitions of gatekeeping and corresponding measures to evaluate gatekeeping levels (Ganong, Coleman, and McCaulley, 2012, p. 391). It is also important to consider the role of parental gatekeeping in combination with other aspects of the family system, such as coparenting support, undermining, and interparental conflict, to better clarify the role of parental gatekeeping as it is situated in the larger family system.

A New Conceptualization of Maternal Gatekeeping Despite the proliferation of theoretical models of parental gatekeeping and empirical studies, there is no consensus regarding how to conceptualize gatekeeping nor how to measure this construct. Thus, a new conceptual model of maternal gatekeeping behavior is proposed that both synthesizes and builds on previous models of maternal gatekeeping, with the goal of providing an integrated framework that can guide the development and testing of measures of gatekeeping and future research in this area. Hypothetically, this model can be applied to gatekeeping behavior by mothers or by fathers or other coparents; however, in keeping with much of the literature and for the reasons outlined earlier, the focus of the description of the model is on maternal gatekeeping behavior. Furthermore, specific hypotheses regarding concurrent and longitudinal associations between types of maternal gatekeeping behavior and important facets of father involvement in childrearing are advanced.

Conceptual Model This new conceptual model of maternal gatekeeping is grounded in a family systems perspective, which embraces the notion that interactions between family members are bidirectional (Minuchin, 1985). Thus, this conceptualization of gatekeeping and its consequences recognizes that maternal gatekeeping is as much a response to as a regulator of fathers’ behavior (Cannon et al., 2008). Maternal gatekeeping is conceptualized as a component of the coparenting relationship, or the aspect of the 183

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

interparental relationship focused on parenting children (Feinberg, 2003). In this model, gatekeeping behavior can be captured by two dimensions reflecting (1) whether the behavior is enacted in anticipation of or in response to the other parent’s beliefs or behaviors (proactive versus reactive) and (2) whether the behavior is encouraging or discouraging of the other parent’s involvement in childrearing (see Figure 5.1). To some extent, proactive behaviors are clearly more intentional, whereas reactive behaviors may, in some cases, be unintended or subconscious. This conceptual model is general enough to apply to gatekeeping engaged in by any coparent— whether resident or nonresident, including divorced or separated coparents. Although this model focuses on mothers’ behaviors, inherent to this model is also the notion that mothers’ gatekeeping behaviors are influenced by their gatekeeping attitudes—in particular, their preferences for control over parental decision-making, attitudes regarding the father’s parenting competence, endorsement of especially high standards for childcare, and need to confirm their maternal identity (Allen and Hawkins, 1999; Fagan and Barnett, 2003). Mothers’ gatekeeping attitudes, and the associations between mothers’ attitudes and their behaviors, are likely influenced by fathers’ characteristics and prior parenting behaviors (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2015). This model has some important similarities and differences with other conceptualizations of parental gatekeeping. Like more recent models of gatekeeping, the new model distinguishes between gateopening and gateclosing behavior (Austin, Fieldstone, et al., 2013; Puhlman and Pasley, 2013; Trinder, 2008). Consistent with Austin, Fieldstone, et al. (2013), the new model conceptualizes positive and negative gatekeeping behavior on a continuum. However, this model diverges from that of Puhlman and Pasley (2013) in that we do not propose a distinct “control” dimension. This is because the object of all gatekeeping behaviors—whether positive or negative—involves some degree of

Figure 5.1 Conceptual model of two dimensions of gatekeeping behavior (encouragement versus discouragement, proactive versus reactive) forming four types of gatekeeping behavior

184

Parental Gatekeeping

control or attempt to control the other parent’s involvement in childrearing. In contrast to Saini et al. (2017)’s concepts of adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping, the new conceptualization is neutral with respect to effects of gatekeeping on child outcomes. The new model is instead focused on predicting the effects of parental gatekeeping behavior on the quantity and quality of the other parent’s involvement in childrearing, which would, in turn, ultimately affect the child’s development. Considering the high and low ends of the proposed encouragement versus discouragement and proactive versus reactive dimensions together results in four types or “styles” of parental gatekeeping. The first style, characterized by proactive encouragement, can also be described as the “pushing” style of gatekeeping, and is similar to the “facilitation” identified by Fagan and Cherson (2017) and the proactive gateopening defined by Trinder (2008). Mothers whose behavior can be predominantly described as simultaneously highly proactive and highly encouraging actively facilitate father involvement in childrearing. They may invite fathers to engage with their children by arranging activities for fathers and children to do together (e.g., “We have two tickets, why don’t you take Tommy to the game this weekend?”), or support fathers’ engagement by providing advice or information to fathers about children (e.g., “Jayden likes to have her Barbies in the tub with her when taking a bath.”). In mother-father-child interactions, these mothers may draw the child’s attention to the father (“Look at Daddy!”) or suggest activities for fathers and children to engage in together (“Why doesn’t Daddy read the next page?”). For nonresident fathers, highly proactive, gateopening mothers may provide a place where father-child contact can occur or transport children to see their fathers (Trinder, 2008). This style is likely when mothers are concerned about fathers’ low or fragile levels of involvement and is driven by mothers’ own reasons for wanting fathers to become more involved (Fagan and Cherson, 2017). Such reasons may include the belief that father involvement is beneficial to the child, a desire for equally shared parenting, or the need for relief from overwhelming family responsibilities. The second style, described as reactive encouragement or “praising,” captures those mothers who are also highly encouraging of fathers, but whose behavior tends to be more reactive, or responsive to fathers’ behaviors, rather than proactive. These mothers use positive reinforcement to maintain or increase father involvement in childrearing. In mother-father-child interactions, these mothers are cooperative, compliment fathers’ parenting, and show warmth and enjoyment when watching the father interact with their child. Outside of direct interactions, mothers may compliment fathers’ parenting to others (“He’s such a great dad!”) or say positive things to the child about the father when the father is not present. This style is likely when mothers believe father involvement is beneficial to the child or desirable for the family and the father has demonstrated his motivation and competence in parenting, either meeting or exceeding mothers’ expectations for his involvement. As pointed out by Fagan and Cherson (2017), this type of maternal encouragement is very similar to the concept of supportive coparenting (Feinberg, 2003). The other two styles involve high discouragement of fathers’ involvement in childrearing. The third style, proactive discouragement or “hindering,” likely captures the mothers who are most typically thought of as “gatekeepers” in the way Allen and Hawkins (1999) originally conceptualized maternal gatekeeping. Mothers who hinder fathers actively discourage father involvement with children. These mothers may monopolize childrearing such that fathers have little or no opportunity for direct involvement with their children. They may make important childrearing decisions without consulting fathers. These types of behaviors may be especially marked in families with nonresident fathers; mothers may withhold important information about the child from the father or inform the father about child-related activities at the last minute so that fathers are unable to participate (Austin, Pruett, et al., 2013). Hindering mothers may not think that father involvement in childrearing is important or desirable. This could be for several different kinds of reasons, including traditional beliefs about parent or gender roles (e.g., Allen and Hawkins’s differentiated family roles), a strong need for confirmation of maternal identity, or a ( justified or not) lack of confidence in the father’s 185

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

parenting capabilities. Mothers who hinder fathers’ involvement to protect children from harm are Austin, Fieldstone, et al.’s (2013) “justified gatekeepers,” although fathers may not agree that this type of gatekeeping is, in fact, justified (Trinder, 2008). The fourth type of gatekeeper is the mother who is discouraging of fathers’ efforts to become engaged in childrearing but who mainly expresses her negative view of the father’s parenting through reactions or responses to fathers’ involvement (reactive discouragement) rather than through a priori efforts to hinder his involvement. These “criticizing” mothers use punishment (negative reactions to father’s involvement) as a means to remain in control of what the father does with the child. For instance, these mothers may criticize or “make fun” of the father’s parenting in front of other people (e.g., “Can you believe he didn’t brush her hair before sending her to school?!”). In interactions with fathers and children, these mothers may directly criticize fathers’ efforts to engage with the child or when they perceive that the father’s efforts are faltering, and simply take over and do it their own way. In families with nonresident fathers, mothers who are high in reactive discouraging behavior may criticize the father directly during interparental conflict or indirectly to the child (“Your father was always a terrible cook.”). Importantly, for mothers to engage in reactive criticism, fathers must demonstrate some degree of motivation and involvement. These mothers may be ambivalent about the importance of fathers’ involvement in childrearing or their desire for the father to be involved, or they may observe fathers engaging in developmentally inappropriate or even harmful behaviors with their children. They may have a strong need for confirmation of their maternal identity and may harbor beliefs that mothers are better parents. These mothers are likely to hold unrealistically high standards for childcare. Fairly or unfairly, these mothers do not have full confidence in their partner’s parenting. Because of their ambivalence, criticizing mothers may also at times use negative reinforcement to get fathers involved when they want or need them to be (e.g., refuse to do a childcare task herself ). Although the new model posits that most mothers fit into a type of gatekeeper that provides the best description of their typical behavior, this model also allows mothers to show multiple types and levels of gatekeeping behavior, including little or no gatekeeping behavior. The next step toward validating this model of gatekeeping will be to develop survey and observational assessments that capture the degree to which a mother exhibits the four types of gatekeeping behavior. The creation of such measures would allow person-centered examination of profiles of gatekeeping behavior as well as the testing of interactions between different types of gatekeeping behavior. In fact, as described in the next section, it may be combinations of particular types of gatekeeping behavior that are most influential with respect to father involvement in childrearing.

Associations of Maternal Gatekeeping With Father Involvement Figure 5.2 shows the proposed model of associations between types of maternal gatekeeping and father involvement in childrearing. This model shows a number of important moderators of these associations, including maternal (i.e., other types of gatekeeping behaviors also present, gatekeeper power), paternal (i.e., perceptions of maternal behavior, motivation), and child (e.g., age, gender, temperament) moderators. The proposed interactions between different types of gatekeeping behaviors are described in detail ahead, as is the critical importance of fathers’ perceptions of mothers’ behaviors (Adamsons, 2010). With regard to the other proposed moderators, gatekeeper power encompasses the extent to which mothers can actually exert control over fathers’ behaviors. For instance, a mother with primary custody of children postdivorce may have a high level of gatekeeper power, whereas a married mother who shares parenting relatively equally with her child’s father may have much less power as a gatekeeper. Fathers’ motivation may also moderate relations between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement; fathers with more traditional beliefs about gender roles are more susceptible to maternal gateclosing behavior (Zvara et al., 2013), whereas the parenting behavior of 186

Parental Gatekeeping

Other Maternal Gatekeeping Behaviors

Gatekeeper Power

Type of Maternal Gatekeeping Behavior

Father Involvement Fathers’ Perceptions of Maternal Behavior

Fathers’ Motivation for Involvement

Child Characteristics

Figure 5.2 Model depicting moderators of associations between a particular type of maternal gatekeeping behavior and father involvement in childrearing

highly motivated fathers or fathers with high parenting self-efficacy may be unaffected by maternal gatekeeping. Children’s characteristics may also moderate relations between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement in childrearing. For example, if fathers believe their active engagement in parenting is more important for the development of sons than daughters, maternal gatekeeping may be more weakly associated with father involvement with boys than with girls. Regarding child age, mothers’ gatekeeping behavior may be more effective in infancy, because of mothers’ more pronounced primary caregiver status, supported by breastfeeding practices and greater parental leave allotments, whereas as children’s agency increases with their development, they may play a greater role in regulating their own interactions with their fathers. Children’s temperament and gender may also affect the extent to which they actively work to sustain close relationships with their fathers in the context of maternal gatekeeping behavior. When considering the associations of types of maternal gatekeeping with father involvement in childrearing, Pleck’s (2010, 2012) revised conceptualization of father/parental involvement served as a guide. He emphasized that conceptualizations of parental involvement must account for both the quantity and quality of parental involvement. The different aspects of parental involvement that Pleck identified can be placed on a continuum of intensity. Less intense forms of involvement consist of positive engagement or play with the other parent present or material indirect care activities (i.e., purchasing goods and services for the child). Moderately intense forms of involvement include solo positive engagement with the child and social indirect care activities (e.g., managing the child’s friendships, helping the child build social capital). More intense forms of involvement include caring for the child solo for extended periods of time or high levels of process responsibility (ensuring that the child has all the elements she or he needs, including making sure that family financial resources are used to promote the child’s development). Mothers who are high in proactive encouragement or “pushing” behavior actively facilitate father involvement to raise it to a level they perceive as acceptable. Importantly, fathers may or may not perceive mothers’ “pushing” as “encouragement.” Those fathers who are motivated to be involved with their children but lack confidence, are very busy with work responsibilities, or experience other barriers to involvement may appreciate the mother’s efforts to get them more involved. However, fathers who are less motivated may feel goaded into involvement, which may backfire (Fagan and Cherson, 2017); those who are highly confident in their parenting may feel patronized by mothers’ efforts to educate them about appropriate fathering roles and father-child activities. 187

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

Because mothers’ proactive encouragement may be interpreted positively or negatively by fathers, the effects on father involvement of maternal pushing will likely depend on fathers’ perceptions of these behaviors—whether fathers view this behavior as encouragement or as patronizing or “bullying” them into greater involvement. However, even when fathers are the recipients of a lot of proactive encouragement from mothers, and perceive it positively, they are unlikely to reach the point of sharing childrearing equally with mothers. These fathers are most likely to remain in a “helper” role in relation to mothers, and particularly unlikely to engage in more moderate or intense forms of paternal involvement. Similar to proactive encouragement, reactive encouragement or “praising” gatekeeping behavior is also used by mothers to maintain or increase levels of father involvement. Compared with proactive encouragement, however, which may be viewed positively or negatively by fathers, reactive encouragement is likely to be viewed as more universally supportive by fathers, and thus should have its desired effect. Fathers who receive a lot of reactive encouragement are already motivated and competent and may move along the continuum toward more intense forms of parental involvement in response to mothers’ proactive encouragement. Mothers who are high on “praising” may also be high on “pushing,” and this combination of gatekeeping types is anticipated to be especially effective in increasing father involvement for fathers who have initially lower skills and self-confidence because fathers are encouraged to become engaged and then praised for their efforts. Mothers who couple proactive encouragement with reactive encouragement may boost fathers’ self-efficacy in parenting via positive feedback (Bandura, 1989), which may, in turn, lead to increases in father involvement. However, the extent to which this combination of gatekeeping behaviors supports more intense and sustained forms of father involvement likely depends on a number of factors, including fathers’ perceptions of maternal behavior, fathers’ motivation for involvement, and the extent to which mothers shift their behavior to become more reactive than proactive as fathers become more involved. When mothers are high in proactive discouragement or “hindering,” fathers are expected to be relatively low in direct involvement in childrearing. However, this low level of father involvement may accompany or result from the “hindering” behaviors of mothers. For example, hindering mothers may be those married or stably coupled women who have devoted themselves primarily or entirely to childrearing, or divorced women who have primary custody of their children and ( justifiably or not) successfully limit fathers’ involvement with children. Some fathers may be complicit in mothers’ monopolization of childrearing and are comfortable with their lower levels of involvement (as they are likely more involved in other spheres of family life such as financial providing). As such, mothers’ “hindering” behavior may be accepted as a normal part of family life, and thus may not have an impact on change in father involvement over time. However, in situations in which mothers have primary custody of children postdivorce, mothers’ “hindering” may precipitate a decline in nonresident father involvement over time. Mothers high in “hindering” may also exhibit “pushing” behavior at times, particularly for less intense and gendered or more traditional fathering activities, such as positive engagement in the form of play with children (e.g., “Honey, can you please play with the kids for a little bit while I make dinner?”). This combination of hindering and pushing may characterize harmonious but more “traditional” families in which fathers are engaged with children but in less intense and highly gendered ways. In contrast, families in which mothers predominantly engage in reactive discouragement of father involvement are not expected to be harmonious. Because fathers who receive criticism from mothers are at least somewhat motivated and involved, they are likely to experience maternal criticism as aversive. Mothers’ critical behaviors may not be directly associated with father involvement (SchoppeSullivan et al., 2008). Fathers who are relatively less motivated to be actively involved in childrearing may be the most susceptible to the negative impact of maternal criticizing on their involvement (Zvara et al., 2013). In contrast, fathers who are relatively more involved in childrearing may invite 188

Parental Gatekeeping

criticism from these ambivalent mothers when they perceive the intensity of father involvement as too strong. When fathers receive criticism from mothers—similar to effects of undermining coparenting behavior (Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, and McHale, 2004)—father involvement may or may not decrease, but the coparental and couple relationships may suffer. When maternal reactive and proactive discouragement combine (i.e., “criticizing” and “hindering”), this combination would be anticipated to lead to decreases in father involvement over time as the father would be expected to disengage from the child and possibly also the family. Mothers may be especially likely to combine hindering and criticizing when a couple is in the midst of relationship distress or after the dissolution of the relationship. Although there are certainly many potential combinations of gatekeeping behaviors, the last believed to be common and hypothesized to have a significant impact on father involvement is proactive encouragement combined with reactive discouragement, or “pushing” and “criticizing.” At first, this may seem like an awkward combination: Why would mothers simultaneously attempt to foster father involvement while at the same time thwarting their own efforts through undermining of fathers’ parenting? This combination of gatekeeping types may characterize the most ambivalent mothers—those who believe in the importance of father involvement for children’s development and desire greater father involvement, but who also struggle with ceding any parenting authority to fathers because of a need to confirm maternal identity, especially high standards for childcare, or a lack of confidence in the father’s parenting capabilities. This combination of gatekeeping behaviors is likely to be particularly frustrating for fathers and will likely lead to declines in father involvement over time, and disengagement from the child, couple relationship, and family.

Conclusions Although theoretical conceptualizations and empirical studies of gatekeeping have proliferated, key to the advancement of the knowledge base regarding parental gatekeeping will be the refinement of conceptual models and the use of theory and conceptual models to inform testing hypotheses and development of measures. Refinement of the construct of parental gatekeeping will be critical. More nuanced investigations are necessary to first clearly distinguish between gatekeeping of childcare/ parenting and gatekeeping of housework, as childcare and housework differ in many ways (Sullivan, 2013). Unfortunately, the most widely used assessment of maternal gatekeeping to date (i.e., Allen and Hawkins, 1999) does not make this important distinction. Moreover, expanding the parenting domains in which gatekeeping might occur beyond caregiving for infants and young children to include parental involvement in youth sports or children’s schooling, for example, may bring greater attention to the potential for paternal gatekeeping and help broaden the focus beyond maternal gatekeeping. Refinement of the gatekeeping construct will also necessitate showing how it is similar to and different from related constructs, such as coparenting, parental alliance, interparental conflict, parental alienation, and justified estrangement (Saini et al., 2017). The advancement of knowledge on parental gatekeeping would also benefit from testing competing hypotheses, which would facilitate greater clarity regarding which theories and models are supported and which may need to be discarded. A good example of an effort of this type is Pedersen and Kilzer’s (2014) study in which the hypotheses generated by role theory and identity theory were pitted against each other, with the study’s findings supporting identity theory when considering mothers’ work-to-family conflict. Other interesting comparisons could involve hypotheses drawn from gender versus evolutionary perspectives. For instance, gender perspectives would suggest that mothers with larger families have more traditional gender-role attitudes, and should, therefore, engage in greater gateclosing behavior. In contrast, evolutionary perspectives would suggest that mothers with fewer children should be more protective of their investment and, therefore, would engage in greater gateclosing behavior. Moreover, the conceptual model in this chapter generates a 189

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

number of hypotheses regarding associations between different types of maternal gatekeeping and father involvement that should be tested in future work, and this conceptual model should be directly compared with other models, such as Puhlman and Pasley’s (2013), to determine the number of dimensions needed to capture the gatekeeping construct. Additionally, greater effort should be made to improve gatekeeping measurement, which has lagged behind theory development. In fact, researchers have typically referred to one gatekeeping construct, though it has been measured in a variety of ways—with some measures more focused on identity and beliefs (Allen and Hawkins, 1999), some on who mothers prefer to do child-related tasks and responsibilities (Fagan and Barnett, 2003), and still others on mothers’ gateclosing and opening behaviors toward fathers (Puhlman and Pasley, 2017; Van Egeren, 2000). Although researchers have proposed many different types of gatekeeping, including justifiable gateclosing, proactive gateopening, and maladaptive gatekeeping (Austin and Drozd, 2013; Saini et al., 2017; Trinder, 2008), current measures of gatekeeping do not adequately assess and distinguish between these different types and dimensions. Measures should be revised and developed to align more closely with maternal gatekeeping theory. In addition to developing measures of parental gatekeeping that are better aligned with theory, it is of the utmost importance to establish carefully the psychometric properties of these tools. Measures of parenting are often assumed to show measurement equivalence across groups or time, implying that the meaning of the construct being measured is consistent and constant (Putnick and Bornstein, 2016). However, it is less common that measures of parenting are subjected to tests of measurement invariance, and when they are, they often do not demonstrate invariance (Adamsons and Buehler, 2007; Puhlman and Pasley, 2017). Thus, measures of parental gatekeeping should be subjected to tests of measurement invariance across reporters (e.g., mothers versus fathers) and periods of child and family development to ensure that the same construct is being measured (Lee, Schoppe-Sullivan, Feng, Gerhardt, and Kamp Dush, in press). In addition, analytic techniques such as Rasch analysis could be used to examine the psychometric properties of gatekeeping measures and determine how well measures of parental gatekeeping characterize individuals who exhibit low to high levels of gatekeeping (Altenburger, Gugiu, Schoppe-Sullivan, and Kamp Dush, under review). As higher quality survey measures are developed, it also remains critical to examine the correspondence between reports and observations of parental gatekeeping (Lee et al., in press), as the validity of survey measures of parental gatekeeping rests, in part, in their ability to capture behaviors, and observed behavior is often considered the “gold standard” in studies of parenting. Information regarding which items and surveys most closely correspond to observations of gatekeeping will be useful for the refinement of parental gatekeeping surveys. Moreover, such studies will help researchers develop reliable and valid versions of gatekeeping measures to include in future largescale population-based and panel studies. For instance, although researchers have used survey items administered in the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being study to assess gatekeeping (Fagan and Cherson, 2017), the questions used are very limited in scope (i.e., “Have you asked the father to spend more time with your child?”). Often, prior research on the psychometric properties of measures included in studies like these has not been conducted. As theoretical models of parenting have indicated, father involvement is determined in multiple ways (Bornstein, 2016). Maternal gatekeeping is only one of many potential influences on father involvement in childrearing. Future research should continue to explore the relative importance of maternal gatekeeping in the context of other barriers and supports for father involvement in childrearing in different types of families (e.g., divorced families, dual-earner families). Moreover, many of the existing studies of associations between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement have been cross-sectional (Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Zvara et al., 2013), and more longitudinal studies are needed to disentangle the time order of these associations. In addition to studies that follow families over months and years, more detailed observational studies that examine mother-father-child 190

Parental Gatekeeping

interactions at a micro level may also make important contributions to understanding the momentto-moment process of maternal gatekeeping. Experimental designs would be useful to establish causal associations between maternal gatekeeping and father involvement (i.e., tests of interventions targeting maternal gatekeeping, possibly as an addition to an existing coparenting or transition to parenthood program) as well as causal associations between predictors of maternal gatekeeping and gatekeeping behavior (e.g., manipulations of maternal attitudes followed by observations of behavior). As parental gatekeeping theory and research advance, there is a need for more research targeted at better understanding the broad applicability of gatekeeping to diverse parents and families. This research, in turn, will inform current theory and measurement. Like most of the research literature on parenting (Bornstein, 2016), scientific investigations of parental gatekeeping have focused primarily on families in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan, 2010), including the United States, Israel, and Great Britain. However, given that gender ideologies and roles show both similarities and differences across cultures and countries (Brandt, 2011; Wood and Eagly, 2002), and in light of the fact that beliefs and practices of parenting vary across cultural contexts (Bornstein, 2016), it is likely that parental gatekeeping is influenced by culture as well. In more egalitarian cultures in which men and women share more equally in childrearing, parental gatekeeping may be less prevalent. Moreover, in societies where children have a lot of unsupervised time starting in early childhood, and spend more time with siblings or peers than with parents, parental gatekeeping may not be as frequent. On the other hand, in contexts in which childrearing is more gendered, and in which young children are afforded less autonomy, parents may engage in stronger gatekeeping to protect children from real or perceived dangers. Limited research on coparenting has considered the role of culture. In their study of divisions of family labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families, Pinto and Coltrane (2009) reported that Mexican immigrant mothers endorsed more traditional gender-role attitudes, higher familism, and stronger gateclosing attitudes than Mexican American or Anglo mothers. This is consistent with the attention Lindsey and Caldera (2015) have drawn to consideration of cultural values such as familismo, machismo, respeto, and simpatío and the roles these values may play in coparenting dynamics among Mexican origin families in the United States. Other cross-cultural studies on coparenting support the importance of considering culture. For instance, Feldman, Masalha, and Nadam (2001) reported that dual-earner Israeli-Jewish families demonstrated higher levels of cohesiveness during family interactions than dual-earner Arab families at the transition to parenthood. In addition, in their study of the coparental decision-making of mainland Chinese and Chinese Canadian immigrant mothers and fathers of infants, Chuang and Su (2009) found that mothers had greater control over decisionmaking overall, but that this “maternal advantage” was more pronounced in families in mainland China than those who were immigrants to Canada. In addition to cross-cultural studies of parental gatekeeping, in-depth emic and within-culture studies of coparenting and parental gatekeeping in non-Western contexts will be critical to deepening our understanding of these phenomena (McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, and Rao, 2004). Most recently, gatekeeping has been examined in families headed by same-sex couples. Examining parental gatekeeping in same-sex families provides an opportunity to evaluate how gatekeeping processes change or remain the same in diverse family arrangements. Prior research has suggested that families headed by same-sex couples share childcare and housework more equally than families headed by different-sex couples (Goldberg, Smith, and Perry-Jenkins, 2012). Perhaps a more equitable division of labor reduces the likelihood that gatekeeping processes will occur. Consistent with this perspective, research has revealed that women in heterosexual relationships report higher levels of gatekeeping than both fathers and mothers in same-sex relationships. Of note, fathers in samesex relationships report higher levels of gatekeeping in household tasks than mothers in same-sex relationships (Sweeney et al., 2017). Furthermore, higher levels of gatekeeping in families headed by same-sex mothers and same-sex fathers occur when participants report lower job autonomy, feelings 191

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger

of ambivalence about continuing the relationship, greater perceived parenting skill, and lower perceived partner parenting skill (Sweeney et al., 2017). Some of these predictors are similar to those identified in research on gatekeeping in different-sex couples (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2015). In better understanding how gatekeeping processes occur in diverse family structures, additional research is needed to examine fathers’ gatekeeping. Exploring fathers’ gatekeeping in families with primary caregiving fathers might provide a unique opportunity for researchers to differentiate between gender perspectives and other perspectives on gatekeeping, such as identity theory. Finally, although some researchers have examined the role of gatekeeping in parent-adolescent relationships (Holmes et al., 2013; Stevenson et al., 2014), additional longitudinal research is needed to identify the implications of gatekeeping for younger children’s socioemotional adjustment. It is possible, for instance, that the other parent’s diminished parenting quality could mediate an association between gatekeeping and child socioemotional adjustment. In sum, important advances in the study of parental gatekeeping have been made, primarily regarding mothers’ roles as gatekeepers of fathers’ involvement in childrearing. Further attention to the integration of theory development, hypothesis testing, and measurement will ensure that forward progress continues and will allow the expansion of gatekeeping research beyond mothers as gatekeepers. Together, these efforts will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of coparenting dynamics in diverse families.

Acknowledgments Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan’s work on this chapter was supported by Ohio State University’s Faculty Professional Leave program, and Lauren Altenburger’s work on this chapter was supported by an Ohio State University Presidential Fellowship. We thank Jason M. Sullivan for his helpful feedback on our conceptual model of gatekeeping.

References Adamsons, K. (2010). Using identity theory to develop a midrange model of parental gatekeeping and parenting behavior. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 137–148. Doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00047.x Adamsons, K., and Buehler, C. (2007). Mothering versus fathering versus parenting: Measurement equivalence in parenting measures. Parenting: Science and Practice, 7, 271–303. Doi:10.1080/15295190701498686 Allen, S. M., and Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199–212. Doi:10.2307/353894 Altenburger, L. E., Gugiu, P. C., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Kamp Dush, C. M. (under review). Applying Rasch analysis to family measurement: The parental regulation inventory. Amato, P. R., and Dorius, C. (2010). Fathers, children, and divorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 177–200). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Amato, P. R., and Sobolewski, J. M. (2004). The effects of divorce on fathers and children: Nonresidential fathers and stepfathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 341–367). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Austin, W. G. (2011). Parental gatekeeping in custody disputes: Mutual parental support in divorce. American Journal of Family Law, 25, 148–153. Austin, W. G., and Drozd, L. M. (2013). Judge’s bench book for application of the integrated framework for the assessment of intimate partner violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody, 10, 99–119. Doi: 10.1080/15379418.2013.796850 Austin, W. G., Fieldstone, L. M., and Pruett, M. K. (2013). Bench book for assessing gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the dynamics of gate-closing and opening for the best interests of children. Journal of Child Custody, 10, 1–16. Doi:10.1111/fcre.12045 Austin, W. G., Pruett, M. K., Kirkpatrick, H. D., Flens, J. R., and Gould, J. W. (2013). Parental gatekeeping and child custody/child access evaluation: Part I: Conceptual framework, research, and application. Family Court Review, 51, 485–501. Doi:10.1111/fcre.12045

192

Parental Gatekeeping Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. Doi:10. 1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 Barnett, R. C., and Gareis, K. C. (2006). Role theory perspectives on work and family. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, and S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 209–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., and Haynes, M. (2008). Life course transitions and housework: Marriage, parenthood, and time on housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 259–272. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x Bayer, A. R. (1992). Maternal mediation of father-infant interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Michigan. Beitel, A. H., and Parke, R. D. (1998). Paternal involvement in infancy: The role of maternal and paternal attitudes. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268–288. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.268 Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., and Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228. Doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.191 Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., and Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bianchi, S. M., Sayer, L. C., Milkie, M. A., and Robinson, J. P. (2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces, 91, 55–63. Doi:10.1093/sf/sos120. Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., and Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214. Doi:10.1086/378341 Bonney, J. F., Kelley, M. L., and Levant, R. F. (1999). A model of fathers’ behavioral involvement in childcare in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401–415. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.401 Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 180–270). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., and Suwalsky, J. T. D. (2017). Parenting cognitions  parenting practices  child adjustment? The standard model. Development and Psychopathology. Published online ahead of print. Doi:10.1017/S0954579417000931 Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender equality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418. Doi:10.1177/0956797611420445 Bronfenbrenner, U., and Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586. Doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568 Brown, G. L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Neff, C. (2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant–mother and infant–father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 121–137. Doi:10.1080/03004430903415015 Buss, D. M. (1995a). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30. Doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1. Buss, D. M. (1995b). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. Doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164 Cannon, E. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., and Sokolowski, M. S. (2008). Parent characteristics as antecedents of maternal gatekeeping and fathering behavior. Family Process, 47, 501–519. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.389 Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137–154. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00239.x Carlson, M. J., and Berger, L. M. (2013). What kids get from parents: Packages of parental involvement across complex family forms. Social Service Review, 87, 213–249. Doi:10.1086/671015 Carlson, M. J., VanOrman, A. G., and Turner, K. J. (2017). Fathers’ investments of money and time across residential contexts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 10–23. 10.1111/jomf.12324 Chesley, N., and Flood, S. (2017). Signs of change? At-home and breadwinner parents’ housework and child-care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 511–534. Doi:10.1111/jomf.12376 Chuang, S. S., and Su, Y. (2009). Says who?: Decision-making and conflicts among Chinese-Canadian and Mainland Chinese parents of young children. Sex Roles, 60, 527–536. Doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9537-9 Claessens, A. (2007). Chapter 9. Gatekeeper moms and (un)involved dads: What happens after a breakup? In P. England and K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp. 204–227). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Coley, R. L., and Medeiros, B. L. (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 Cox, M. J., and Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. Doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.48.1.243

193

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children. Gender and Society, 20, 259–281. Doi:10.1177/0891243205285212 Craig, L., and Mullan, K. (2011). How mothers and fathers share childcare: A cross-national time-use comparison. American Sociological Review, 76, 834–861. Doi:10.1177/0003122411427673 Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., and George, M. W. (2010). Fathers, marriages, and families: Revisiting and updating the framework for fathering in family context. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 154–176). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., Woitach, M. J., and Cummings, E. M. (2009). A process analysis of the transmission of distress from interparental conflict to parenting: Adult relationship security as an explanatory mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1761–1773. Doi:10.1037/a0016426 De Luccie, M. F. (1995). Mothers as gatekeepers: A model of maternal mediators of father involvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 115–131. Doi:10.1080/09589236.2010.494342 DiFonzo, J. H., and Herbie, J. (2015). Dilemmas of shared parenting in the 21st century: How law and culture shape child custody. Hofstra Law Review, 43, 1003–1023. Doherty, W. J., Erickson, M. F., and LaRossa, R. (2006). An intervention to increase father involvement and skills with infants during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 438–447. Doi:10.1037/ 0893-3200.20.3.438 Dotti Sani, G. M., and Quaranta, M. (2016). The best is yet to come? Attitudes toward gender roles among adolescents in 36 countries. Sex Roles, 77, 30–45. Doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0698-7 Drago, R. (2009). The parenting of infants: A time-use study. Monthly Labor Review, 132, 33–43. Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. Doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 Edin, K., and Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Endendijk, J. J., Derks, B., and Mesman, J. (2018). Does parenthood change implicit gender-role stereotypes and behaviors? Journal of Marriage and Family, 80, 61–79. Doi:10.1111/jomf.12451 England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24, 149–166. Doi:10.1177/ 0891243210361475 Evertsson, M., and Nermo, M. (2004). Dependence within families and the division of labor: Comparing Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1272–1286. Doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00092.x Fagan, J., and Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020–1043. Doi:10.1177/0192513X03256397 Fagan, J., and Cherson, M. (2017). Maternal gatekeeping: The association among facilitation, encouragement, and low-income fathers’ engagement with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 633–653. Doi:10. 1177/0192513X15578007 Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95–131. Doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01 Feldman, R., Masalha, S., and Nadam, R. (2001). Cultural perspective on work and family: Dual-earner Israeli Jewish and Arab families at the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 492–509. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.492 Fincham, F. D., and Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 4–24. Doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x Finley, G. E., and Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Parsons and Bales revisited: Young adult children’s characterization of the fathering role. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 42–55. Doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.42. Flouri, E. (2005). Fathering and child outcomes. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Freeman, H., Newland, L. A., and Coyl, D. D. (2008). Father beliefs as a mediator between contextual barriers and father involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 178, 803–819. Doi:10.1080/03004430802352228 Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and McCaulley, G. (2012). Gatekeeping after separation and divorce. In K. Kuehnle and L. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 369–398). New York: Oxford University Press. Gaunt, R. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 373–395. Doi:10.1177/0192513X07307851 Gaunt, R., and Pinho, M. (2017). Do sexist mothers change more diapers? Ambivalent sexism, maternal gatekeeping, and the division of childcare. Sex Roles. Published online ahead of print. Doi:10.1007/s1119 Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77. Doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.1.55

194

Parental Gatekeeping Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., and Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828. Doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2012.00992.x Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496. Doi:10.2307/2092933 Gray, P. B., and Crittenden, A. N. (2014). Father Darwin: Effects of children on men, viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Fathering, 12, 121–142. Doi:10.3149/fth.1202.121 Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 322–335. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00322.x Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. Doi:10. 1038/466029a Holmes, E. K., Dunn, K. C., Harper, J., Dyer, W. J., and Day, R. D. (2013). Mother knows best? Inhibitory maternal gatekeeping, psychological control, and the mother–adolescent relationship. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 91–101. Doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.09.010 Hrdy, S. B. (2008). Cooperative breeding and the paradox of facultative fathering. In B. R. S. Bridges (Ed.), Neurobiology of the parental brain (pp. 407–416). New York: Academic Press. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780. Doi:10.1126/ science.1103572 Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., and Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234–251. Doi:10.1177/ 0038038510394014 Karreman, A., Van Tuijl, C., Van Aken, M. A., and Deković, M. (2008). Parenting, coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 30–40. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.30 Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., and Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 18–28. Doi:10.1037/a0017820 Kaufman, R. L., and Pickar, D. B. (2017). Understanding parental gatekeeping in families with a special needs child. Family Court Review, 55, 195–212. Doi:10.1111/fcre.12273 Kerig, P. K. (2019). Parenting and family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 3–35). New York: Routledge. Kotila, L. E., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Kamp Dush, C. M. (2013). Time in parenting activities in dual-earner families at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 62, 795–807. Doi:10.1111/fare.12037 Kroska, A. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring gender ideology as an identity. Gender and Society, 14, 368– 394. Doi:10.1177/089124300014003002 Kroska, A. (2004). Divisions of domestic work: Revising and expanding the theoretical explanations. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 890–922. Doi:10.1177/0192513X04267149 Kulik, L., and Tsoref, H. (2010). The entrance to the maternal garden: Environmental and personal variables that explain maternal gatekeeping. Journal of Gender Studies, 19, 263–277. Doi:10.1080/09589236.2010. 494342 Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons. Lang, S. N., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Kotila, L. E., Feng, X., Kamp Dush, C. M., and Johnson, S. C. (2014). Relations between fathers’ and mothers’ infant engagement patterns in dual-earner families and toddler competence. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1107–1127. Doi:10.1177/0192513x14522243 Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lee, J., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Feng, X., Gerhardt, M. L., and Kamp Dush, C. M. (in press). Measurement invariance of maternal gatekeeping across time and reporters. In B. L.Volling and N. Cabrera (Eds.), Advancing research and measurement on fathering and children’s development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Lindsey, E. W., and Caldera, Y. M. (2015). Coparenting processes in Mexican American families. In Y. M. Caldera and E. W. Lindsey (Eds.), Mexican American children and families: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 60–75). New York: Routledge. Maccoby, E. E., and Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interactions. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marsiglio, W., and Cohan, M. (2000). Contextualizing father involvement and paternal influence: Sociological and qualitative themes. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 75–95. Doi:10.1300/J002v29n02_06.

195

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger Marsiglio, W., Roy, K., and Fox, G. L. (2005). Situated fathering: A spatially sensitive and social approach. In W. Marsiglio, K. Roy, and G. L. Fox (Eds.), Situated fathering: A focus on physical and social spaces (pp. 3–26). Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield. McHale, J. P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., and Rao, N. (2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221–234. Doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035629.29960.ed. Meteyer, K., and Perry-Jenkins, M. (2010). Father involvement among working-class, dual-earner couples. Fathering, 8, 379–403. Doi:10.3149/fth.0803.379 McBride, B. A., Brown, G. L., Bost, K. K., Shin, N., Vaughn, B., and Korth, B. (2005). Paternal identity, maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement. Family Relations, 54, 360–372. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00323.x McBride, B. A., and Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of mother and father involvement with their preschool age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 457–477. Doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80080-8 Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. Doi:10.2307/1129720 Moore, E. (2012). Paternal banking and maternal gatekeeping in postdivorce families. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 745–772. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00323.x Nangle, S. M., Kelley, M. L., Fals-Stewart, W., and Levant, R. F. (2003). Work and family variables as related to paternal engagement, responsibility, and accessibility in dual-earner couples with young children. Fathering, 1, 71–90. Doi:10.3149/fth.0101.71. Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 3. Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 27–73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pedersen, D. E., and Kilzer, G. (2014). Work-to-family conflict and the maternal gatekeeping of dual-earner mothers with young children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35, 251–262. Doi:10.1007/s10834-013-9370-3 Pepin, J. R., and Cotter, D. A. (2018). Separating spheres? Diverging trends in youth’s gender attitudes about work and family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80, 7–24. Doi:10.1111/jomf.12434 Pinto, K. M., and Coltrane, S. (2009). Divisions of labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families: Structure and culture. Sex Roles, 60, 482–495. Doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9549-5 Pleck, J. H. (1983). Husbands’ paid work and family roles: Current research and issues. In H. Z. Lopata and J. H. Pleck (Eds.), Research in the interweave of social roles, Vol. 3, Families and jobs (pp. 251–333). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58–93). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pleck, J. H. (2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting, 12, 243–253. Doi:10.1080/ 15295192.2012.683365 Pleck, J. H., and Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by US residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222–271). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc. Pruett, M. K., Arthur, L. A., and Ebling, R. (2007). The hand that rocks the cradle: Maternal gatekeeping after divorce. Pace Law Review, 27, 709–739. Pruett, M. K., and DiFonzo, J. H. (2014). Closing the gap: Research, policy, practice, and shared parenting. Family Court Review, 52, 152–174. Doi:10.1111/fcre.12078 Pruett, M. K., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., and Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169–180. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.169 Puhlman, D. J., and Pasley, K. (2013). Rethinking maternal gatekeeping. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5, 176–193. Doi:10.1111/jftr.12016 Puhlman, D. J., and Pasley, K. (2017). The Maternal Gatekeeping Scale: Constructing a measure. Family Relations, 66, 824–838. Doi:10.1111/fare.12287 Putnick, D. L., and Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. Doi:10.1016/j. dr.2016.06.004 Raley, S., Bianchi, S. M., and Wang, W. (2012). When do fathers care? Mothers’ economic contribution and fathers’ involvement in child care. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1422–1459. Doi:10.1086/663354 Rane, T. R., and McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers’ involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 347–366. Doi:10.1177/019251300021003004 Rollins, B. C., and Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power and control techniques in the socialization of children. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (pp. 317–364). London: Free Press.

196

Parental Gatekeeping Saini, M. A., Drozd, L. M., and Olesen, N. W. (2017). Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce. Family Court Review, 55, 260–272. Doi:10.1111/fcre.12276 Sanchez, L., and Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender and Society, 11, 747–772. Doi:10.1177/089124397011006003 Sano, Y., Richards, L. N., and Zvonkovic, A. M. (2008). Are mothers really “gatekeepers” of children? Rural mothers’ perceptions of nonresident fathers’ involvement in low-income families. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1701–1723. Doi:10.1177%2F0192513X08321543 Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., and Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica,  97, 153–158. Doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x Sayer, L. C., Bianchi, S. M., and Robinson, J. P. (2004). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1–43. Doi:10.1086/386270 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Altenburger, L. E., Lee, M. A., Bower, D. J., and Kamp Dush, C. M. (2015). Who are the gatekeepers? Predictors of maternal gatekeeping. Parenting: Science and Practice, 15, 166–186. Doi:10.1080/1 5295192.2015.1053321 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. L., Cannon, E. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., and Sokolowski, M. S. (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., Kotila, L. E., Jia, R., Lang, S. N., and Bower, D. J. (2013). Comparisons of levels and predictors of mothers’ and fathers’ engagement with their preschool-aged children. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 498–514. Doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.711596 Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Frosch, C. A., and McHale, J. L. (2004). Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 194–207. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194 Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., and Cabrera, N. J. (2006). Fathering in infancy: Mutuality and stability between 8 and 16 months. Parenting, 6, 167–188. Doi:10.1080/15295192.2006.9681304 Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., and Melby, J. N. (1990). Husband and wife differences in determinants of parenting: A social learning and exchange model of parental behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 375–392. Doi:10.2307/353033 Sobolewski, J. M., and 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 Stevenson, M. M., Fabricius, W. V., Cookston, J. T., Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Braver, S. L., and Saenz, D. S. (2014). Marital problems, maternal gatekeeping attitudes, and father-child relationships in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1208–1218. Doi:10.1037/a0035327 Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley and T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 89–103). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Sullivan, O. (2011). An end to gender display through the performance of housework? A review and reassessment of the quantitative literature using insights from the qualitative literature. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3, 1–13. Doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00074.x Sullivan, O. (2013). What do we learn about gender by analyzing housework separately from child care? Some considerations from time-use evidence. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5, 72–84. Doi:10.1111/jftr.12007 Sweeney, K. K., Goldberg, A. E., and Garcia, R., L. (2017). Not a “Mom Thing”: Predictors of gatekeeping in same-sex and heterosexual parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 521–531. Doi:10.1037/fam0000261 Teubert, D., and Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A metaanalysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 286–307. Doi:10.1080/15295192.2010.492040 Trinder, L. (2008). Maternal gate closing and gate opening in postdivorce families. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1298–1324. Doi:10.1177/0192513X08315362 Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1871 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Van Egeren, L. A. (2000). The parental regulation inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Van Egeren, L. A., and Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 165–178. Doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b. Walker, A. J., and McGraw, L. A. (2000). Who is responsible for responsible fathering? Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 563–569. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00563.x West, C., and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. Doi:10.1177/089124 3287001002002

197

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan and Lauren E. Altenburger Whiteside, M. F., and Becker, B. J. (2000). Parental factors and the young child’s postdivorce adjustment: A metaanalysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 5–26. Doi:10.1037/0 893-3200.14.1.5. Wood, W., and Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. Doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.699 Yavorsky, J. E., Kamp Dush, C. M., and Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2015). The production of inequality: The gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 662–679. Doi:10.1111/jomf.12189 Zvara, B. J. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Kamp Dush, C. (2013). Fathers’ involvement in child health care: Associations with prenatal involvement, parents’ beliefs, and maternal gatekeeping. Family Relations, 62, 649–661. Doi:10.1111/fare.12023 Zvara, B. J., Mills-Koonce, R. W., and Cox, M. (2016). Intimate partner violence, maternal gatekeeping, and child conduct problems. Family Relations, 65, 647–660. Doi:10.1111/fare.12221

198

6 ADOLESCENT PARENTING M. Ann Easterbrooks, Rachel C. Katz, and Meera Menon

Introduction Most individuals across the globe become parents at some point in their lives (86% of women, 84% of men), primarily after their adolescent years (Bornstein, 2015). In this chapter, we consider the timing of parenthood, and the phenomenon of adolescent parenthood for adolescent parents and their children. The chapter reflects a bioecological approach (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007) to understanding adolescent parenting, in which we consider the multiple layers of context (individual, relational, sociocultural, policy) that inform adolescent parenting, including its origins, meanings, and consequences. We first examine the prevalence and correlates of adolescent parenthood globally (both developing and developed countries) to address the sociocultural context of adolescent parenthood and parenting. Adolescent birth rates are declining worldwide, yet there are intra- and international disparities in birth rates that may be related to circumstances such as economic and educational opportunities for young women and variability in ethnicity that are relevant to understanding the transition to parenthood during the adolescent years. Adolescent parenting, particularly the negative consequences of early childbearing, has been well documented in the developmental science literature. Although there is an abundance of literature focusing on adolescent mothers and their children, the literature on adolescent fathers is sparse. There are likely several reasons for this disparity, including the fact that adolescent fathers are less likely to have stable patterns of involvement with their children than do adolescent mothers, in part because relationships between adolescent parents and their partners are often unstable and children are more likely to reside with their mothers (Goldberg, 2014). Accordingly, our focus is on parenthood and parenting among adolescent mothers. One theme that we raise and return to several times in this chapter is that of heterogeneity. Just as there is variability in how parenting looks (the goals, styles, and determinants of parenting) among older adults, so too is there heterogeneity among adolescent parents and their children. Considering adolescent parents and their children as a homogeneous group does not recognize the inherent variability (both genetic and experiential) within a population (Rose, 2016). Although we review the literature that focuses primarily on the negative developmental consequences of making the transition to parenthood as an adolescent, we also include a discussion of protective and promotive aspects of resilience among adolescent parents and their children; this inclusion recognizes the heterogeneity of adolescent parenting and its consequences.

199

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

We set the stage for this review with some thoughts about what it means to be a parent. This is relevant because our discussion of the transition to parenthood highlights “meaning making” (Walsh, 2012) and the meanings that adolescent parents and their contexts (families, communities, society) attribute to adolescent parenthood that, in turn, may contribute to the heterogeneity among adolescent mothers and their children. What are the roles and responsibilities of parents? Parents are charged with the care and rearing of children to be healthy and productive citizens within their particular families, communities, and societies. This involves several domains of personal and contextual resources, including physical/material (housing, nutrition), psychological (emotional support, encouragement), and economic, occurring at multiple levels (individual, family, social policy). According to Bornstein (2015) optimal parenting also requires “planning, organizing, and executing” (p. 56). Although some portion of parenting is “intuitive,” even biologically “hardwired” (Barrett and Fleming, 2011; Bornstein, 2016), parents also learn their roles and behaviors through observation and information gained from other individuals as well as from formal resources (print material and other media) and their own experiences of being parented. Reflecting this notion that parenting is supported by informal and formal learning, we end our chapter with a discussion of several aspects of policies and programs that aim to promote resilience among adolescent mothers and their children.

Global Trends of the Prevalence of Adolescent Births To begin, we examine contemporary adolescent birth rates from a global perspective, discussing the rates within both developed and developing countries. To consider adolescent births, we employ the commonly used indicator of adolescent birth rate, which refers to the average number of live births among 1,000 women ages 15–19 years old in a specific population at any given time (Loaiza and Liang, 2013). According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2014 report, around 16 million girls between the ages of 15 and 19 give birth each year (WHO, 2014a). This statistic does not include girls under the age of 15, of which the WHO estimates about 1 million give birth yearly (WHO, 2014a). Despite these seemingly large estimates of adolescent births, over the past two decades, adolescent birth rates have declined demonstrably. Yet there still exists wide variation in birth rate among developed and developing countries and urban and rural populations as well as among various ethnic groups within countries (Guttmacher Institute, 2015; Loaiza and Liang, 2013; Sedgh, Finer, Bankole, Eilers, and Singh, 2015).

Adolescent Birth Rates in Developing Countries Global estimates from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) suggest that the overall global estimate for adolescent birth rates is 50 among 1,000 girls, but the estimate among developing countries is 85 (Loaiza and Liang, 2013). Even more, the WHO approximates that low-to-middle income countries (LMIC) with greater poor, rural, and less educated populations comprise 95% of all global adolescent births (WHO, 2014b). Developing societies, by in large, follow the declining trends in adolescent birth rates (Blum, 2015; United Nations, 2013). For instance, in developing countries, between the years of 1950 and 1955, there was an average adolescent birth rate of 170, whereas estimates from 2010 show an average birth rate of 106 (Blum, 2015; United Nations, 2013). Despite the trend of overall decline in adolescent births in the developing world, there remain region-specific inequities in the rates of decline. Adolescent birth rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (Blum, 2015). Even within regions, disparities in birth rates are evident. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, Burundi’s adolescent birth rate is 65 per 1,000 adolescent girls, whereas Niger’s is 210 per 1,000 girls (Blum, 2015). Region-specific variation is

200

Adolescent Parenting

likely attributed to limited prospects for women in terms of education and careers, along with early marriage and limited access to contraception (Blum, 2015).

Adolescent Birth Rates in Developed Countries Among developed countries, estimates using complete country-wide data from the United Nations (UN) Statistics Division’s Demographic Yearbook show that the highest adolescent birth rates are in the United States, with England, Wales, and New Zealand following close behind (Sedgh et al., 2015). In contrast, the lowest adolescent birth rates among developing countries can be found in Switzerland, Netherlands, Singapore, and Slovenia (Sedgh et al., 2015). Still, the rates of adolescent births within developed countries follow the overall downward global trend (Sedgh et al., 2015). In explaining the higher birth rates in the United States compared with other similarly sized developing countries, researchers note that this is due not to greater sexual activity among United States adolescents, but rather to a lack of access to reliable contraception (Mollborn, 2017; Santelli and Melnikas, 2010). In the United States, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that in 2015, the adolescent birth rate was 22.3 births per 1,000 adolescent girls (Hamilton, Rosen, and Bramm, 2016). Overall, adolescent births in the United States have declined 57% between 1991 and 2013; for instance, the adolescent birth rate estimate for 2015 was less than a quarter of the highest historical rate from 1957, which was 96.3 births per 1,000 adolescent girls (Ventura, Hamilton, and Mathews, 2014). Even when probing the trends among the various sociodemographic groups in the United States, the overall downward trend in teen birth rates is still visible. Data from 2007 to 2012 depict rates of births among adolescent girls of Hispanic ethnic background decreased the greatest amount, by around 39%, whereas all other ethnic groups decreased at rates between 25% and 34% (Ventura et al., 2014). Despite the overall decreases in adolescent birth rates for all sociodemographic groups within the United States, there still are marked disparities between different ethnic groups. For instance, the birth rate for non-Hispanic European American girls (approximately 20) was less than half of the rate for non-Hispanic African American girls, (approximately 47) or Latin American girls (approximately 50). Further, there exist geographic disparities in U.S. adolescent birth rates. Estimates from 2007 to 2015 depict that whereas large urban counties in the United States have an adolescent birth rate of 18.9, the rate for rural U.S. counties is almost double at around 30.9 (Hamilton et al., 2016). Moreover, the population-wide patterns in birth rates among adolescent girls of different ethnic backgrounds is replicated within urban and rural settings in the United States; nonetheless, the birth rates for adolescent girls of any ethnic background were still higher in rural settings compared with the average rate for the same ethnic groups in urban settings (Hamilton et al., 2016).

Factors Associated With Adolescent Parenthood We adopt a bioecological framework (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007). Considering the interplay between more distal influences on adolescent parenting, such as the contemporary sociocultural and political ethos, with proximal factors, such as the availability of economic and educational resources. Together, distal and proximal influences are seen as contributing to adolescent pregnancies, births, and parenting. In this section, we examine circumstances associated with adolescent parenthood. We separate our discussion on the basis of the unique factors and contexts present in developing and developed countries. However, we also draw attention to the commonalities across settings, namely, lower access to educational opportunities and economic disadvantage as precipitating circumstances related to adolescent parenthood.

201

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

Developing Countries The lack of educational and economic opportunities available to many girls from developing countries may partly explain the high rates of adolescent births in the developing world. Due to the combination of the sparsity of school and career options for girls, there are limited prospects for upward mobility; in many instances, marriage serves as the only option (Blum, 2015). Evidence supports this claim, for within developing societies, adolescent girls, compared with adolescent boys, are more likely to be married (16% compared with 3%) (Loaiza and Liang, 2013). Marriage, then, is the greatest contributor to adolescent birth rates in this context; an estimated 9 out of 10 births to adolescent girls in developing countries occur within the confines of marriage (Blum, 2015). Cultural norms may endorse a pregnancy within the first few years of marriage as a sign of fertility, which increases adolescent girls’ social status (Pradhan, Wynter, and Fisher, 2015). Furthermore, among married adolescent girls there is also either insufficient access to, or lack of usage of, contraception, leading to more intended pregnancies (Blum, 2015; Pradhan et al., 2015). For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, which has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy in the world, 65% of pregnancies were intended compared with 13% in the United States (Biddlecom, Hessburg, Singh, Bankole, and Darabi, 2007; Finer and Zolna, 2013).

Developed Countries The majority of research examining factors associated with adolescent parenthood has examined Western societies; therefore, the literature on the precipitators of adolescent birth primarily focuses on Western contexts. As is the case in developing countries, the lack of educational and economic opportunities is consistently linked with a higher likelihood of adolescent birth. However, the experience and meanings associated with the abovementioned factors differ between adolescents living in developed societies and those living in developing ones. When considering the “social determinants” of adolescent pregnancy within Western contexts, Romero and colleagues (2016) highlighted key drivers as lower educational attainment by parents along with insufficient educational and economic opportunities for adolescents. Writing about adolescent births in the European Union, Imamura and colleagues (2007) touched on several issues that are often conflated with economic disadvantage and limited educational prospects, such as peer attitudes around education and employment and disrupted family structures. Specifically in regard to family structure, having a single mother or being the child of teen parents are associated with a higher likelihood of adolescent pregnancy and childbirth (Penman-Aguilar, Carter, Snead, and Kourtis, 2013). The abovementioned factors tend to be more prevalent within certain economically underresourced and minority communities, which may explain the disparities in adolescent birth rates in developed societies such as the United States (Romero et al., 2016). A bioecological perspective might explain the ethnic disparities in adolescent birth rates as influenced by community-level factors (lack of education and economic opportunities) that can moderate other factors present in an adolescent’s immediate context, triggering events that may lead to pregnancy and childbirth (Wilson, 1996). For instance, Sucoff and Upchurch (1998) used a combination of longitudinal individual and census-tract data to explain the timing of teen pregnancy among African American girls in the United States. Results indicated that residence in a highly segregated neighborhood, irrespective of overall economic affluence, led to a shorter time to pregnancy than among girls living in ethnically mixed neighborhoods. The effects of ethnic segregation on shortening time to birth were above and beyond family level characteristics also associated with adolescent birth (Sucoff and Upchurch, 1998). Research of South and Baumer (2000) also helps to explain ethnic disparities in teen birth rates by using a community-level lens. They noted that poor African American adolescents tend to live in 202

Adolescent Parenting

more economically disadvantaged neighborhoods than do poor European American adolescents. In addition, these disadvantaged neighborhoods may be rife with elements that are associated with risky sexual behavior, such as the more positive attitudes and behaviors of peers around adolescent sexual activity, lower parental monitoring and supervision, adolescents’ low motivation for and commitment to career and educational prospects, lack of parents’ involvement in their children’s social networks, and high frequency of residential mobility (South and Baumer, 2000). Through this lens, the disparities seen in adolescent birth rates within developed countries may not be due to adolescents’ ethnic backgrounds but are instead associated with confounding community-level factors. For example, income inequality, above and beyond ethnic composition, is associated with teen births (Gold, Kawachi, Kennedy, Lynch, and Connell, 2001). Using census-tract data from the United States, Kirby, Coyle, and Gould (2001) found that a higher percentage of individuals living below the federal poverty line and a lower percentage of adults with college degrees were both linked with teen births. Notably, Kirby and colleagues (2001) still found racial/ethnic differences among the trends associated with adolescent births. They noted that Latin American communities that had a higher percentage of employed males had higher birth rates; conversely, a lower percentage of employed males was associated with higher birth rates in European American communities. As we discuss ahead, Kirby and colleagues’ (2001) work addresses the importance of understanding families’ sociocultural contexts that may explain higher rates of adolescent births within Latin American communities in the United States. The rates of adolescent births among Latin American communities are among the highest when compared with rates for other ethnic groups (Hamilton et al., 2016; Ventura et al., 2014). On heterogeneity, it is critical to understanding that Latin American communities are composed of individuals from nearly 20 different Spanish-speaking countries in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean and include both native born and foreign born individuals (Bornstein, 2017; Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). Despite the heterogeneity among different ethnic groups composing the Latin American population, there are still many important shared cultural beliefs and norms regarding motherhood, family, and religion (Aparicio, Pecukonis, and Zhou, 2014). Nonetheless, acculturation status is one element that may be related to the disparities in teen pregnancies within Latin American populations. For instance, adolescent pregnancy is looked upon less favorably by native born Latin American youth and more favorably by foreign born Latin American youth (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). Taken together, it remains challenging to understand the disparities in adolescent birth rates among certain disadvantaged and minority populations in developed countries. Social and economic disadvantage, however, appears to be a common element across both developed and developing countries.

Conceptualizing Adolescent Parenthood—Models and Frameworks In the previous section, we discussed the landscape of adolescent childbirth and parenthood within contexts of developing and developed countries and factors that may lead to a higher likelihood of adolescent parenting. Following sections of this chapter focus on the experience, meaning, and attributes of adolescent parenting. To frame our discussion of the trajectories of adolescent parents and their children, we first consider broader theoretical frameworks and theories that inform our explication of the experience of adolescent parenting. Although age is simply a proxy for developmental maturity (Lerner and Spanier, 1978), the phenomenon of adolescent parenthood raises concerns for many, particularly in Western societies. As Mollborn (2017) noted, “Teenage motherhood continues to capture attention as a social problem in the United States” (p. 63). Adolescents who become parents are simultaneously negotiating two often-challenging developmental phases—adolescence that is often associated with negotiation of newfound independence from family, and parenthood, a new role where the care and well-being of another person is primary 203

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

(Osofsky, Osofsky, and Diamond, 1988). Life course theories presume that positive adaptation to the developmental concerns inherent in the transition to parenthood is predicated on successful resolution of the developmental tasks of prior phases (Erikson, 1963). During adolescence, at least in developed countries, identity formation is a prominent developmental task to be resolved (Erikson, 1968; Kroger, 2007; Marcia, 1993), and the “crisis” of adult identity formation is often seen as the hallmark of adolescence. Parenthood is typically seen as an indicator of maturity, equivalent with adulthood. When adolescence and adulthood share the same “developmental space,” especially when the typical tasks of adulthood occur early, there may be an assumption of poor developmental adaptation and failure in mastering of the key tasks of the phase. The transition to parenthood is a developmental phase that requires a transformation of identity, the acquisition of new roles, and shifting of priorities and behaviors, with less spontaneity and greater responsibility (Abidin, 1992; Belsky, 1984; Steinberg, 2000).

Navigating the Transition to Parenthood Most conceptualizations of adolescent parenthood represent this transition as difficult, fraught with risks for both the parent and the child (Taylor, 2008). “Adolescent childbearing is usually inconsistent with mainstream societal demands for attaining adulthood through education, work experience, and financial stability” (Klein, 2005, p. 282). This portrayal of adolescent parenting is due, in part, to an adolescent parent simultaneously navigating developmental phases that may be in opposition, or at least appearing to have characteristics that are difficult to mesh (focus on peers, spontaneity, independence in adolescence versus need for stability, caregiving focus on another, and dependence in the transition to parenthood). Although typical conceptualizations of adolescent parenthood and parenting depict the parents as lacking in knowledge (at best) and as insensitive, neglectful, or abusive (at worst), this characterization of the average adolescent parent represents only a portion of the population. Rose (2016) argued that distinct styles and patterns of learning and development are the rule, not the exception, and that that heterogeneity is the norm in a population. For some individuals, the transition to parenthood as an adolescent serves as a “turning point” and catalyst for a different (often positive) life path (Masten, 2014), with new goals and behaviors. For others, adolescent childbearing and parenting is one more challenge to be faced, among other significant stressors and risks during this young person’s lifetime. For all, it is a transition and a process rather than an event. The literature on the risks accompanying adolescent parenting (discussed ahead) portrays the negative impacts of an early transition to parenthood, both for mothers and for their children. Despite these challenges, adolescent parenthood cannot always be interpreted as an adverse event (Cherrington and Breheny, 2005), nor does it guarantee adverse outcomes for parents or children (Borkowski, Whitman, and Farris, 2007; Easterbrooks, Chaudhuri, Bartlett, and Copeman, 2011). Life transitions and crises confront a person with a critical juncture or turning point. Personal growth and an expanded repertoire of coping skills often follow the successful resolution of a crisis. But failure to manage a situation effectively may foreshadow impaired adjustment and problems in handling future transitions and crises. (Moos and Schaefer, 2013, p. 23)

Organizing Frameworks and Conceptual Models Our organizing framework is a broad bioecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007) that considers process, person, context, and time. Considering each of these dimensions, as well as transactions between the dimensions, will lead to a more robust understanding of adolescent 204

Adolescent Parenting

parenting. “Transactions are omnipresent. . . . Everything in the universe is affecting something else or is being affected by something else. Everything is in a relationship, from the most complex society to the most elementary particle” (Sameroff, 2009, p. 3). In this view, individuals are not considered to be separate from the multiple contexts that they navigate. A bioecological framework suggests that an individual’s environment is composed of several fused levels (both proximal and distal) and that understanding the integration and interrelations between these levels contributes to our understanding of the broader ecology of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Sameroff, 2009). Moos and Schaefer’s (1986) conceptualization of influences on individuals’ navigation of life crises (see Figure 6.1) reflects an ecological orientation. Characteristics of the person’s background, the event, and the wider environment all are directly influential, and these influences also are mediated by an individual’s attributions and skills. Pertinent to parenting, Belsky’s (1984) model of the determinants of parenting reflects this ecological model by including characteristics of an individual’s history, personality, and social and structural relationships as fundamental to parenting. Expanding this model to include the sociocultural context, Vondra, Sysko, and Belsky (2005) proposed that parental personality characteristics and psychological functioning mediate sociocultural influences on parenting. They also noted the relation between psychological maturity (something that may be challenging for adolescent parents) and parenting such that as psychological maturity increases so does the quality of parenting (McGroder, 2000; van Bakel and Riksen-Walraven, 2002). We represent a biological framework of the transactions between individuals and their context that influence parenting in Figure 6.2. Other mechanisms linking personality and parenting include a parent’s emotions and attributions about their infants. Teenage parents are known to have unrealistic expectations of their infants (Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, Egolf, and Russo, 1998; Whitman, Borkowski, Keogh, and Weed, 2001) that affect both their own behavior and their attributions regarding their infants’ behavior, including their intentionality in ways that may not be beneficial. In addition, adolescent mothers report greater psychological distress than do either childless adolescents or non-adolescent mothers (Mollborn and Morningstar, 2009). These challenges in emotion regulation affect parent-child interactions and relationships. In Bowlby’s (1969/1982) seminal work on ethological attachment theory, attributions and emotions were central facets of “Internal Working Models” (IWM) that shape parenting goals and behavior. These Internal Working Models, or cognitive scripts, may be one process by which

BACKGROUND AND PERSONAL FACTORS

EVENT-RELATED FACTORS

COGNITIVE APPRAISAL (PERCEIVED MEANING OF EVENT)

ADAPTIVE TASKS

COPING SKILLS

OUTCOME OF TRANSITION OR CRISIS

PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Figure 6.1 Life transitions and crises Source: In Moos and Schaefer (1986), Coping with life crises: A conceptual overview (pp. 3–28). New York: Springer science+business media. Part of the springer series on stress and coping. Reprinted with permission of springer nature.

205

Broader Ecology of Human Development

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

Individual attributes of the parent (personality)

Past Experiences and Developmental History

Parenting beliefs, attitudes, and practices

Employment/School

Individual attributes of the child (personality)

Child Development

Social Network

Structural relationships (romantic relations)

Time

Figure 6.2 A bioecological framework of parenting: transactions between individual and contextual factors that influence parenting beliefs, attitudes, and practices Note: In this model, all levels of the developmental system impact one another and mutually influence (and are influenced by) the broader ecology of human development. All arrows not shown for simplicity.

adolescent parents’ developmental history and experiences (adverse and otherwise) affect their own parenting. Although much of the literature on adolescent parenting focuses on negative attributes and consequences, positive adaptation and resilience also are observed. Resilience is “the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability, or development” (Masten, 2014, p. 10). Using Bowlby’s frame of IWM, resilience in adolescent parenting may occur when a parent’s Internal Working Models guide appropriate attributions and sensitive parenting. Adolescent parents may have healthy role models (current and/or historical) for parenthood, or supportive relationships that provide emotional, informational, or tangible help in navigating the challenges of parenting. Supports for positive parenting may be informal (partners, kin, friends) or formal (support programs, housing or childcare vouchers). A robust literature confirms the links between social support and parenting self-efficacy, positive parenting behavior, and reduced parenting stress (Leahy-Warren, McCarthy, and Corcoran, 2012; McConnell, Breitkreuz, and Savage, 2011; Taylor, Conger, Robins, and Widaman, 2015). Social support may be especially important for adolescent mothers if there are multiple challenges of developmental maturity, social discrimination, and adverse developmental histories (Eshbaugh, Lempers, and Luze, 2006). Some life course developmental theories (Erikson, 1950) propose that each phase of the life span brings its own developmental challenges to be resolved. Erikson’s developmental phase of generativity, which takes place during adulthood, is the typical timing phase in which individuals make the transition to parenthood. Failure to successfully resolve previous developmental challenges before entering parenthood may compromise current functioning. For example, breakdown in the central issue of adolescence, “identity versus confusion,” may prevent successful navigation of parenthood, as well as Erikson’s next phase of development, “intimacy versus isolation.” Drawing on the concept of heterogeneity of adaptation to adolescent parenthood, a successful transition to parenthood may depend, in part, on the meanings of parenthood and adolescent parenthood within the larger 206

Adolescent Parenting

social and psychological context. As Mirowsky (2002, p. 340) noted, becoming a parent “defines a core transition in the life course that may catalyze and interlock sets of social and biological consequences.” Parenthood for adolescents may (but does not necessarily) prevent the resolution of normative aspects of the transition from adolescence to adulthood, instead bringing life changes that confer a “competitive disadvantage for the future attainment of material resources, power, and prestige” (Goldberg, 2014, p. 24). Taking a life course perspective suggests that individuals who make the transition to parenthood “off-time” may encounter challenges “due to social comparison processes, self-assessment processes, and reduced opportunities for emotional and instrumental support” (Goldberg, 2014, p. 23).

Heterogeneity in Adolescent Parenting Countering the notion of a uniform model of parenting, however, Shapiro and Mangelsdorf (1994) suggested that the models of parenting that have been developed for “on-time” parenthood may not apply to “off-time” parenting. These authors noted that the amount of support from the family of origin and from the father of the baby were related to adolescent mothers’ parenting competence distinctly from what would be predicted among older mothers. Citing the developmental issues associated with establishing autonomy from family as a normative step in adolescence, Shapiro and Mangelsdorf noted that family support did not enhance adolescent mothers’ parenting efficacy. Contreras (2004) reported that the effect of grandmother and partner support/relationships might depend on whether the young mother is residing with them. Indeed, others have reported associations between the residence of adolescent mothers with their own mothers and negative parenting practices (Chase-Lansdale Brooks-Gunn, and Zamsky, 1994; East and Felice, 2014). According to Shapiro and Mangelsdorf (1994), high amounts of support may “interfere with the adolescent’s maternal role identification and sense of maternal efficacy” (p. 636). In their study, support from the father of the baby was negatively associated with mothers’ parenting competence. One interpretation of these data might be that father involvement overshadows a young mother’s parenting efficacy; another interpretation might be that fathers (or grandmothers or other kin) step into a void when they are aware that the adolescent mother lacks parenting skills, interest, or engagement. In summary, unitary models of parenting, and of the determinants of parenting quality, are not representative of the processes of multifinality (Cicchetti and Rogosch, 1996; von Bertalanffy, 1968) in the parenting pathways of adolescents. Although there is evidence to support the idea that early off-time parenthood has considerable negative consequences for the life course of both mothers and children (see ahead), we want to focus on two points that sometimes are overlooked. First, attributions of challenging life trajectories resulting from adolescent parenthood to the early childbearing itself may be misplaced. As a group, adolescents who become parents “off-time” already are at risk for challenging economic, educational, and psychosocial trajectories, even before becoming parents. Second, although adolescent mothers and fathers are often referred to as a homogeneous group, there is considerable heterogeneity and individual variability, both within the group and within various domains of functioning (Mistry et al., 2016; Raskin et al., under review). SmithBattle (2007b) concluded that “the powerful legacy of social class and racial divisions on teen mothers’ long-term outcomes challenges the view that teen mothering leads to a downward spiral with negative repercussions for mothers and children” (p. 409).

Individual and Social Context and Processes The Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST; Spencer, Dupree, and Hartman, 1997; Spencer et al., 2006) adds to the ecological model to include an individual’s perceived 207

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

experience of events and objects. Thus, a mother’s understanding of events and processes of parenting, and how she gives meaning to them, are important moderators of parenting; positive attributions regarding motherhood and of her child may foster resilient functioning in parenting and within other dimensions of an adolescent mother’s life. In her model of family resilience, Walsh (2012) articulated that “meaning making” emphasizing individual and family strengths can promote positive functioning in the presence of struggles. Indeed, optimism is strongly related to resilience (Masten, 2014; Walsh, 2012). Lest we portray adolescent parenting as solely the result of individual or dyadic characteristics and processes, we also want to recognize the critical importance of the assets and resources of communities and the manner in which they are made available and are accessed by individual citizens, neighborhoods, and systems. Later, we discuss issues of policies and programs available to adolescent parents and their families that promote and support thriving and resilience among parents and children. Here, we address the conceptual foundations of the notion of resilience as it is influenced by the broader social context. Cherrington and Breheny (2005) advocated for considering the political and social context of adolescent parents and their children, as well as the individual and social meanings of adolescent pregnancy and parenting, to convey more diverse and rich pictures of the social, political, and psychological circumstances of adolescent parenting and of resilience in the context of challenging circumstances. Ungar’s (2008) definition of resilience embeds the social and political landscape within the definition itself, calling resilience the “capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their well-being, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided and experienced in culturally meaningful ways” (p. 225).

Adolescent Parenthood: Impacts of Early Childbearing on Mothers and Children Although this chapter emphasizes the capacity of individuals, relationships, and systems to demonstrate resilient functioning, much of the extant literature on adolescent childbearing documents the challenges and struggles of young parents and their children. A large number of studies suggest that adolescent parenting is associated with a variety of risk factors and nonoptimal functioning among both adolescent parents and their children (Mollborn and Dennis, 2012). More specifically, extant research demonstrates relations between adolescent parenthood and individual-level risk factors such as poor psychological health and lower educational attainment (Hofferth, Reid, and Mott, 2001; Whitman, Borkowski, Keogh, and Weed, 2001) as well as environmental risks such as lack of resources and economic instability (Assini-Meytin and Green, 2015; Corcoran and Kunz, 1997). These circumstances often lead to challenging life trajectories for young mothers and their children (Leadbeater, Bishop, and Raver, 1996; Mollborn and Morningstar, 2009). Despite these risk factors, the life trajectories of adolescent mothers are not homogeneous and resilience promoting factors on both the individual and contextual level may foster positive functioning in the midst of difficult circumstances (Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, and Whitman, 2006; Lounds, Borkowski, and Whitman, 2006; Masten, 2014; Weed, Keogh, and Borkowski, 2006). Moreover, the indicators of nonoptimal functioning documented in the literature may reflect socioeconomic factors that often precede early pregnancy and childbirth. As alluded to in our discussion of risk factors precipitating adolescent parenthood, it is difficult to separate the influences of social, family, and background factors that are commonly associated with early parenthood and determine the causal role of adolescent parenthood in the development of parents, children, and families. In the following sections, we consider these issues and examine research pertaining to adolescent parenting in relation to maternal and child functioning.

208

Adolescent Parenting

The Association Between Adolescent Parenting and Mental Health As previously mentioned, adolescent mothers must negotiate developmental changes associated with adolescence while simultaneously balancing the demands and stresses of parenting (Osofsky, Osofsky, and Diamond, 1988; Sadler and Cowlin, 2003). Adolescent mothers often engage in these competing tasks amid economic, social, and contextual adversities, leading to a range of mental health problems that impact maternal and child well-being (Borkowski et al., 2007; Mollborn, 2007). The transition to parenthood for adolescent mothers may differ substantially from that of adult mothers because there are unique emotional challenges that accompany adolescent parenting, including depression, stress, and negative emotions (Hans and Thullen, 2009). Adolescent mothers are significantly more likely to experience depressive symptoms both before and after giving birth compared with adolescents who are not pregnant as well as compared with older mothers (Whitman, Borkowski, Keogh, and Weed, 2001). Depression is prevalent among adolescent mothers, with as many as 57% of young mothers reporting moderate to severe depressive symptoms postpartum; some studies show rates of depression that are twice as high as those for adult mothers (Barnet, Joffe, Duggan, Wilson, and Repke, 1996; Birkeland, Thompson, and Phares, 2005; Logsdon, Birkimer, Simpson, and Looney, 2005; Mollborn and Morningstar, 2009; Schmidt, Wiemann, Rickert, and Smith, 2006). In comparison, rates of depression in non-childbearing female adolescents and older mothers are lower (Whitman et al., 2001). Twelve-month prevalence data from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that 19.5% of female adolescents ages 12–17 had at least one major depressive episode in the past year, and 15–25% of older mothers experienced elevated levels of depressive symptomatology in the 2 years following childbirth (Evans, Heron, Francomb, Oke, and Golding, 2001). Reid and Meadows-Oliver (2007) reported that more family conflict, fewer social supports, and low self-esteem were some of the factors associated with increased rates of depressive symptoms in adolescent mothers during the first postpartum year. Adolescent mothers have also been found to experience higher rates of stress compared with older mothers and are at greater risk for developing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Emery, Paquette, and Bigras, 2008). For example, LePlatte and colleagues (2012) reported that young mothers in their intervention study had experienced an average of five traumatic events including extreme economic hardship, death, incarceration, interpersonal violence, neglect, and abuse. Furthermore, over half of the sample met the criteria for PTSD (LePlatte, Rosenblum, Stanton, Miller, and Muzik, 2012). Some of this traumatic exposure precedes parenthood. In a sample of adolescent mothers enrolled in a randomized controlled-trial evaluation of a voluntary statewide home visiting family support program for first-time young parents, 84% had exposure to traumatic events, averaging three traumatic events prior to childbirth; 45% met criteria for partial or full PTSD (Easterbrooks, Crossman, Caruso, Raskin, and Miranda-Julian, 2017). Larson (2004) also reported high levels of stress in adolescent mothers over a period of 2.5 years. Over 30% of mothers in the sample reported clinically high levels of stress, which stemmed primarily from criticism they received about parenting and from intimate partner violence (young women ages 18–24 are particularly at risk for intimate partner violence) (Black et al., 2011; Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, and Kupper, 2009; Larson, 2004). In many cases, depression and stress co-occur among adolescent mothers. Young mothers who experience parental stress are more likely to develop postpartum depression (Venkatesh, Phipps, Triche, and Zlotnick, 2014). Several studies have shown that higher parenting stress and lower perceived social support are associated more depressive symptoms following childbirth (Huang, Costeines, Ayala, and Kaufman, 2014; Spencer, Kalil, Larson, Spieker, and Gilchrist, 2002). Similarly, Whitson and colleagues found that depressed adolescent mothers report higher levels of parenting

209

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

stress (Whitson, Martinez, Ayala, and Kaufman, 2011). These adverse mental health circumstances can negatively impact maternal and child functioning, making them key factors to consider in relation to the development of adolescent mothers and their offspring. A myriad of studies has linked maternal stress and depression with a variety of negative developmental outcomes for both adolescent mothers and their children. Parenting stress and depressive symptoms in adolescent mothers are associated with repeat pregnancies, lower educational attainment, and negative parenting practices (Cox et al., 2008; Holub et al., 2007; Lanzi, Bert, and Jacobs, 2009; Mollborn and Morningstar, 2009). For example, in a sample of minority and low-income young mothers, Barnet, Liu, and DeVoe (2008) found a 44% increase in the risk of subsequent pregnancy among adolescent mothers who displayed depressive symptoms. Moreover, Fletcher (2008) found that female adolescents with depressive symptoms were less likely to finish high school and enroll in college. Rates of depression are even higher in adolescent mothers, so it is likely that the association between depression and lower education attainment observed in adolescents would extend to adolescent mothers. Concerning parenting behaviors, higher levels of depression in adolescent mothers are related to lower maternal warmth, sensitivity, contingent responsiveness, and verbal communication with children (Lanzi et al., 2009). Moreover, adolescent mothers with depressive symptoms have more negative interactions with their infants including less positive feeding interactions (Field et al., 2000; Lesser and Koniak-Griffin, 2000; Panzarine, Slater, and Sharps, 1995). In addition, Holub and colleagues (2007) found that adolescent mothers who experienced high levels of stress had fewer positive feelings about parenting, spent less time caring for children, and had low perceived parenting competence. Depression and maternal stress in adolescent mothers have also been connected to negative child outcomes including physical health, behavior problems, and attachment relationships (Lanzi et al., 2009; Smith, 2004). For example, Field and colleagues (2000) reported that 6-month-old infants of depressed adolescent mothers had lower weight, difficult sleeping behaviors, and more pediatric complications (shorter length, smaller head circumference). Infants born to adolescent mothers who exhibit depressive symptoms with suicidal ideation have also been reported to weigh less than infants born to mothers without depressive symptoms or to mothers who displayed depressive symptoms without suicidal ideation (Hodgkinson, Colantuoni, Roberts, Berg-Cross, and Belcher, 2010). In addition, Emery et al. (2008) reported that parenting stress predicted security of attachment among infants of adolescent mothers. The impact of adolescent childbirth on offspring is not limited to the infancy period. Negative outcomes stemming from maternal stress and depression have also been observed in offspring during the childhood and adolescent years. A study by Leadbeater et al. (1996) indicated that children of adolescent mothers who experienced depressive symptoms in the first year after giving birth exhibited problem behaviors during the preschool years. Furthermore, Bureau, Easterbrooks, and Lyons-Ruth (2009) found that maternal depression during infancy exerted a unique impact on offspring depression during childhood and adolescence among children of older mothers. Research with adolescent mothers and their children suggests a similar pattern of intergenerational transmission. In one study, rates of adolescent depression and teen pregnancy were higher in children born to adolescent mothers who had a history of depression (Horwitz, Klerman, Kuo, and Jekel, 1991). Thus, maternal depression in adolescent mothers may be a risk factor for intergenerational transmission of mental health problems as well as teen pregnancy in the next generation. When interpreting the association between early childbearing and mental health problems, it is important to consider issues of causality. Adolescent parents are already at risk for mental health problems given the adversities frequently faced by this population such as economic hardship, child abuse, relationship issues, chaotic home environments, and low social support (Hoffman and Maynard, 2008; Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood, 2001). In other words, many of the factors associated 210

Adolescent Parenting

with mental health outcomes in adolescent mothers often overlap with the risk factors for teenage pregnancy. Thus, the relation between early childbearing and mental health problems is complex for it is often unclear whether adolescent parenthood leads to mental health issues or whether the mental health problems observed in adolescent mothers are a consequence of the challenging circumstances that are commonly associated with becoming an adolescent parent. When sociodemographic factors are considered, the association between early childbearing and mothers’ negative mental health outcomes is much weaker. For example, Boden, Fergusson, and Horwood (2008) reported that after controlling for socioeconomic background, family functioning, and childhood behavior and cognitive ability, the relation between adolescent parenthood and mental health problems was no longer statistically significant. Similarly, Patel and Sen (2012) found that adolescents experienced negative mental health outcomes regardless of whether a teenage pregnancy resulted in a live birth. The researchers posited that although it is possible that teen pregnancy in general is related to mental health problems, it is also possible that factors leading to teen pregnancy may account for the negative mental health outcomes observed in adolescent childbearers rather than the experience of teen motherhood itself. Overall, prior research demonstrates associations among early childbearing, depression, and stress-related issues. However, additional research exploring issues of causality in the relation between adolescent parenting and mental health should be conducted to better understand the associations between teen motherhood and mental health outcomes.

Adolescent Parenting in Relation to Education, Employment, and Economic Outcomes A multitude of studies has focused on the extent to which early pregnancy and childbirth might impact educational attainment, employment, and economic-related outcomes for adolescent mothers. High school graduation and college enrollment rates among adolescent mothers are substantially lower in comparison to those for older mothers (Hofferth et al., 2001; Hoffman, 1998; Levine and Painter, 2003). Perper, Peterson, and Manlove (2010) found that adolescent mothers are less likely than nonparenting adolescents to finish high school by the age of 22. When measured at this age, 89% of nonparenting adolescent females received a high school diploma relative to 51% of adolescent mothers. More specifically, Klepinger and colleagues (1995) reported that early childbearing reduced the educational attainment of adolescent mothers by 1–3 years. Similarly, Hofferth et al. (2001) found that women who had children in their teenage years completed 1.9–2.2 fewer years of schooling compared with women who had not given birth by the age of 30. Research also shows that women who gave birth at or after age 30 were 10–12% more likely to complete high school and 12–29% more likely to complete postsecondary education. Hoffman and Maynard (2008) reported that only about 10% of teen mothers completed a 2- or 4-year college program. Although many teenage mothers value education, numerous obstacles prevent young parents from achieving their educational goals (SmithBattle, 2007b). Due to challenges such as childcare availability, transportation, and the task of simultaneously managing multiple responsibilities such as school, work, and parenting, adolescent mothers often find difficulty in pursuing educational opportunities (SmithBattle, 2006). Therefore, the time young mothers must devote to childrearing responsibilities may supersede competing activities such as school-related obligations. Mollborn (2007) argued that lack of material resources is a primary factor related to lower educational attainment among adolescent parents and that adolescent parents with substantial housing, economic resources, and childcare support would be better able to participate in school-related activities. Using longitudinal data from a nationally representative survey, Mollborn (2007) reported that lack of material resources accounted for adolescent fathers’ educational disadvantage and that lack of childcare resources in particular led to poorer educational outcomes for teenage mothers. 211

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

In turn, lower educational attainment among adolescent mothers has an impact on employment opportunities and economic stability (Bissell, 2000; Hoffman and Maynard, 2008; Smith and Wilson, 2014; SmithBattle, 2007b). Moreover, independent of schooling, research suggests an association between early childbearing, employment, and economic hardship. Fletcher and Wolfe (2009) found that although early childbearing only modestly reduced the likelihood of mothers graduating high school, teen motherhood was associated with negative economic consequences, specifically reductions in annual income. Comparably, Assini-Meytin and Green (2015) showed that adolescent mothers were less likely to complete college and more likely to be unemployed, live in poverty, and receive government assistance compared with older mothers. These educational and income-related differences continued to be observed through the age of 42. Corcoran and Kunz (1997) found that mothers who had children during their adolescent years had 43% lower income-to-needs ratios, were 2.8 times more likely to be poor, and were 1.4 times more likely to receive public assistance compared with mothers who did not give birth in adolescence. Findings from a study conducted by Jaffee (2002) additionally revealed that young childbearers reported higher unemployment rates, low socioeconomic status, and more financial problems compared to older mothers. Adolescent mothers are also more likely than older mothers to depend on public assistance including cash assistance (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF; or TAFDC in some states) and food stamps (Hoffman, 2006). Although teenage childbearing presents numerous challenges in relation to education and job attainment, many adolescent mothers are at risk for negative educational and employment related outcomes even before becoming pregnant (Levine and Painter, 2003). Up to 60% of adolescents who become pregnant drop out of school before pregnancy, suggesting that factors beyond early childbearing may contribute to lower educational attainment among adolescent parents (Pillow, 2004). Moreover, adolescent mothers face economic hardships and often end up in poverty, and they are more likely to reside in impoverished neighborhoods and have grown up in low-income families (Mollborn and Dennis, 2012). Thus, the magnitude of the impact of adolescent parenthood itself on mothers’ schooling and employment status may not be as strong as previously believed. Educational disadvantage may result from selection processes associated with teenage pregnancy risk and not directly from early childbearing age. For example, researchers have found few differences in economic outcomes between adolescent mothers and their sisters who were not early childbearers (Holmlund, 2005). Although research indicates that adolescent mothers in general are more likely to have lower incomes, live in poverty, and receive public assistance, when economic-related outcomes of teenage mothers are compared with those of their sisters who had not given birth as adolescents, the association between teen parenting and poverty, and teen parenting and welfare receipt, are no longer evident (Holmlund, 2005). Thus, family and background characteristics, rather than young maternal age, may account for the negative employment and economic outcomes observed among adolescent mothers (though early childbearing may exacerbate the effects of these sociodemographic factors). Although it may be the case that adolescent parenthood interrupts schooling, leads to lower employment attainment, and is related to economic hardship, it is also plausible that preexisting disadvantages that place adolescents at risk for young motherhood in the first place play a role in educational underachievement and lower income status. This may be especially likely given that adolescent mothers are a more disadvantaged group compared with older mothers (Hofferth et al., 2001). Overall, extant research indicates that adolescent parenthood is associated with lower levels of school completion, educational attainment, employment, and income. However, these associations may not reflect direct and causal relations. Social, economic, cognitive, family, and other background factors should be considered when considering the impact of early childbearing on adolescent mothers’ economic outcomes, educational attainment, and employment.

212

Adolescent Parenting

The Association Between Early Childbearing and Children’s Functioning Thus far, we have discussed correlates and consequences of adolescent childbearing for the adolescent mothers. We now turn our attention to considering their children. As a group, children born to adolescent mothers demonstrate poorer functioning in several domains including health, language competencies, cognitive development, and educational and social functioning (Chen et al., 2007; Hoffman and Maynard, 2008; Keown, Woodward, and Field, 2001). Chen and colleagues (2007) reported that adolescent pregnancy increased the risk of negative birth outcomes including preterm deliveries, low birth weights, small gestational age, and low Apgar scores. These risks were higher in younger adolescent mothers and the highest in individuals who gave birth under the age of 15. Moreover, these results remained significant even after controlling for various demographic and background variables (ethnicity, educational level, marital status, prenatal care utilization, tobacco, and alcohol use). Similarly, Fraser, Brockert, and Ward (1995) found that early childbearing age was associated with low birth weight, premature births, and small-for-gestational-age after adjusting for marital status, level of education, and adequacy of prenatal care. The negative birth outcomes were still observed when the sample was restricted to married mothers who received adequate prenatal care and had age-appropriate educational levels. These findings imply that young childbearing age and other circumstances associated with it may be key factors associated with negative infant health outcomes above and beyond a variety of potentially confounding sociodemographic factors. Adolescent parenting is also related to lower language comprehension and expressive language abilities among children of young mothers (Keown et al., 2001; Oxford and Spieker, 2006). Keown et al. (2001) indicated that preschool-age children born to adolescent mothers had poorer language skills relative to a comparison group of children of older mothers, even when children’s behavior, health, and family background were considered. Researchers reported that language delays were primarily mediated by parenting behaviors and the quality of mother-child interactions. Specifically, teenage mothers were more intrusive, less verbally responsive, sensitive, and affectionate toward their children compared with older mothers, which impacted their children’s language capabilities. Furthermore, Oxford and Spieker (2006) found that children of adolescent mothers performed below average on linguistic assessments at 54 months of age when maternal language abilities were low, and the quality of the home linguistic environment was low. In fact, results indicated that mothers’ lower language skills moderated the effect of the home environment, such that children’s language scores were below average only when the quality of language learning in the home environment and mothers’ verbal skills were both low. Thus, lower verbal skills in adolescent mothers increased the risk of having a lower quality home language environment, which, in turn, was associated with children’s lower language performance. This study provides evidence of heterogeneity within the population of adolescent mothers and their children because not all children of adolescent mothers demonstrated worrisome language development. Even so, most studies adopt a comparative design, examining differences between groups (adolescent mothers versus older mothers) instead of a within-groups design. For example, children of adolescent mothers display lower cognitive abilities and academic achievement relative to children born to older mothers. Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), a nationally representative sample of young children, suggest that children of teenage mothers score lower on cognitive assessments and measures of academic achievement compared with children of older mothers. Lower performance on tests of reading, math, and general knowledge persist even after controlling for maternal and child background characteristics (Hoffman and Maynard, 2008). Teenage parenting is associated with negative cognitive development at age 4 after controlling for background variables in a sample of low-income children (Briceno, De Feyter, and Winsler, 2013).

213

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

In addition, data from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project (NCPP), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), and a study of adolescent mothers in Baltimore yielded results showing that in infancy, children of adolescent mothers demonstrated average abilities on cognitive and academic readiness assessments (Borkowski et al., 2007). However, developmental delays in cognitive and academic development were observed by preschool age. For example, findings from the NCPP, a sample primarily composed of disadvantaged mothers and children from minority backgrounds, revealed that by age 4, children of adolescent mothers scored significantly lower on standard tests of intelligence than did children born to older mothers. By the age of 7, children of teenage mothers demonstrated delays in mathematics, and African American children in particular exhibited delays on reading and spelling assessments (Broman, 1981; Lefever, Nicholson, and Noria, 2007). Lower levels of academic achievement in children of young mothers have continued to be observed during the later childhood years and throughout adolescence. For example, Dahinten, Shapka, and Willms (2007) reported that at age 10 children of adolescent mothers demonstrate lower math achievement compared with a reference group of children of older mothers. By ninth grade, children of adolescent mothers have significantly lower grade point averages and are less than half as likely to graduate within 6 years of entering high school compared with children born to older mothers ( Jutte et al., 2010). Children born to adolescent mothers remain at risk for adverse outcomes into young adulthood (Pogarsky, Thornberry, and Lizotte, 2006), including in the domains of educational attainment, unemployment, teenage parenting, and violent behavior ( Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Belsky, and Silva, 2001). For example, findings from the Rochester Youth Development Study indicated that boys born to adolescent mothers were at risk for negative outcomes in adolescence including school dropout and externalizing behavior problems. Furthermore, both girls and boys born to adolescent mothers had a higher risk of early childbearing (Pogarsky et al., 2006). Lipman and colleagues (2011) also reported that young adults born to adolescent mothers demonstrated negative outcomes in relation to educational attainment, life satisfaction, and income level. Jaffee and colleagues (2001) additionally found a range of adverse early adult outcomes in the offspring of adolescent mothers, including school dropout, unemployment, early childbearing, and violent behaviors. However, once maternal and family factors were considered, only the association between teen parenthood and violent offending remained significant ( Jaffee et al., 2001). In fact, although studies show that adolescent parenthood is associated with negative outcomes for the offspring of adolescent mothers after controlling for background factors, many studies indicate that these associations decrease or disappear after potentially confounding variables are considered. Levine, Emery, and Pollack (2007) argued that individual and family background characteristics accounted for findings related to lower academic achievement in children of adolescent mothers. Specifically, early childbearing age did not play a causal role in children’s performance on standardized academic tests. Moreover, the effects of teen childbearing on offspring’s marijuana use and fighting were no longer observed when background factors were considered. Similarly, Levine, Pollack, and Comfort (2001) found that children’s lower performance on cognitive tests as well as grade repetition was attributed to individual and family background factors, and Mollborn and Dennis (2012) reported that social disadvantage and parenting practices explained the association between teen childbearing and children’s developmental outcomes and health status. For instance, household income and maternal education accounted for children’s poorer reading and math performance over and above teenage mother status. Studies that have explored the relation between early childbearing and children’s behavior outcomes (behavior problems, delinquency) in particular suggest that the association between adolescent parenting and children’s behavior problems is no longer significant after maternal and child characteristics are taken into account. For example, findings with data from the ECLS-K indicate that the relation between early childbearing and children’s behavior problems is small. After accounting 214

Adolescent Parenting

for maternal and child background factors, behavioral disparities among children born to adolescent mothers 17 years of age or younger and older mothers are no longer observable. Likewise, results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) suggest that the relation between negative behavioral outcomes and teen motherhood in adolescent offspring (higher delinquency) disappear or are reduced when background characteristics are included in the analyses (Manlove, Terry-Humen, Mincieli, and Moore, 2008). Similar to associations between maternal outcomes and early childbearing, research investigating outcomes in children born to adolescent mothers suggests that many associations found between early childbearing age and short- and long-term development in children reflect preexisting disadvantages and sociodemographic characteristics that serve as risk factors for teenage pregnancy. It is, therefore, difficult to confirm a direct cause-and-effect association between maternal age and children’s functioning given that both teenage pregnancy and child adaptation may result from social disadvantage, lack of resources, parenting practices, environmental adversities, and a variety of individual background factors and personal processes.

Resilience Promoting Factors and Adolescent Parenthood As suggested earlier, there is no single trajectory or developmental course among adolescent mothers. In spite of the documented risks and adverse circumstances, some adolescent parents and their children demonstrate resilient functioning and thriving. In this section, we discuss a variety of individual and contextual factors that buffer or protect against the adverse outcomes associated with adolescent parenthood for both mothers and children. These factors promote positive functioning in the midst of difficult circumstances, either serving as buffers against the risks associated early childbearing or promoting adaptation and recovery amid adverse experiences (Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker, 2000; Masten, 2014). Individual-level attributes (intelligence, self-esteem), family related factors (maternal sensitivity, father involvement), and characteristics of the social environment (neighborhood characteristics, social support) represent internal and external factors that contribute to resilient functioning despite challenging or adverse circumstances (Masten and Garmezy, 1985). This triarchic framework has been widely used in research related to resilience in at-risk populations (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten and Garmezy, 1985). Considering protective factors in these three domains can further contribute to our understanding of resilience in adolescent mothers and their children. A variety of individual-level attributes serves as protective factors for adolescent mothers and their families, buffering the influence of risks and adversities related to teen childbearing (Solivan, Wallace, Kaplan, and Harville, 2015; Weed et al., 2006). In a qualitative study by Solivan et al. (2015), interviews with adolescent mothers were conducted to explore assets and resources present in the lives of young mothers that may act as resilience promoting factors leading to healthy pregnancy and birth experiences. Mothers’ positive outlook, self-efficacy, motivation toward educational and career goals, and resisting stigma around teenage motherhood may have contributed to positive health outcomes among these young mothers. In addition, Weed et al. (2006) found that among children of adolescent mothers, intelligence at age 5 was associated with children’s resilient functioning measured 3 years later. Researchers posited that positive early intellectual development might enable children to demonstrate competence in a variety of contexts despite the presence of adversities. Moreover, positive changes in self-esteem among adolescent mothers are associated with continued resilient functioning in children (Weed et al., 2006). These results show that individual-level attributes (selfesteem, self-efficacy, motivation, intelligence) in both mothers and children can promote resilience despite the negative risk factors associated with adolescent parenting. Although some of the previously mentioned studies demonstrate associations between high levels of familial support and negative parenting practices, in addition to individual attributes, family support has also been found to be associated with more positive outcomes for both adolescent mothers and 215

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

their offspring. For example, Hess, Papas, and Black (2002) reported that supportive adolescent mothergrandmother relationships predicted nurturing behaviors and positive parenting practices among adolescent mothers and their children. Furthermore, father involvement has been found to promote positive development in children born to teenage mothers. Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, and Whitman (2006) found that father involvement was associated with children’s success in school including lower levels of defiance and higher levels of cooperation with teachers. Moreover, more consistent father involvement over the first 8 years of life was associated with lower levels of behavior problems in school settings and higher academic achievement (reading skills). Research, therefore, suggests that positive relationships with family members such as grandmothers and fathers can promote positive maternal behaviors and functioning and contribute to the success of children born to adolescent parents. The social environment in which young mothers and their children are embedded can also serve as a protective factor for adolescent mothers and their offspring. In particular, social support has been found to promote positive functioning and successful adaptation of young mothers and their children. For instance, social support may foster positive development in regard to children’s socioemotional and behavioral outcomes in the presence of negative life events and stressful conditions. Carothers, Borkowski, and Whitman (2006) indicated that children’s attachment to parents, religiosity/spirituality, support networks, and social groups/sports activities served as sources of protection against negative life events (parental divorce, residential instability, deaths) and promoted positive socioemotional and behavioral functioning. Sieger and Renk (2007) also found that social support moderated the relation between internalizing behavior problems and self-esteem as well as externalizing behavior problems and self-esteem. Thus, social support serves as a protective factor for adolescent mothers’ self-esteem despite negative behavioral functioning. In addition, supportive adult figures beyond parents (extended family, neighbors, family members’ friends) promote resilience in African American adolescent mothers by acting as a buffer against depression, anxiety, and negative outcomes related to stress (Hurd and Zimmerman, 2010). Taken together, these studies suggest that social support can contribute to resilience processes in adolescent mothers and their children, promoting positive adaptation in the presence of risks.

Policies and Programs for Adolescent Parents In this section of the chapter, we consider policies and programs addressing adolescent parenting. Rather than conducting a comprehensive review of programs and policies, we instead discuss ideas and issues in the development and implementation of policies and programs for adolescent parents; we close with comments on a few illustrative programs. Earlier, we noted that for most adolescent parents, early childbearing accompanies, rather than initiates, a developmental history of significant risks and stressors. Thus, adolescent parenthood should not necessarily be seen as a causal factor in the challenging life trajectories of young parents and their children. In part, this determination may rest on whether early parenting is in conflict with the dominant sociocultural norms in the community. In a large cohort study in Britain, Robson and Berthoud (2006) showed that delay in parenthood was associated with economic advantage for some teens, including women of European heritage and members of some ethnic minority groups (African, Caribbean), but not among others where early parenthood was an expected norm (Pakistan, Bangladesh). Policies and programs addressing the issue of adolescent parenthood derive from particular social and theoretical assumptions. If adolescent parenthood is perceived as an “off-time” event, then policies and programs may seek to delay parenthood until it is more “timely.” Stakeholders’ assumptions may be reflected in the genesis and implementation of programs and policies that are deficit based versus strengths based or that are located at different points along the intervention/prevention/promotion dimension. For example, policies and programs may be designed differently if guided by a resilience, as opposed to deficit, framework. 216

Adolescent Parenting

Resilience Perspective on Policies and Programs Employing a resilience framework not only compels examination of what can support individual and relationship competence, but also focuses on what communities (writ small or large, formal or informal in nature) need and what they offer in support, as resilience processes operate within and through community and cultural contexts. Policy makers must weigh the requisites and desires of citizens and service providers as well as how programs are used by constituents. In addition, it is important to consider whether use of services is considered normative or stigmatizing in a particular community (Landau, 2007; Ungar, 2011). Writing about communities as adaptive processes, Ungar (2011) noted the importance of taking into consideration the social and ecological processes that will mitigate exposure to adversity, including both formal and informal supports and services. Using an ecological framework, policies and programs might view adolescent parents and parenting from several lenses, including organismic, interpersonal, and contextual, therefore focusing on either/both concerns and potential in different layers of the system (micro-, meso-, macro-, and so forth; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007). As such, we would expect considerable variation among programs serving adolescent parents, including different service targets and modalities. Because a life course perspective (Elder, Johnson, and Crosnoe, 2003) on adolescent parenting embraces a multifaceted view of development across time, various policies and programs may set their sights on different aspects of life functioning (maternal educational trajectory, employment, interpersonal relationships, child maltreatment, secure and affordable housing) and different life phases (pregnancy, early childhood). Even a cursory glance at the plethora of programs available to adolescent parents confirms that there is heterogeneity in program design, implementation, and goals.

The Policy Narrative in the United States and Beyond Reviewing the research on adolescent parenting in the United Kingdom, Duncan (2007) used a strengths-based lens and concluded that age of childbearing makes no difference in adaptation of parents or their children. In explaining this controversial view, Duncan highlighted teen parenting as a transformative catalyst for establishing positive life trajectories. Acknowledging that parenthood may be a “window of opportunity” for some young parents, SmithBattle (1995, 2007a) suggested that, on the basis of her 8-year longitudinal study in the United States, variations in teen mothers’ life trajectories are related to social, economic, and ethnic issues that sometimes precede motherhood. As we noted earlier in this chapter, there is heterogeneity among adolescent mothers and their pathways. “Mothers with childhood advantage fared better over time than impoverished mothers, and a legacy of advantage contributed to a cushion of safety and opportunity” (2007b, p. 409). By contrast, Ermisch (2003) analyzed the large British Cohort Study and concluded that adolescent parenthood affected a young mother’s life course such that at ages 30–51 she is less likely to have a residential partner, own a home, and is more likely to be living in poverty, potentially due to partners who are more likely to be unemployed and low wage earning. Similar to the status of adolescent parenting in the United States, teen parents in the United Kingdom have been portrayed negatively, as a “social threat as well as social victim” (Duncan, 2007, p. 310), in part because of the associations with single parenting, decline of marriage, and early sexual debut. However, Duncan also described a different view in parts of Western Europe, where adolescent pregnancy and parenting are seen as social problems that are “amenable to policy solution” (p. 312). Representing adolescent parenting as part of a suite of circumstances consequent to considerable social disadvantage, as opposed to resulting from a lack of knowledge about sexual health or about the realities of parenting, yields different types of policies and resultant programs. As we noted earlier, policies and programs derive from current beliefs and narrative about an issue. If parenthood were viewed as an opportunity for responsibility and sense of efficacy, and a motivator for positive growth 217

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

and success (Barn and Mantovani, 2007; Mollborn, 2017; SmithBattle, 2007a), then policies and programs that presuppose the potential for parenthood to be transformative and generative in a positive light would result. Utilizing the resilience framework discussed earlier, policies and programs should provide avenues for young parents to secure access to, and attainment of, education, employment, positive parenting, and healthy futures for themselves and their children. Some may argue that if early childbearing is a conscious choice with the potential to redirect a life course in a positive direction, then programs and policies aimed at prevention of such are misguided, and efforts should instead be directed to family support or changing the landscape associated with early childbearing. Of course, the particulars of political, economic, social, and cultural landscapes must be taken into account when evaluating programs and policies relevant to adolescent parenting. Taking a public health perspective, SmithBattle (2013) noted that stigma associated with teen parenting can hamper intervention and support efforts. She cautioned that the narrative that teen parents are “unmotivated, irresponsible, and incompetent” (p. 235) negatively impacts the delivery of clinical care. Examining the assumptions that service providers hold about young parents may be one step toward enhancing service delivery and parents’ engagement and retention in support programs. Furthermore, Cherrington and Breheny (2005) argued that the tradition of locating teenage pregnancy and parenting within a disease model classifies early childbearing as a problem of the parent. As a result, solutions developed to address the problem also are likely to be individual in scope, aimed at parent-directed discrete changes (attitudes and behaviors), as opposed to changes that are systemic, aimed at relationships or social antecedents (social, educational, and economic resources). Both federal and state policy choices impact low-income parents (a group that encompasses most adolescent parents) and their children. Public assistance programs that are essential safety nets for low-income families include TANF and additional income-related policies (tax relief, tax credits for dependent care and earned income). Some states, for example, offer a refundable dependent care tax credit, or keep copayments for childcare subsidies low and based on family income among lowincome families. Few policies, with the exception of the TANF requirement that unmarried minor custodial parents must live with a parent, adult relative, or legal guardian, are specific to low-income teenage parents. Adolescent mothers receive welfare benefits disproportionate to their numbers in the population; this is the case both before, and subsequent to, the major welfare reform of the 1990s. If early childbearing sets in motion, or continues, a cycle of family poverty, lack of economic resources as a teen parent presents risk for more than the teenage years. Acs and Koball (2003) examined the 1996 welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act; PRWORA) that specifically required minor teen mothers to live with an adult guardian (typically their own parents) and to be enrolled in school or job training (per the 1988 Family Support Act) to receive TANF cash benefits. They concluded that although mothers were less likely to receive cash benefits post welfare reform, the decline was not accompanied by the intended effect of reducing teen childbearing, increasing educational attainment, or reducing life risks. For example, reductions in maternal depression or exposure to intimate partner violence were not seen (Kalil and Danziger, 2000), and although Acs and Kobal (2003) reported that teen mothers who lived with their parents were less likely to smoke marijuana, living with parents did not result in reductions in alcohol or tobacco use. Mollborn (2017) provided an analysis of the federal U.S. policy landscape as it applies to young parents. Accompanying the declining rates of early childbearing, there has been a decline in the provision of federal benefits, such as TANF, compared with previous benefits available under AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children). In 2002, approximately 50% fewer teen mothers received TANF benefits than was the case in 1993 (Mollborn, 2017). Mollborn also noted the confluence of this lower dispersion of benefits with decreased rates of marriage and lower income and economic growth; together, these circumstances present greater economic pressure for young families that is likely not short-term. Declining marriage rates also suggest that adolescent mothers 218

Adolescent Parenting

and their children may be involved with multiple relationship partners over time, who may or may not engage in fathering roles. Because young women ages 18–24 are in the highest risk category for intimate partner violence (Black et al., 2011; Halpern, 2009), this relationship instability is concerning. Moreover, changes in the 2016 national and state political landscape mean threats to access to reproductive care for young women; whether this will result in a rise in rates of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing and sexually transmitted diseases remains to be seen.

Childcare as an Opportunity to Foster Positive Development in Two Generations Childcare, particularly high-quality care (Burchinal et al., 2000; Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor, 2009), can act as an asset for children at risk for challenging developmental adaptation due to economic and social threats (Loeb, Fuller, Kagan, and Carrol, 2004). To achieve the goals of fostering educational attainment and economic independence among young parents, access to affordable quality childcare and housing may be fundamental. Although rates of high school graduation have increased, one third of adolescent mothers do not obtain a high school diploma or GED (Shuger, 2012). Access to affordable childcare provides mothers time to devote to educational and vocational training that can increase economic independence and, in turn, benefit their young children. On average, adolescent mothers may struggle with providing optimal care for their children in regard to appropriate stimulation and sensitive interactions. Given this, high-quality childcare may serve as an asset, fostering optimal child development across socioemotional, cognitive, behavioral, and academic domains. There is evidence to support this assertion. Using a nationally representative longitudinal data set, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), Mollborn and Blalock (2012) found that both adolescent mothers and their children reaped benefits from nonparental childcare. Specifically, mothers whose children received nonparental care evidenced educational attainment and household income gains that were not present when children were cared for only by their parents. Similarly, children who had histories of nonparental care scored higher on measures of reading, math, and positive behavior prior to kindergarten. Furthermore, the authors concluded that the advantages associated with access to nonparental care were disproportionately seen among teen parent families when compared with those who had delayed childbearing beyond their teenage years. The benefits of nonparental care were evident even though quality of childcare (most often associated with positive developmental trajectories) was unknown, and presumably variable. One study of adolescent mothers and their children depicted similar results regarding the potential for nonmaternal care experiences to promote positive development across generations. Mothers’ college attendance was linked to greater childcare hours, and formal care (center based) was associated with more positive child language and socioemotional competence in toddlerhood. These positive relations between childcare and positive functioning in both generations held even in the absence of knowledge of quality of care (Katz, 2014; Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research, 2015). Providing access to school-based childcare centers is one strategy that has been used to decrease dropout rates and increase the high school graduation rates of teenage parents. Unfortunately, the monetary costs associated with these childcare programs, and the decline in the prevalence of adolescent parenthood, have led to closure of many such programs by school districts, counties, and towns that have historically offered them. Even when rates of adolescent parenthood were much higher than current incidence, only a very small portion of states provided funds for school-based childcare for adolescent parents (Children’s Defense Fund, 1987). In some such school-based programs, the school district pays a portion of the cost while federal Early Head Start or Head Start funds provide the remaining expenses. Some programs charge parents a minimal weekly fee for the service that is operated by a nonprofit within school walls (Gartner, 2012). Although there are substantial 219

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

costs incurred when providing high-quality center-based childcare, such an investment can have long-term returns. It has been reported that investments in high-quality early education generate economic returns of over eight dollars for every one dollar spent (President’s Council of Economic Advisers, 2015). In 2008, teen childbearing cost taxpayers at least $10.9 billion, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. But many of these costs—pricier health care, foster care, incarceration and lost tax revenue—are canceled out when teens obtain an education and support their families. (Gartner, 2012)

Supporting Parenting of Adolescent Parents Many programs, operated under various auspices by government and nongovernmental agencies, aim to support adolescent parents in achieving optimal developmental functioning for those individuals and their children. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review this plethora of program types, auspices, and impacts. Instead, we describe a handful of programs to reflect on some of the issues in program design, implementation, and efficacy. Taking an ecological view, when investigating the efficacy of prevention and intervention programs, it is important to consider aspects of the contexts of both the individual parents and the programs, including personality, cognitions and attributions, relationships, employment and mental health resources, and political and sociocultural concerns. Even when intervention programs are available and accessible, these characteristics influence program outcomes. Variations in participants’ developmental histories and the features of the program and how it is offered, structured, implemented, and perceived by the individual and the community will influence participant engagement in program activities, affecting program fidelity and impact. Parental depression, for example, is known to influence engagement and participation and to attenuate program effects (Ammerman, Putnam, Bosse, Teeters, and Van Ginkel, 2010; Easterbrooks et al., 2013). Vondra and colleagues (2005) argued that positive intervention effects may result, in part, from the fact that individuals who are motivated, responsive, and able to participate in services may be different from those who are invited to participate, but who do not engage, or individuals who drop out before program completion (i.e., complete only 3 out of 10 planned sessions, or who participate in only a portion of a curriculum). These issues may not be apparent when examining the results of randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiments in which the analyses conducted maintain the integrity of the research design (e.g., treatment and control groups) even when participants assigned to the treatment group receive partial treatment or, in some cases, no treatment. Although programs typically desire that a participant receive the entire “treatment dosage” (full number of curriculum lessons, home visits, and so forth) that is consistent with program design, it may be that those who “drop out” prior to the intended end date have gained just what they needed or desired. Some individuals who do not complete the program may be the “success stories” for whom services served as a catalyst for positive further development. Ending services early does not necessarily indicate treatment failure.

Parenting Programs for Adolescent Mothers A thorough consideration of programs for adolescent parents is beyond the scope of this chapter—it would constitute a chapter in its own right. For illustrative purposes, we briefly discuss a handful of programs that show promise in promoting thriving among adolescent parents and their children. Most parenting intervention programs begin during pregnancy and extend throughout the first 220

Adolescent Parenting

few (2–3) years of a child’s life, theorizing that, as we noted earlier in this chapter, the transition to parenthood is an opportunity for reorganization and a catalyst for a positive life trajectory. Accordingly, program models should respond to the joint trajectories of adolescent development and the transition to parenthood given that adolescence and parenthood are two unique components. For example, models of adolescent development highlight a central role for peers in healthy functioning (Steinberg and Morris, 2001). However, an explicit focus on peer relationships (with the exception of the relationship with the father of the child) is conspicuously absent from many programs and policies addressing adolescent parenting, which instead concentrate on the dyadic relationship between parent and child.

Home Visiting and Adolescent Mothers Adolescent mothers may incur benefits from home visitation that supports positive parenting (Daro and Harding, 1999; DuMont et al., 2008; Olds et al., 2002). One home visiting program that is well known to us is Healthy Families Massachusetts (HFM), a “home-based family support and coaching program that supports young, first-time parents” (Children’s Trust Massachusetts, 2017) that aims to (1) prevent child maltreatment by supporting positive, effective parenting; (2) achieve optimal child health and development; (3) promote positive maternal life course trajectory by supporting educational attainment and economic independence; (4) prevent repeat pregnancy during the teen years; and (5) promote parental health and well-being. Since the outset of the HFM program in 1997, the Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research (TIER) center has been involved in independent evaluations of HFM, most recently utilizing a RCT design (Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research, 2015, 2017). The HFM program is designed specifically for adolescent parents. All first-time young parents under the age of 21 are eligible to receive program services from pregnancy until their child’s third birthday. Although other communities and states have adopted the Healthy Families America (HFA) model (evaluated by the Department of Health and Human Services as an evidence-based program), HFM is the only HFA model that is universally available to, and specifically targeted toward, adolescent parents. Parents and home visitors learn together about caring for infants and young children, how to promote stable, nurturing home environments, and practice effective parenting skills in approaches that are culturally and contextually sensitive. In addition to these parenting goals, home visitors work with parents on goals that are developmentally appropriate for adolescents, including educational, vocational, and occupational attainment, and healthy relationship skills. Using Jacobs’ five-tiered approach to evaluation (1988), these studies have employed program process, ethnographic, and impact/outcome designs to understand aspects of program implementation and fidelity, and program impact and outcome. The approach is to ask the question of what works, for whom, and in what contexts? Rather than assuming that adolescent mothers and their children are a monolithic group, with singular characteristics, concerns, pathways, and projected adaptation, we have presupposed that adolescents come to parenthood with varying circumstances, goals, preferences, and contexts (family, community) that influence whether and how they engage and interact with a program, and the effects of program services. This research confirms the heterogeneity among adolescent parents and program effects (Easterbrooks, Chaudhuri, Bartlett, and Copeman, 2011; Easterbrooks, Kotake, Raskin, and Bumgarner, 2016; Mistry et al., 2016). The attenuation and promotion of program impacts relate to variations in participant characteristics and circumstances (Easterbrooks et al., 2013; Raskin, Fosse, Fauth, Bumgarner, and Easterbrooks, 2016), such as psychological vulnerability (maternal depression, history of childhood maltreatment, PTSD, and low social connections) and ethnicity. Regarding program goal attainment (parenting, health and well-being, educational attainment, prevention of repeat adolescent pregnancy and childbirth), in some cases the HFM program was particularly effective in domains 221

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al.

of especial relevance to adolescent parents (risky behaviors, college attendance, intimate partner violence, parenting stress). Results of longitudinal follow-up when children were of preschool and kindergarten age demonstrated continued impact of the HFM services in several domains (TIER, 2017). Mothers in the program services group reported fewer symptoms of depression and were less likely to engage in substance use. They also reported less parenting stress, and less use of corporal punishment, particularly among psychologically vulnerable mothers (depression). Furthermore, families in the program services group were less likely to become homeless, and mothers who were not depressed at enrollment in services were more likely to graduate from college. Children of mothers in the program services group demonstrated better working memory (a component of executive function). The data suggest that focusing on salient issues that address the dual developmental paths of adolescence and parenthood can be impactful.

Other Programs for Adolescent Parents We were unable to find a single compendium of evidence-based programs available to adolescent parents. By contrast, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has created a website that reviews and evaluates the home visiting literature, Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomVEE; https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/). Though not specifically addressing programs for adolescent parents, HomVEE reviews many parenting programs and assesses the quality of research evidence documenting program effectiveness as well as information regarding program model tenets and program implementation. For example, cited by HomVEE as an evidence-based program, Parents as Teachers (PAT; www.parentsasteachers.org) uses home visits to support the development of positive parenting. Although PAT is not an adolescent parent-specific program, several Wisconsin counties have focused their PAT program for teen parents, offering four service components: home visits that provide parenting and child development information, group connections, and child screening; parenting and child development information; developmental screenings; and a resource network that links families to additional services. A further example of a parenting program that serves primarily teenage mothers is Family Spirit (Mullany et al., 2012). A parenting intervention program specifically designed for Native American communities, Family Spirit uses tribal teachings that are conceptualized to operate as protective factors. The Family Spirit model incorporates 52 home visits from pregnancy through age 2, encompassing curricula across six domains of prenatal, infant and toddler care, maternal life skills, and healthy living. Results of several RCTs of the Family Spirit program applied to teen mothers demonstrated the efficacy of Family Spirit in increasing parenting knowledge and positive parenting behavior, reducing parenting stress and maternal depressive symptoms, and reducing maternal substance use and maternal and child behavior problems (Barlow et al., 2015; Walkup et al., 2009). Despite differences in the program model, curricula, and implementation, the results of the Family Spirit and the HFM programs designed for teenage mothers provide relatively consistent support for the efficacy of these home visiting programs offered to young parents. A different model of support for teenage parents, the online resource Teenwise Minnesota (www. moappp.org), specifically addresses concerns relevant to adolescent parents such as information about sexual health and parenting. This resource includes a directory of adolescent parent programs throughout the state of Minnesota and information on federal and state policies and policies related to access to public benefits for adolescent parents as well as resources available to teen parents (housing, parent-child attachment, health, education, childcare, legal concerns). A link to “programs that work” connects the viewer to the Promising Practices Network (www.promisingpractices.net) that provides information on individual programs and details of their program evaluations; unfortunately, the data on that site are no longer updated due to funding constraints. 222

Adolescent Parenting

Conclusion Although rates of adolescent pregnancy and parenting have declined, there remains concern about the prevalence and consequences of making the transition to parenthood as an adolescent. As a group, adolescent parents and their children are more likely to evidence lower educational and economic attainment, to be exposed to serious or chronic stressors, and to show disparities in health and well-being compared with older parents and their children. In this chapter, we adopted a bioecological approach to examining adolescent parenting, considering not only individual parents and their children, but also their wider contexts of development. Viewing adolescent parenting from this lens illuminates the circumstances and meanings that surround adolescent parenting; this stance underlies and informs empirical investigations, policies, and programs regarding adolescent parenting. In addition, this chapter underscores the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity of adolescent parenting. Adolescent parents and their children are not a monolithic group; there is variation in their parenting practices and adaptation similar to that of older parents. Furthermore, we highlighted that what may be considered the “consequences” of adolescent childbearing may actually result from other circumstances that precede, as well as accompany, adolescent parenting. We closed the chapter with a discussion of policies and programs for adolescent parents. Focusing on community and policy assets and resources that can promote positive functioning among adolescent parents and their children highlights the bioecological and resilience perspectives that are essential to consider in relation to adolescent parenting.

Acknowledgments We are very grateful for the support of our many colleagues at the Tufts Interdisciplinary Research Center (TIER) and to the adolescent mothers and their children who participated in our research by opening their homes and sharing their lives with us.

References Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(4), 407–412. Acs, G., and Koball, H. (2003). TANF and the status of teen mothers under age 18 (New Federalism: Issues and Options for States No. Series A, No. A-62). The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://webarchive.urban. org/publications/310796.html Ammerman, R. T., Putnam, F. W., Bosse, N. R., Teeters, A. R., and Van Ginkel, J. B. (2010). Maternal depression in home visitation: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(3), 191–200. Doi:10.1016/j. avb.2009.12.002 Aparicio, E., Pecukonis, E. V., and Zhou, K. (2014). Sociocultural Factors of Teenage Pregnancy in Latino Communities: Preparing Social Workers for Culturally Responsive Practice. Health & Social Work, 39(4), 238–243. Doi:10.1093/hsw/hlu032 Assini-Meytin, L. C., and Green, K. M. (2015). Long-term consequences of adolescent parenthood among African American urban youth: A propensity matching approach. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 56(5), 529–535. Doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.01.005 Barlow, A., Mullany, B., Neault, N., Goklish, N., Billy, T., Hastings, R., . . . Walkup, J. T. (2015). Paraprofessional-delivered home-visiting intervention for American Indian teen mothers and children: 3-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(2), 154–162. Doi:10.1176/appi. ajp.2014.14030332 Barn, R., and Mantovani, N. (2007). Young mothers and the care system: Contextualizing risk and vulnerability. The British Journal of Social Work, 37(2), 225–243. Doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl002 Barnet, B., Joffe, A., Duggan, A. K., Wilson, M. D., and Repke, J. T. (1996). Depressive symptoms, stress, and social support in pregnant and postpartum adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 150(1), 64–69. Doi:10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170260068011 Barnet, B., Liu, J., and DeVoe, M. (2008). Double jeopardy: Depressive symptoms and rapid subsequent pregnancy in adolescent mothers. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162(3), 246–252. Doi:10.1001/ archpediatrics.2007.60

223

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al. Barrett, J., and Fleming, A. S. (2011). Annual Research Review: All mothers are not created equal: Neural and psychobiological perspectives on mothering and the importance of individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(4), 368–397. Doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02306.x Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 83–96. Biddlecom, A. E., Hessburg, L., Singh, S., Bankole, A., and Darabi, L. (2007). Protecting the next generation in sub-Saharan Africa: Learning from adolescents to prevent HIV and unintended pregnancy. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Birkeland, R., Thompson, J. K., and Phares, V. (2005). Adolescent motherhood and postpartum depression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(2), 292–300. Doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3402_8 Bissell, M. (2000). Socio-economic outcomes of teen pregnancy and parenthood: A review of the literature. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality; Toronto, 9(3), 191–204. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., and Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. (No. 25). Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blum, R. W. (2015). Girlhood, not motherhood: Preventing adolescent pregnancy. New York: United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Boden, J. M., Fergusson, D. M., and John Horwood, L. (2008). Early motherhood and subsequent life outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(2), 151–160. Doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01830.x Borkowski, J. G., Whitman, T. L., and Farris, J. R. (2007). Adolescent mothers and their children: Risks, resilience, and development. In J. G. Borkowski, J. R. Farris, T. L. Whitman, S. S. Carothers, K. Weed, and D. A. Keogh (Eds.), Risk and resilience: Adolescent mothers and their children grow up (pp. 1–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Children’s parents. In M. H. Bornstein and T. Leventhal (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1–91). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc. Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle in acculturation science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–45. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment: Attachment and loss volume one (Basic Books Classics) (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Briceno, A-C. L., De Feyter, J. J., and Winsler, A. (2013). The school readiness of children born to low-income, adolescent Latinas in Miami. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(2–3), 430–442. Doi:10.1111/ajop.12021 Broman, S. H. (1981). Long-term development of children born to teenagers. In K. G. Scott, E. G. Field, and E. G. Robertson (Eds.), Teenage parents and their offspring (pp. 195–224). New York: Grune and Stratton. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. In Handbook of child psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Doi:10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, J., Rhodus, Zeisel, S. A., Neebe, E., and Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 339–357. Doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00149 Bureau, J. F., Easterbrooks, M. A., and Lyons-Ruth, K. (2009). Attachment disorganization and controlling behavior in middle childhood: Maternal and child precursors and correlates. Attachment and, 11(3), 265–284. Doi:10.1080/14616730902814788 Carothers, S. S., Borkowski, J. G., and Whitman, T. L. (2006). Children of adolescent mothers: Exposure to negative life events and the role of social supports on their socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 822–832. Doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9096-8 Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Zamsky, E. S. (1994). Young African-American multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of mothering and grandmothering. Child Development, 65(2), 373–393. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00757.x Chen, X-K., Wen, S. W., Fleming, N., Demissie, K., Rhoads, G. G., and Walker, M. (2007). Teenage pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: A large population based retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36(2), 368–373. Doi:10.1093/ije/dyl284 Cherrington, J., and Breheny, M. (2005). Politicizing dominant discursive constructions about teenage pregnancy: Re-locating the subject as social. Health: 9(1), 89–111. Doi:10.1177/1363459305048100 Children’s Defense Fund. (1987). Child care: An essential service for young parents. Retrieved from http://diglib.lib. utk.edu/cdf/main.php?bid=172&pg=2

224

Adolescent Parenting Children’s Trust Massachusetts. (2017). Family support programs—Healthy families Massachusetts | Children’s Trust Massachusetts. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from http://childrenstrustma.org/our-programs/healthy-families Cicchetti, D., and Rogosch, F. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600. Contreras, J. M. (2004). Parenting behaviors among mainland Puerto Rican adolescent mothers: The role of grandmother and partner involvement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 341–368. Doi:10.1111/j.15327795.2004.00078.x Corcoran, M. E., and Kunz, J. P. (1997). Do unmarried births among African-American teens lead to adult poverty? Social Service Review, 71(2), 274–287. Doi:10.2307/30013022 Cox, J. E., Buman, M., Valenzuela, J., Joseph, N. P., Mitchell, A., and Woods, E. R. (2008). Depression, parenting attributes, and social support among adolescent mothers attending a teen tot program. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 21(5), 275–281. Doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2008.02.002 Dahinten, V. S., Shapka, J. D., and Willms, J. D. (2007). Adolescent children of adolescent mothers: The impact of family functioning on trajectories of development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 195–212. Doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9140-8 Daro, D. A., and Harding, K. A. (1999). Healthy Families America: Using research to enhance practice. The Future of Children, 9(1), 152–176. Doi:10.2307/1602726 Dearing, E., McCartney, K., and Taylor, B. A. (2009). Does higher quality early child care promote low-income children’s math and reading achievement in middle childhood? Child Development, 80(5), 1329–1349. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01336.x DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., Rodriguez, M., and Dorabawila, V. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(3), 295–315. Doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.07.007 Duncan, S. (2007). What’s the problem with teenage parents? And what’s the problem with policy? Critical Social Policy, 27(3), 307–334. Doi:10.1177/0261018307078845 East, P. L., and Felice, M. E. (2014). Adolescent pregnancy and parenting: Findings from a racially diverse sample. London: Psychology Press. Easterbrooks, M. A., Bartlett, J. D., Raskin, M., Goldberg, J., Contreras, M. M., Kotake, C., . . . Jacobs, F. H. (2013). Limiting home visiting effects: Maternal depression as a moderator of child maltreatment. Pediatrics, 132(Supplement 2), S126–S133. Doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1021K Easterbrooks, M. A., Chaudhuri, J. H., Bartlett, J. D., and Copeman, A. (2011). Resilience in parenting among young mothers: Family and ecological risks and opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 42–50. Doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.010 Easterbrooks, M. A., Crossman, M. K., Caruso, A., Raskin, M., and Miranda-Julian, C. (2017). Maternal mind— mindedness and toddler behavior problems: The moderating role of maternal trauma and posttraumatic stress. Development and Psychopathology, 29(4), 1431–1442. Doi:10.1017/S0954579417000360 Easterbrooks, M. A., Kotake, C., Raskin, M., and Bumgarner, E. (2016). Patterns of depression among adolescent mothers: Resilience related to father support and home visiting program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(1), 61–68. Doi:10.1037/ort0000093 Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., and Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). Boston, MA: Springer. Doi:10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_1 Emery, J., Paquette, D., and Bigras, M. (2008). Factors predicting attachment patterns in infants of adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Studies, 14(1), 65–90. Doi:10.5172/jfs.327.14.1.65 Erikson, E. (1968). Youth: Identity and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Growth and crises of the “healthy personality.” In Symposium on the healthy personality (pp. 91–146). Oxford: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Eight ages of man. In Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. Ermisch, J. (2003). Does a “teen-birth” have longer-term impacts on the mother? Suggestive evidence from the British household panel study. Working Paper No. 2003–32. ISER Working Paper Series. Retrieved from www.econstor. eu/handle/10419/91969 Eshbaugh, E. M., Lempers, J., and Luze, G. J. (2006). Objective and self-perceived resources as predictors of depression among urban and non-urban adolescent mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 833–841. Doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9108-8 Evans, J., Heron, J., Francomb, H., Oke, S., and Golding, J. (2001). Cohort study of depressed mood during pregnancy and after childbirth. BMJ, 323(7307), 257–260. Doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7307.257 Field, T., Pickens, J., Prodromidis, M., Malphurs, J., Fox, N., Bendell, D., . . . Kuhn, C. (2000). Targeting adolescent mothers with depressive symptoms for Early Intervention. Adolescence, 35(138), 381.

225

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al. Finer, L. B., and Zolna, M. R. (2013). Shifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S1), S43–S48. Doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301416 Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Adolescent depression: Diagnosis, treatment, and educational attainment. Health Economics, 17(11), 1215–1235. Doi:10.1002/hec.1319 Fletcher, J. M., and Wolfe, B. L. (2009). Education and labor market consequences of teenage childbearing: Evidence using the timing of pregnancy outcomes and community fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 303–325. Doi:10.3368/jhr.44.2.303 Fraser, A. M., Brockert, J. E., and Ward, R. H. (1995). Association of young maternal age with adverse reproductive outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(17), 1113–1117. Doi:10.1056/NEJM1995042733 21701 Gartner, L. (2012, December 6). For teen parents, day care free at area high schools. Washington Examiner. Retrieved from www.washingtonexaminer.com/for-teen-parents-day-care-is-free-at-area-high-schools/ article/2515294 Gold, R., Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lynch, J. W., and Connell, F. A. (2001). Ecological Analysis of Teen Birth Rates: Association with Community Income and Income Inequality. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 5(3), 161–167. Doi:10.1023/A:1011343817153 Goldberg, W. (2014). Father time: The social clock and the timing of fatherhood. New York: Springer. Guttmacher Institute. (2015). Adolescent pregnancy and its outcomes across countries. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adolescent-pregnancy-and-its-outcomes-acrosscountries Halpern, C. T., Spriggs, A. L., Martin, S. L., and Kupper, L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 45(5), 508–516. Doi:10.1016/j. jadohealth.2009.03.011 Hamilton, B. E., Rosen, L. M., and Bramm, A. M. (2016). Teen birth rates for urban and rural areas in the United States, 2007–2015 (NCHS data brief, no 264). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Hans, S. L., and Thullen, M. J. (2009). The relational context of adolescent motherhood. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (3rd ed., pp. 214–229). New York: Guilford. Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., Egolf, B. P., and Russo, M. J. (1998). The relationship between early maltreatment and teenage parenthood. Journal of Adolescence, 21(3), 291–303. Doi:10.1006/jado.1998.0154 Hess, C. R., Papas, M. A., and Black, M. M. (2002). Resilience among African American adolescent mothers: Predictors of positive parenting in early infancy. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(7), 619–629. Doi:10.1093/ jpepsy/27.7.619 Hodgkinson, S. C., Colantuoni, E., Roberts, D., Berg-Cross, L., and Belcher, H. M. E. (2010). Depressive symptoms and birth outcomes among pregnant teenagers. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 23(1), 16–22. Doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2009.04.006 Hofferth, S. L., Reid, L., and Mott, F. L. (2001). The effects of early childbearing on schooling over time. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(6), 259–267. Hoffman, S. D. (1998). Teenage Childbearing Is Not So Bad After All . . . Or Is It? A Review of the New Literature. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(5), 236–243. Doi:10.2307/2991610 Hoffman, S. D. (2006). By the numbers: The public costs of teen childbearing. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Hoffman, S. D., and Maynard, R. A. (2008). Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Holmlund, H. (2005). Estimating long-term consequences of teenage childbearing: An examination of the siblings approach. Journal of Human Resources, XL(3), 716–743. Doi:10.3368/jhr.XL.3.716 Holub, C. K., Kershaw, T. S., Ethier, K. A., Lewis, J. B., Milan, S., and Ickovics, J. R. (2007). Prenatal and parenting stress on adolescent maternal adjustment: Identifying a high-risk subgroup. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 11(2), 153–159. Doi:10.1007/s10995-006-0159-y Horwitz, S. M., Klerman, L. V., Kuo, H. S., and Jekel, J. F. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of school-age parenthood. Family Planning Perspectives, 23(4), 168–177. Howard, K. S., Lefever, J., Borkowski, J. G., and Whitman, T. L. (2006). Fathers’ influence in the lives of children with adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 468–476. Doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.468 Huang, C. Y., Costeines, J., Ayala, C., and Kaufman, J. S. (2014). Parenting stress, social support, and depression for ethnic minority adolescent mothers: Impact on child development. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 255–262. Doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9807-1 Hurd, N. M., and Zimmerman, M. A. (2010). Natural mentoring relationships among adolescent mothers: A study of resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 789–809. Doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00660.x

226

Adolescent Parenting Imamura, M., Tucker, J., Hannaford, P., Silva, M. O. da, Astin, M., Wyness, L., . . . Temmerman, M. (2007). Factors associated with teenage pregnancy in the European Union countries: A systematic review. The European Journal of Public Health, 17(6), 630–636. Doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckm014 Jacobs, F. H. (1988). The five-tiered approach to evaluation: Context and implementation. In H. B. Weiss and F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp. 37–68). Hawthorne, NU: Aldine de Gruyter. Jaffee, S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Belsky, J., and Silva, P. (2001). Why are children born to teen mothers at risk for adverse outcomes in young adulthood? Results from a 20-year longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 377–397. Jaffee, S. R. (2002). Pathways to adversity in young adulthood among early childbearers. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 38–49. Jutte, D. P., Roos, N. P., Brownell, M. D., Briggs, G., MacWilliam, L., and Roos, L. L. (2010). The ripples of adolescent motherhood: Social, educational, and medical outcomes for children of teen and prior teen mothers. Academic Pediatrics, 10(5), 293–301. Doi:10.1016/j.acap.2010.06.008 Kalil, A., and Danziger, S. K. (2000). How teen mothers are faring under welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 775–798. Doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00195 Katz, R. C. (2014). Child care as a protective factor: Investigating the impact of child care in an at-risk sample (M.A.). Tufts University, MA. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1554707162/abstract/1BB 96968B814436APQ/1 Keown, L. J., Woodward, L. J., and Field, J. (2001). Language development of pre-school children born to teenage mothers. Infant and Child Development, 10(3), 129–145. Doi:10.1002/icd.282 Kirby, D., Coyle, K., and Gould, J. B. (2001). Manifestations of poverty and birthrates among young teenagers in California zip code areas. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(2), 63–69. Klein, J. D. (2005). Adolescent pregnancy: Current trends and issues. Pediatrics, 116(1), 281–286. Doi:10.1542/ peds.2005-0999 Klepinger, D. H., Lundberg, S., and Plotnick, R. D. (1995). Adolescent fertility and the educational attainment of young women. Family Planning Perspectives, 27(1), 23–28. Kroger, J. (2007). Identity development. Adolescence through adulthood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pulbications. Landau, J. (2007). Enhancing resilience: Families and communities as agents for change. Family Process, 46(3), 351–365. Doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00216.x Lanzi, R. G., Bert, S. C., Jacobs, B. K., and the Centers for the Prevention of Child Neglect. (2009). Depression among a sample of first time adolescent and adult mothers. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 22(4), 194–202. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2009.00199.x Larson, N. C. (2004). Parenting stress among adolescent mothers in the transition to adulthood. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(5), 457–476. Leadbeater, B. J., Bishop, S. J., and Raver, C. C. (1996). Quality of mother—toddler interactions, maternal depressive symptoms, and behavior problems in preschoolers of adolescent mothers. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 280–288. Doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.280 Leahy-Warren, P., McCarthy, G., and Corcoran, P. (2012). First-time mothers: Social support, maternal parental self-efficacy and postnatal depression. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(3–4), 388–397. Doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2702.2011.03701.x Lefever, J. B., Nicholson, J. S., and Noria, C. W. (2007). Children’s uncertain futures: Problems in school. In J. G. Borkowski, J. R. Farris, T. L. Whitman, S. S. Carothers, K. Weed, and D. A. Keogh (Eds.), Risk and resilience: Adolescent mothers and their children grown-up (pp. 69–99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. LePlatte, D., Rosenblum, K. L., Stanton, E., Miller, N., and Muzik, M. (2012). Mental health in primary care for adolescent parents. Mental Health in Family Medicine, 9(1), 39–45. Lerner, R. M., and Spanier, G. B. (1978). A dynamic interactional view of child and family development. In R. M. Lerner and G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective (pp. 1–22). New York: Academic Press. Lesser, J., and Koniak-Griffin, D. (2000). The impact of physical or sexual abuse on chronic depression in adolescent mothers. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 15(6), 378–387. Doi:10.1053/jpdn.2000.16714 Levine, D. I., and Painter, G. (2003). The schooling costs of teenage out-of-wedlock childbearing: Analysis with a within-school propensity-score-matching estimator. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 884–900. Doi:10.1162/003465303772815790 Levine, J. A., Emery, C. R., and Pollack, H. (2007). The well-being of children born to teen mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 105–122. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00348.x Levine, J. A., Pollack, H., and Comfort, M. E. (2001). Academic and behavioral outcomes among the children of young mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 355–369. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00355.x

227

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al. Lipman, E. L., Georgiades, K., and Boyle, M. H. (2011). Young adult outcomes of children born to teen mothers: Effects of being born during their teen or later years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(3), 232–241.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.12.007 Loaiza, E., and Liang, M. (2013). Adolescent pregnancy: A review of the evidence. New York: UNFPA. Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., and Carrol, B. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75(1), 47–65. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00653.x Logsdon, M. C., Birkimer, J. C., Simpson, T., and Looney, S. (2005). Postpartum depression and social support in adolescents. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 34(1), 46–54. Lounds, J. J., Borkowski, J. G., and Whitman, T. L. (2006). The potential for child neglect: The case of adolescent mothers and their children. Child maltreatment, 11(3), 281–294. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., and Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164 Manlove, J., Terry-Humen, E., Miniceli, L., and Moore, K. (2008). Outcomes for children of teen mothers from kindergarten to adolescence. In S. Hoffman and R. Maynard (Eds.), Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In Ego Identity (pp. 3–21). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-8330-7_1 Masten, A. S. (2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. New York: Guilford. Masten, A. S., and Garmezy, N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental psychopathology. In Advances in clinical child psychology (pp. 1–52). Boston, MA: Springer. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9820-2_1 McConnell, D., Breitkreuz, R., and Savage, A. (2011). From financial hardship to child difficulties: Main and moderating effects of perceived social support. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37(5), 679–691. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01185.x McGroder, S. M. (2000). Parenting among low-income, African American single mothers with preschool-age children: Patterns, predictors, and developmental correlates. Child Development, 71(3), 752–771. Doi:10.1111/ 1467-8624.00183 Mirowsky, J. (2002). Parenthood and health: The pivotal and optimal age at first birth. Social Forces, 81(1), 315–349. Doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0055 Mistry, J., Easterbrooks, M. A., Fauth, R. C., Raskin, M., Jacobs, F., and Goldberg, J. (2016). Heterogeneity among adolescent mothers and home visiting program outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 86–93. Doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.002 Mollborn, S. (2007). Making the best of a bad situation: Material resources and teenage parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 92–104. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00347.x Mollborn, S. (2017). Teenage mothers today: What we know and how it matters. Child Development Perspectives, 11(1), 63–69. Doi:10.1111/cdep.12205 Mollborn, S., and Blalock, C. (2012). Consequences of teen parents’ child care arrangements for mothers and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 846–865. Mollborn, S., and Dennis, J. A. (2012). Investigating the life situations and development of teenage mothers’ children: Evidence from the ECLS-B. Population Research and Policy Review, 31(1), 31–66. Doi:10.1007/ s11113-011-9218-1 Mollborn, S., and Morningstar, E. (2009). Investigating the relationship between teenage childbearing and psychological distress using longitudinal evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(3), 310–326. Doi:10. 1177/002214650905000305 Moos, R. H., and Schaefer, J. A. (1986). Life transitions and crises. In Coping with life crises (pp. 3–28). Boston, MA: Springer. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7021-5_1 Moos, R., and Schaefer, J. (2013). Life transitions and crises: A conceptual overview. In Coping with life crises: An integrated approach. Boston, MA: Springer. Mullany, B., Barlow, A., Neault, N., Billy, T., Jones, T., Tortice, I., . . . Walkup, J. T. (2012). The family spirit trial for American Indian teen mothers and their children: CBPR rationale, design, methods and baseline characteristics. Prevention Science, 13, 504–518. Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, C. R., . . . Talmi, A. (2002). Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110(3), 486–496. Doi:10.1542/peds.110.3.486 Osofsky, J. D., Osofsky, H. J., and Diamond, M. O. (1988). The transition to parenthood: Special tasks and risk factors for adolescent parents. In G. Y. Michaels and W. A. Goldberg (Eds.), The transition to parenthood: Current theory and research (pp. 209–232). New York: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, M., and Spieker, S. (2006). Preschool language development among children of adolescent mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 165–182. Doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.12.013

228

Adolescent Parenting Panzarine, S., Slater, E., and Sharps, P. (1995). Coping, social support, and depressive symptoms in adolescent mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17(2), 113–119. Doi:10.1016/1054-139X(95)00064-Y Patel, P. H., and Sen, B. (2012). Teen Motherhood and long-term health consequences. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(5), 1063–1071. Doi:10.1007/s10995-011-0829-2 Penman-Aguilar, A., Carter, M., Snead, M. C., and Kourtis, A. P. (2013). Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S. Public Health Reports, 128(Suppl 1), 5–22. Perper, K., Peterson, K., and Manlove, J. (2010). Diploma attainment among teen mothers: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Pew Hispanic Center. (2009). Between two worlds: How young Latinos come of age in America. Retrieved from http:// pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.pdf Pillow, W. S. (2004). Unfit subjects: Education policy and the teen mother, 1972–2002. London: Routledge. Pogarsky, G., Thornberry, T. P., and Lizotte, A. J. (2006). Developmental outcomes for children of young mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 332–344. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00256.x Pradhan, R., Wynter, K., and Fisher, J. (2015). Factors associated with pregnancy among adolescents in lowincome and lower middle-income countries: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(9), 918–924. Doi:10.1136/jech-2014-205128 President’s Council of Economic Advisers. (2015). The economics of early childhood investments. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States. Raskin, M., Easterbrooks, M. A., Fauth, R. C., Jacobs, F. H., Fosse, N. E., Goldberg, J., and Mistry, J. (2017). Patterns of goal attainment among young mothers in a home visiting program. Applied Developmental Science, 21(3), 1–13. Raskin, M., Fosse, N. E., Fauth, R. C., Bumgarner, E., and Easterbrooks, M. A. (2016). Relationship types among adolescent parents participating in a home-visiting program: A latent-transition analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 375–385. Doi:10.1037/fam0000164 Reid, V., and Meadows-Oliver, M. (2007). Postpartum depression in adolescent mothers: An integrative review of the literature. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 21(5), 289–298. Doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2006.05.010 Robson, K., and Berthoud, R. (2006). Age at first birth and disadvantage among ethnic groups in Britain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(1), 153–172. Doi:10.1080/01419870500352702 Romero, L., Pazol, K., Warner, L., Cox, S., Kroelinger, C., Besera, G., . . . Barfield, W. (2016). Reduced disparities in birth rates among teens aged 15–19 years—United States, 2006–2007 and 2013–2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65. Doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6516a1 Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. New York: HarperOne. Sadler, L. S., and Cowlin, A. (2003). Moving into parenthood: A program for new adolescent mothers combining parent education with creative physical activity. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 8(2), 62–70. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6155.2003.tb00188.x Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Santelli, J. S., and Melnikas, A. J. (2010). Teen fertility in transition: Recent and historic trends in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 31(1), 371–383. Doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090830 Schmidt, R. M., Wiemann, C. M., Rickert, V. I., and Smith, E. O.’Brian. (2006). Moderate to severe depressive symptoms among adolescent mothers followed four years postpartum. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(6), 712–718. Doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.023 Sedgh, G., Finer, L. B., Bankole, A., Eilers, M. A., and Singh, S. (2015). Adolescent pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates across countries: Levels and recent trends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), 223–230. Doi:10.1016/j. jadohealth.2014.09.007 Shapiro, J. R., and Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1994). The determinants of parenting competence in adolescent mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(6), 621–641. Doi:10.1007/BF01537633 Shuger, L. (2012). Teen pregnancy and high school dropout: What communities can do to address these issues. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Sieger, K., and Renk, K. (2007). Pregnant and parenting adolescents: A study of ethnic identity, emotional and behavioral functioning, child characteristics, and social support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(4), 567–581. Doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9182-6 Smith, M. (2004). Parental mental health: Disruptions to parenting and outcomes for children. Child & Family Social Work, 9(1), 3–11. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00312.x Smith, M. L., and Wilson, K. L. (2014). Employment status among parenting teenage mothers enrolled in high school. The Journal of School Health, 84(9), 605–608. Doi:10.1111/josh.12187 SmithBattle, L. (1995). Teenage mothers’ narratives of self: An examination of risking the future. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(4), 22–36.

229

M. Ann Easterbrooks et al. SmithBattle, L. (2006). Helping teen mothers succeed. The Journal of School Nursing, 22(3), 130–135. Doi:10.11 77/10598405060220030201 SmithBattle, L. (2007a). “I wanna have a good future”: Teen mothers’ rise in educational aspirations, competing demands, and limited school support. Youth and Society, 38(3), 348–371. Doi:10.1177/0044118X06287962 SmithBattle, L. (2007b). Legacies of advantage and disadvantage: The case of teen mothers. Public Health Nursing, 24(5), 409–420. Doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2007.00651.x SmithBattle, L. I. (2013). Reducing the stigmatization of teen mothers. MCN. The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 38(4), 235–241; quiz 242–243. Doi:10.1097/NMC.0b013e3182836bd4 Solivan, A. E., Wallace, M. E., Kaplan, K. C., and Harville, E. W. (2015). Use of a resiliency framework to examine pregnancy and birth outcomes among adolescents: A qualitative study. Families, Systems and Health, 33(4), 349–355. Doi:10.1037/fsh0000141 South, S. J., and Baumer, E. P. (2000). Deciphering community and race effects on adolescent premarital childbearing. Social Forces, 78(4), 1379–1407. Doi:10.1093/sf/78.4.1379 Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., and Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 817–833. Spencer, M., Harpalani, V., Cassidy, E., Jacobs, C. Y., Donde, S., Goss, T. N., and Wilson, S. (2006). Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a normative developmental perspective: Implications for racially and ethnically diverse youth. Developmental Psychopathology, Second Edition, 627–672. Spencer, M. S., Kalil, A., Larson, N. C., Spieker, S. J., and Gilchrist, L. D. (2002). Multigenerational coresidence and childrearing conflict: Links to parenting stress in teenage mothers across the first two years postpartum. Applied Developmental Science, 6(3), 157–170. Doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0603_5 Steinberg, L. (2000). The family at adolescence: Transition and transformation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(3), 170–178. Steinberg, L., and Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 83–110. Sucoff, C. A., and Upchurch, D. M. (1998). Neighborhood context and the risk of childbearing among metropolitan-area black adolescents. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 571–585. Doi:10.2307/2657268 Taylor, S. E. (2008). Genetic contributions to sensitive parenting. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 89–90. Doi:10.1093/scan/nsn015 Taylor, Z. E., Conger, R. D., Robins, R. W., and Widaman, K. F. (2015). Parenting practices and perceived social support: Longitudinal relations with the social competence of Mexican-origin children. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(4), 193–208. Doi:10.1037/lat0000038 Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research. (2015). The Massachusetts healthy families evaluation-2 (MHFE-2): A randomized, controlled trial of a statewide home visiting program for young parents. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research. (2017). The Massachusetts healthy families evaluation-2: Early childhood (MHFE-2EC): Follow-up study of a randomized, controlled trial of a statewide home visiting program for young parents (Final Report). Medford, MA: Tufts University. Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. The British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235. Doi:10.1093/ bjsw/bcl343 Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1–17. Doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2013). Adolescent fertility since the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. United Nations. Retrieved from www.unpopulation.org van Bakel, H. J. A., and Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2002). Parenting and development of one-year-olds: Links with parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Child Development, 73(1), 256–273. Venkatesh, K. K., Phipps, M. G., Triche, E. W., and Zlotnick, C. (2014). The relationship between parental stress and postpartum depression among adolescent mothers enrolled in a randomized controlled prevention trial. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18(6), 1532–1539. Doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1394-7 Ventura, S. J., Hamilton, B. E., and Mathews, T. J. (2014). National vital statistics reports. National Vital Statistics Reports, 63(4). Retrieved from www.basicknowledge101.com/pdf/Teen%20Birth%20Rates.pdf von Bertalanffy. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc. Vondra, J., Sysko, H. B., and Belsky, J. (2005). Developmental origins of parenting: Personality and relationship factors. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 35–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Walkup, J. T., Barlow, A., Mullany, B. C., Pan, W., Goklish, N., Hasting, R., . . . Reid, R. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of a paraprofessional-delivered in-home intervention for young reservation-based American Indian mothers. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(6), 591–601. Doi:10.1097/ CHI.0b013e3181a0ab86

230

Adolescent Parenting Walsh, F. (2012). Facilitating family resilience: Relational resources for positive youth development in conditions of adversity. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience (pp. 173–185). New York: Springer. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0586-3_15 Weed, K., Keogh, D., and Borkowski, J. (2006). Stability of resilience in children of adolescent mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 60–77. Doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.12.007 Whitman, T. L., Borkowski, J. G., Keogh, D. A., and Weed, K. (2001). Interwoven lives: Adolescent mothers and their children. London: Psychology Press. Whitson, M. L., Martinez, A., Ayala, C., and Kaufman, J. S. (2011). Predictors of parenting and infant outcomes for impoverished adolescent parents. Journal of Family Social Work, 14(4), 284–297. Doi:10.1080/10522158. 2011.587173 WHO. (2014a). Adolescent pregnancy. Retrieved from www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/ WHO. (2014b). Adolescent pregnancy fact sheet. Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization. Wilson, W. J. (1996). Work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Woodward, L., Fergusson, D. M., and Horwood, L. J. (2001). Risk factors and life processes associated with teenage pregnancy: Results of a prospective study from birth to 20 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1170–1184. Doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01170.x

231

7 GRANDPARENTING Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

Introduction Grandparenting is an important part of the life cycle. Leopold and Skopek (2015a) analyzed four large surveys covering the United States and 24 European countries, using data from 2001 to 2008. The typical life-course pattern for females was to become a mother in her mid-20s, and to cease active parenting in the mid-40s. This usually preceded becoming a grandmother, which was typically in the mid-to-late 40s to mid-50s. Grandmothering again preceded retirement/economic inactivity in the late 50s and 60s. Life expectancy at age 60 was typically in the 80s, with some 25–30 years spent as a grandmother. Men tend to be slightly older at marriage and to live slightly less long than women, so the typical life-course pattern was to become a father in the mid-to-late 20s, and to cease active parenting in the mid-to-late 40s. This usually preceded becoming a grandfather, which was typically between 50 and 60. Grandfathering again preceded retirement/inactivity in the 60s. Life expectancy at age 60 was typically late 70s to 80s, with some 20–25 years spent as a grandfather. Leopold and Skopek pointed out that there are substantial country variations on this generalized pattern. In fact, cross-national differences in the median age of becoming a grandparent were more substantial than differences in age of parenthood, age of retirement, or life expectancy. In the countries they surveyed, becoming a grandparent was later in the Western European countries; it was latest in Switzerland for women (57 years) and Spain for men (60 years). In the United States, the figures were 49 years and 52 years, respectively. Some Eastern European countries showed an even earlier pattern; the median age was lowest in Ukraine, at 46 years for women and 48 for men (Leopold and Skopek (2015a, Figures 7.1 and 7.2). These figures, especially for Western Europe, exemplify the effects of the first and second demographic transitions (Lesthaeghe, 2014). The first demographic transition, through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western countries, although still in process in developing countries, saw declines in both mortality and fertility. The second demographic transition is seeing rising age of first marriage, a delay in childbearing, rising divorce rates, lower levels of fertility, and an increase in autonomy and multiple lifestyles. These are thought to arise from lower infant mortality and increased educational and work opportunities especially for women. Where this second demographic transition started early (as in Western Europe), then it applies to both the grandparent and parent generations, resulting in the so-called beanpole families with a stretched life course and relatively small family size at each generation (Bengtson, 2001). The picture is still different in many developing countries, although reliable survey data are harder to come by. In South Asian countries, 232

Grandparenting

for example, Babu, Hossain, Morales, and Vij (2018) suggested marriage at around 18–22 years and becoming a grandparent in one’s early 40s. The previous discussion indicates the importance of historical context as well as country variation. Both developed and developing countries are shifting in their demographic patterns. In detailed analysis of data from East and West Germany, Leopold and Skopek (2015b) compared three birth cohorts: 1929–1938, 1939–1948, and 1949–1958. In East Germany, the median age of becoming a grandmother was 47, 49, and 53 years, respectively, which is an increase of about 3 months/year. In West Germany, the figures were later, 55, 57, and 60 years, respectively, which is an increase of 2.5 months/year. Findings for grandfathers were similar but about 3 years later. Margolis (2016) provided a detailed demographic analysis of grandparenting in Canada at two time points, 1985 and 2011. During this interval (as through the twentieth century) life expectancy increased, reaching nearly 84 years for women and 80 for men by 2011. The mean age of having a first child also increased, from 23.5 years in 1965 to 28.5 years in 2011; this, in turn, substantially increased the age of becoming a grandparent, although eventual rates of grandparenthood were stable. These two trends had opposite effects on the length of time spent as a grandparent. For grandmothers, the two effects more or less canceled each other out; the average length of time being a grandmother decreased slightly, from 24.7 to 24.3 years, over this period. Due to considerable increases in life expectancy for men, the average length of time being a grandfather increased from 17.0 to 18.9 years. The historical context is clearly important in considering the nature of grandparenthood—not just the timing, but also aspects such as the nature and frequency of contacts, and the benefits and costs involved. For example, Meyer and Abdul-Malak (2016) pointed out how in the United States (and no doubt other Western countries) the Great Recession of 2007–2009 hit many working families hard, leading to an increase in turning to grandparents for help. Research on grandparenting has developed considerably. This means that many detailed findings from the 1980s and even 1990s are less applicable in the contemporary context. We, therefore, focus on research in this century. For a fuller account of research in the 1950s to 1990s, two earlier chapters can be consulted (Smith, 1995; Smith and Drew, 2002). We provide a brief summary of historical issues and classical research next. Following a review of theories bearing on the study of grandparenthood, the central issues covered by research are outlined in some detail. Two particular issues—grandparents as surrogate parents and the intergenerational transmission of attitudes and behaviors—each has its own major section. Some practical issues of grandparenting are then considered, and finally future directions for research are indicated.

Historical Issues and Classical Studies in Studying Grandparenting In studying grandparenthood, Bengtson (1987) distinguished period effects (historical period), cohort effects (when you were born while living in an historical period), and lineage effects (different generations within a family structure). Bengtson’s emphasis on lineage rather than age is appropriate for this chapter, where we are primarily looking at the generational relationship of grandparenthood. Grandparents can, of course, vary in age a great deal, whereas lineage remains constant. Age then becomes one mediating factor (among many others) to be considered as affecting grandparental relationships. Terms such as “grandparent,” “parent,” “child,” and “grandchild” are relative; someone may be both a parent and a child, for example. Many researchers use generational labels such as “G1,” “G2,” and “G3” to avoid this ambiguity. However, this device has its own difficulties, as, if G1 refers to a grandparental generation, then there is no appropriate label for any great-grandparents. In this chapter, we take grandchildren as the reference point, and refer to their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. 233

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

Most of our evidence on grandparenthood still comes from modern urban, industrial societies, particularly the United States and Europe, although this situation is changing. Generational relationships in agrarian societies have traditionally been embedded in a system with strong kinship ties and strong expectations of reciprocity. Parents tended to have many children, mortality was relatively high, and parents expected children to support them in old age. The urban-industrial revolution reduces the salience of kinship and parentage, and the concept of childrearing changes from one of lifelong reciprocity to one of launching children into an autonomous maturity in which their future relationship with parents is optional (LeVine and White, 1987). With the demographic transitions to lower birth and death rates and longer life-span expectancy come mass public schooling and greater public interest and concern in children, although with some reduction in parental control over matters such as marriage and career. The latter decades of the twentieth century saw an increase in divorce rates and in numbers of reconstituted families and step-kin (Bugental and Corpuz, 2019). This century has seen the rise of the internet, reducing the impact of proximity on grandparent-grandchild contacts (Ivan and Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017). These factors need to be borne in mind when considering the nature and role of grandparenthood, but some changes may have also influenced the extent to which grandparenting has been an object of social scientific and psychological research. The first few articles about grandparents appeared in the 1930s and 1940s (Smith, 1991a). Usually written by psychiatrists or clinicians, they gave a rather negative view of grandparental influence. Articles by Vollmer (1937) entitled “The Grandmother: A Problem in Child Rearing” and by Strauss (1943) entitled “Grandma Made Johnny Delinquent” each berated the adverse influence of grandmothers who interfere with the mother’s childrearing in old-fashioned and didactic ways. Staples (1952) presented a more balanced view, concluding that the well-liked grandmother . . . keeps up with the times . . . can easily make the transition from a position of responsibility in the family to one of rendering interested, helpful services. The disliked grandmother is unable to adjust to change and is unpleasantly aggressive in her contacts with her family. (p. 340) From the 1960s, grandparents started to be presented much more favorably. Smith (1991a) suggested that this development reflected some actual changes in grandparental attitudes and roles; although the early studies are probably unrepresentative in terms of sampling, there is some evidence that more grandparents were coresident, and had a more authoritative attitude, earlier in the twentieth century. But by the 1960s, many grandparents accepted a “formal” or “fun-seeking” role, clearly demarcating grandparental and parental roles. In Neugarten and Weinstein’s (1964) study, only a very small proportion of grandparents saw themselves as “reservoirs of family wisdom.” This decrease in formality and authority probably allowed more indulgent and warm relationships between grandparents and other family members. Studies by Kahana and Kahana (1970) and Robertson (1977) of the perception of grandparenthood continued this more positive picture and set a trend for much subsequent research. Kornhaber and Woodward (1981) described the “vital connection” of grandparents and grandchildren, although worried by now that some grandparents were becoming remote and detached. Tinsley and Parke (1984) reviewed the importance of grandparents as support and socialization agents. Bengtson and Robertson (1985) provided a compilation of the more positive research and views of grandparenthood that had accumulated over the previous decade. Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986) gave a thorough account of “The new American grandparent.” Mangen, Bengtson, and Landry (1988) provided a comprehensive review of methodological issues in studying intergenerational relationships. Smith (1991b) gave a selection of studies of grandparenthood from different industrialized countries,

234

Grandparenting

helping to balance the great bulk of research from the United States. In a Handbook of Grandparenthood, Szinovacz (1998) provided an important multidisciplinary resource. Tinsley and Parke (1984) suggested four reasons for the increase of research in these later decades of the twentieth century. The first was the demographic change resulting in substantial increases in life expectancy, with more people becoming grandparents. Second was the move to look beyond the nuclear family to wider social networks. Third, consideration of grandparent-grandchild relationships forced investigators to think in a life-span framework and to consider processes of intergenerational influence, but the life-span perspective in developmental science became influential only in the 1980s; prior to that, developmental psychology and child development were often seen as virtually synonymous. Fourth, the availability of theoretical and statistical models needed to cope with the triadic or polyadic relations and patterns of direct and indirect influence likely to be encountered in analyzing grandparent-grandchild influence and interaction increased. In the twenty first century, research has continued, with the last decade seeing important collections of studies, including edited volumes by Arber and Timonen (2012) on Contemporary Grandparenting: Changing Family Relationships in Global Contexts, emphasizing historical and sociological perspectives; Mehta and Thang (2012) on Experiencing Grandparenthood: An Asian Perspective; Buchanan and Rotkirch (2016a) providing considerable global coverage in Grandfathers: Global Perspectives; and Meyer and Abdul-Malak (2016) covering Grandparenting in the United States. Hayslip and Smith (2013) on Resilient Grandparent Caregivers: A Strength-Based Perspective is the most recent of several books and edited collections on grandparents as caregivers. Moore and Rosenthal (2017) in Grandparenting: Contemporary Perspectives provide a thorough overview of recent research; and the edited volume by Shwalb and Hossain (2018), Grandparents in Cultural Context, includes reviews from across the globe, including Central America, Brazil, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Theoretical Perspectives Applicable to Grandparenthood Several theoretical perspectives can be used to structure research and interpret data on grandparenting. These include evolutionary theory, attachment theory, family sociology and family systems theory, and life-span and life-course perspectives.

Evolutionary Theory Evolutionary theory has contributed to the understanding of grandparenthood in two main ways. One important contribution has been the explanation of the longer life span and extended menopause in humans, leading to the “grandmother hypothesis” that grandmothers especially played an important helping role in human evolution. The second contribution takes ideas from kin selection theory and related concepts to explain why grandparent help might vary by factors such as gender of grandparent and of grandchild. The key concept underlying the approach is that of inclusive fitness. Genetic evolution acts to favor behavior that increases genetic representation in succeeding generations; this is obviously through having offspring of one’s own, but can also be through helping relatives who are genetically related to you. Human females typically live for an extended period, measured in decades, after the midlife menopause; this was also true in hunter-gatherer societies, and probably emerged in the Early Upper Paleolithic period (about 40,000 years ago; Caspari and Lee, 2004). This phenomenon is unique to humans in extent; in most species, the possibility of reproduction continues until death. Only in a very few species (including great apes and toothed whales) is there a menopause, and then only for a relatively short period. Why should human females live for a long period without being able to reproduce? An influential theory here has been the so-called grandmother hypothesis (Hawkes,

235

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

O’Connell, and Blurton Jones, 1997; Hawkes, O’Connell, Blurton Jones, Alvarez, and Charnov, 1998). The grandmother hypothesis supposes that as mothers age, the costs of having more children of their own increases, and they would benefit more (in terms of inclusive fitness) from helping their existing children. This could especially include helping their own children when they themselves become parents—that is, being a helpful grandmother. On this line of reasoning, it is perhaps no accident that the age of menopause is not greatly different from the likely age of becoming a grandparent. In terms of explaining the menopause, the grandmother hypothesis has had critics (Kachel and Premo, 2012); it is possible that a longer human life span evolved for other reasons, and that the menopause is a by-product of this. However, it is clear that the menopause opens a window of opportunity for older females to help their older children and their grandchildren, without competition from still bearing offspring themselves. Hawkes et al. (1997) worked with the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer people living in Tanzania. They found that grandmothers were an important source of extra food provisioning for grandchildren, especially when the mother had a new baby. Besides food provisioning, this and similar studies in pretransition (nonurban) societies have found that grandmothers can pass on accumulated knowledge such as advice on recognizing illnesses, and both grandmothers and grandfathers may contribute with heavy domestic tasks and agricultural labor (Sear and Coall, 2011). Sear and Coall (2011) reviewed 37 studies of cooperative breeding in humans generally (i.e., the effects of relatives on infant survival). For pre-transition societies, they used anthropological studies and also historical records in early European and North American societies. They found that one of the most reliable helpers was the maternal grandmother; her presence helped child survival rates in over two thirds of cases. Paternal grandmothers were helpful in just over half of cases. The presence of grandfathers was found to make little difference for child survival, and a few studies actually found negative effects of paternal grandfathers. They also examined 19 studies of grandparental effects in post-transition societies. The majority indicated a positive impact of grandparents, with more evidence here of the positive influence of grandfathers as well as grandmothers. Sear and Coall caution that these are correlational studies, so direct causal effects are not established. Evolutionary theory also makes predictions about which grandparents should help which grandchildren. In fact, a range of such predictions can be made (Tanskanen, Rotkirch, and Danielsbacka, 2011). One is that step-grandparents, because they are not genetically related to step-grandchildren, would not be so likely to provide help; the greater risk of step-grandchildren for abuse (Margolin, 1992) would also be predicted. Another relates to paternity certainty; mothers can be sure of maternity, but fathers cannot be so certain of paternity (unless a DNA test is made). Suppose paternity certainty has a value p (less than 1; perhaps around 0.90; Geary, 2005); this means that whereas the relatedness of maternal grandmother to her grandchild is definitely one-quarter or 0.25 (of genes shared by common descent), for maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother (where there is one potentially uncertain link), it is 0.25p, and for paternal grandfather, it is reduced to 0.25p2. This would predict differences in grandparental involvement and investment of MGM > MGF = PGM > PGF; a pattern found in many studies (Danielsbacka, Tanskanen, Jokela, and Rotkirch, 2011). For this paternity certainty argument, the sex of grandchild is irrelevant. However, other theories suggest sex of grandchild may be important. One relates to X-chromosome relatedness (Fox et al., 2010); females are XX and males are XY, with the X-chromosome carrying about 8% of human genes, and the much shorter Y-chromosome carrying only a very small 0.4% amount. Calculating from the 8% figure and the inheritance of the X-chromosome, Fox et al. argued that MGM relatedness to granddaughters and grandsons remains at 0.25, but that it can rise to 0.27 for PGM to granddaughters, and fall to 0.23 for PGM to grandsons. This imbalance then predicts that PGMs should favor granddaughters over grandsons. Fox et al. reported evidence for this in 6 out of 7 relevant studies that they examined. 236

Grandparenting

Some other approaches include the possibility of selfish mutations on the X-chromosome (Rice, Gavrilets, and Friberg, 2010), which predicts not only differential PGM investment by sex of grandchild, but also the possibility of PGMs having a negative effect on grandsons, found in some studies (Fox et al., 2010; Sear and Coall, 2011). Tanskanen et al. (2011) tested the predictions from these theories, using a nationally representative sample of 11- to 16-year-old grandchildren in England and Wales, covering over 4,000 grandparents. Looking at various measures of investment in grandchildren, they failed to find convincing evidence of any sex discrimination by the paternal grandmother against grandsons, and if anything the opposite (less investment in granddaughters). Their findings were in line with predictions from paternity certainty theory, but not for theories based on X-chromosome effects. However, in a meta-analysis of 17 studies, Strassmann and Gerrard (2011) found that grandparents most likely to live with a grandchild (paternal grandparents in patrilineal societies) were less beneficial than those who do not do so, which they explain in terms of a local resource competition hypothesis—competition among family members who belong to the same economic unit. Evolutionary theories have a role to play in our understanding of grandparenthood, and can and should be integrated with more proximal and cultural explanations of relevant data, rather than be seen as antithetical to them. For example, Archer (1999) suggested that explanations of greater grief in maternal grandmothers at the death of a grandchild, although having evolutionary theory as a distal factor, require strength of attachment as a proximate causative variable. Other theories and evidence concerning distribution of grandparental investment come from economics and from sociology. Coall and Hertwig (2010, 2011) pointed out that these different traditions rarely interact with each other and call for more cross-disciplinary research. In an extensive review (2010), they pointed to the considerable evidence that grandparents can provide support for children and grandchildren in adverse circumstances (see later sections in this chapter).

Attachment Theory Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1974, 1988) emphasizes the powerful influence on development of children’s early relationships with their caregivers—and particularly their mother-figure. This perspective utilizes the concept of internal working models (IWMs) of relationships. Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) described IWMs as internalized representations acquired in infancy and childhood, which reflect aspects such as trust or ambivalence learned in primary relationships. IWMs are assessed in infancy in the Strange Situation (SS), yielding classifications of secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized attachment with mother or caregiver. Children are likely to form secure attachments to mothers who are attentive, sensitive, and responsive, whereas insensitive, neglectful, or rejecting parenting is associated with insecure attachment relationships. Over time, children gradually internalize these patterns of attachment to form working models of the self and others, which, in turn, affect their expectations of, and behavior in, close relationships. In this way, the early infant-caregiver attachment relationship gradually becomes part of the child’s personality, and can have lasting effects on development. One way in which grandparents can influence children’s development is through the intergenerational transmission of attachment security. From this perspective, a mother’s attachment to her own mother (as internalized in working models of relationships) is likely to influence the way in which she treats her own child, leading to the repetition of attachment patterns in the next generation (see ahead). Most research conducted within the framework of attachment theory has focused on this indirect, intergenerational transmission of attachment. However, attachment theory also implies that grandparents who are regularly involved in childcare could have direct effects on child behavior through the quality of their relationship with the child. Bowlby (1974) recognized that most infants become attached to more than one person, and that these attachment figures often include grandparents (Myers, Jarvis, and Creasey, 1987). One limitation of attachment theory in its current 237

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

formulation is that it does not explain how the multiple attachment relationships that children have with different caregivers are integrated over the course of development to influence their internal working models and resulting social and personality growth (Thompson and Raikes, 2003).

Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment In adult life, the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main et al., 1985) provides a means of assessing an adult’s model of his or her relationships with his or her parents; it yields four categories: (1) autonomous (recalling earlier attachment-related experiences objectively and openly, even if these were not favorable); (2) dismissive (earlier attachment-related experiences seen as of little concern, value, or influence); (3) preoccupied (still dependent on parents and actively struggling to please them); and (4) unresolved (a trauma involving, or early death of, an attachment figure, which has not been worked through). The results of a meta-analysis conducted two decades ago suggested that the relation between children’s attachment categorization in the SS and their parent’s AAI classification was quite strong. The overall correspondence was 75% between secure/insecure on the SS and autonomous/nonautonomous on the AAI (Van Ijzendoorn, 1995). A more recent series of meta-analyses (Verhage et al., 2016) confirmed the existence of a robust association between children’s attachment to their parents and parents’ attachment representations. However, effect sizes were smaller than in the initial studies. Maternal sensitivity to infant signals appears to be one of many processes through which intergenerational transmission occurs. Benoit and Parker (1994) demonstrated links in attachment security across three generations; mothers’ AAI scores during pregnancy and when infants were 11 months old were compared with infant’s SS classification at 12 months, and the maternal grandmother’s AAI status measured at any time during the study. They found that 65% of grandmother-mother-infant triads had concordant attachment classifications. Attachment theory emphasizes consistency over generations, but it also predicts that adults can work through or resolve unsatisfactory relationships with their parents and modify their internal working models, either through self-reflection or with the aid of therapy or counseling. A study of survivors of the Holocaust in World War II (Bar-On et al., 1998) found that although many survivors (grandparents by then) scored unresolved on the AAI, due to the traumatic way in which they lost their parents at an early age, few of their children scored unresolved, and their grandchildren appeared to be indistinguishable from the remaining population in terms of attachment characteristics.

Family Sociology and Family Systems Theory Concepts from family sociology have been employed extensively in describing aspects of grandparent-­ grandchild relationships. Key concepts have been cohesion or solidarity, refined into associational, affectual, consensual, functional, normative, and goal components and measures of intergenerational family structure (McChesney and Bengtson, 1988). Qualitative sociological studies such as those by Cunningham-Burley (1985) and Gauthier (2002) have drawn attention to how grandparents perceive their role in a changing sociocultural context. The concept of social capital—which attempts to integrate the intellectual traditions of sociology and economics—has also been applied to explain how strong relationships with grandparents might have value for a young person’s development (Coleman, 1988). Family systems theory (Kerig, 2019; Minuchin, 1988) emphasizes the importance of viewing families holistically, as complex, organized, dynamic systems. Family systems theory has been used to understand how grandparents’ involvement with their grandchildren is influenced by the relationship 238

Grandparenting

between the grandparents and the child’s parents as well as by the grandparents’ youthful experiences with their own grandparents (Mueller and Elder, 2003). It also has potential in elaborating how the roles of grandparents and the effects of their involvement may change in response to family challenges or transitions such as parental divorce or adolescent childbearing (Cox and Paley, 1997).

Life-Span and Life-Course Perspectives Life-span and life-course theories provide an important way of viewing adulthood, aging, and intergenerational phenomena (Baltes, 1987; Elder, 1998; Mayer, 2009). These perspectives can be used as a framework for understanding how grandparents’ roles are affected by historical-cultural changes (Bengtson, 1987; Uhlenberg and Cheuk, 2010) as well as by the needs of their grandchildren and other family members (Silverstein and Marenco, 2001). They also underlie research into the impact of nonnormative or “off-time” life events, such as grandparents becoming full-time custodial carers of their grandchildren or grandchildren caring for grandparents (Fruhauf, Jarrott, and Allen, 2006; Hayslip and Kaminski, 2005). The life-span perspective recognizes that grandparents influence grandchildren in both direct and indirect ways (Tinsley and Parke, 1984) and that caring for grandchildren involves both gains and losses (Hayslip and Kaminski, 2005). Overall, life-span and life-course theories emphasize the importance of viewing grandparenting in the context of the entire life span, and as the result of a complex interplay between the individual and an ever-changing social world.

Central Issues in Studying Grandparenthood Some issues central to the study of grandparenthood in contemporary society discussed here are the frequency and nature of contacts between grandparents and grandchildren, the role of proximity and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), varying characteristics of grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents, styles of grandparenting, perceptions of grandparents, grandparents affected by divorce or death of a grandchild, diverse family types, grandparents of grandchildren with disabilities, and the nature of grandparenting in different cultures.

Contacts Between Grandparents and Grandchildren: How Frequent and How Satisfying? The consensus of a considerable number of studies on contemporary grandparents and grandchildren is that they see each other moderately frequently, and the relationship is usually (though not invariably) quite close and satisfying, rather than conflictual. However, “frequent” and “satisfying” are somewhat relative terms, and how one sees the typical grandparent-grandchild relationship may depend on one’s expectations. The extent to which grandparents are likely to live in the same household as their grandchildren, be part of the daily life of families, and play an important role in childcare varies considerably across different geographic regions and different ethnic groups (Buchanan and Rotkirch, 2016b; Jappens and Van Bavel, 2012; Owen, Mooney, Brannen, and Statham, 2004). Even in individualistic United States and Western European countries where it is relatively uncommon for grandparents and grandchildren to live together, it seems that most grandchildren see their grandparents regularly. A study of a nationally representative sample of 11- to 16-year-olds in England and Wales found that over half of the adolescents had face-to-face contact with their maternal grandparents at least twice a week and that 40% saw their maternal grandparents daily or twice weekly (Griggs, Tan, Buchanan, Attar-Schwartz, and Flouri, 2010). Pollet, Nettle, and Nelissen’s (2007) study in the Netherlands revealed that 57% of grandparents saw their grandchildren at least weekly, and 87% had contact at least once a month. In Finland, 64% of maternal grandmothers 239

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

and 55% of maternal grandfathers saw their grandchildren at least monthly (Hurme, 2006, as cited in Hurme, Westerback, and Quadrello, 2010). More frequent contact between grandparents and their grandchildren is associated with greater satisfaction in the grandparent role (Reitzes and Mutran, 2004; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001) and with closer grandparent-grandchild relationships (Davey, Savla, Janke, and Anderson, 2009). Nevertheless, the majority of grandparents perceive their role as significant, valued, and satisfying (Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2012; Moore and Rosenthal, 2014). Most children, in turn, view their relationships with their grandparents as important and positive (Attar-Schwartz, Tan, and Buchanan, 2009; Dench, Ogg, and Thomson, 1999). Several studies in the United States have noted that even young adults (often college students) typically perceive their relationships with grandparents as close (Sheehan and Petrovic, 2008). Of course, not all grandchildren get on with their grandparents. Kemp (2007) cautioned that methodological and publication biases have caused the positive aspects of grandparent-grandchild relationships to be overemphasized. Grandparent-grandchild relationships may be distant or even hostile as well as affectionate and supportive. One of Kemp’s (2007, p. 869) interviewees noted “My [paternal] grandmother would have cheerfully throttled me. I’m not kidding. Yes. There was [physical and mental] abuse from her.” In summary, most grandparents see many grandchildren at least once a month, sometimes much more often, and generally the relationship is seen as positive, and important, by both generations. However, this general picture should not be allowed to hide the great variation in contact and satisfaction in grandparent/grandchild relationships.

The Role of Proximity and Use of ICTs Geographical proximity is the most important factor in frequency of face-to-face contact between grandparents and grandchildren (Barnett, Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, and Conger, 2010; Griggs et al., 2010; Mueller, Wilhelm, and Elder, 2002; Uhlenberg and Hammill, 1998). Grandparents who live close to their grandchildren are also more likely to provide childcare (Hank and Buber, 2009). Some studies have found stronger emotional ties between grandparents and grandchildren who live near one another (Chan and Elder, 2000; Elder and Conger, 2000). However, proximity is a much weaker predictor of the quality or closeness of the grandparent-grandchild relationship than it is of contact between them (Boon and Brussoni, 1996; Wood and Liossis, 2007). Changes in transportation and communication provide other avenues to maintain contact and possibly remove proximity as the barrier to contact that it once was. For an increasing number of grandparents, new communication technologies are helping to compensate for a lack of traditional, spoken communication. Grandparents who live far from their grandchildren are more likely to contact them using e-mail than those who live close to their grandchildren (Quadrello et al., 2005). Gathering data from six countries, Ivan and Fernández-Ardèvol (2017) found that keeping contact with distant grandchildren could be a motivator for older grandparents to use e-mail and Skype. For example, a 95-year-old woman in Toronto had lost interest in trying to use computers until one of her grandchildren (and her great-grandchildren) moved to Dubai. She commented,“Oh yes, it’s been a wonderful thing. . . . Well, I picked it up again . . . at least I can e-mail them and my granddaughter replies” (op cit., p. 48).

The Nature of Contacts Between Grandparents and Grandchildren The range of activities that grandparents and grandchildren engage in is wide, and varies greatly with age, but studies suggest that grandparents in the United States and Europe typically play five broad roles in relation to their grandchildren (Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986; Douglas and Ferguson, 2003; 240

Grandparenting

Elder and Conger, 2000; Griggs et al., 2010; Kennedy, 1992; Moore and Rosenthal, 2017; SvenssonDianellou, Smith, and Mestheneos, 2010).

Carer or Surrogate Parent Grandparents frequently babysit their grandchildren, transport them, and have them stay overnight. Less often, they may serve as substitutes for absent parents. (These caregiving roles are discussed in more detail later.)

Companion, Friend, and Confidante For many grandchildren, grandparents are a source of treats, fun, and relaxation: Grandparents play with their grandchildren and tell them stories, and they watch television and eat meals together. Many grandparents take their grandchildren on trips or outings, or participate in family outings together, and some spend vacations with them. Grandparents and grandchildren talk with one another, and grandchildren can share their worries and concerns with grandparents and receive emotional support. As one Australian grandmother put it, “I want to be that special person that when things aren’t going quite as well with mum and dad or something they’ve got someone else that they know is there for them as well” (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017, p. 47). A 19-year-old in the United States said, “I can talk to my grandma about anything. . . . When you tell her something, she takes it in a very calm and a professional demeanor and she helps me make decisions” (Pittman, Ioffe, and Keeports, 2016, p. 195).

Mentor, Teacher, and Role Model Many grandparents teach and encourage their grandchildren in hobbies, games, and sports, and assist them with learning skills. This includes attending school events and extracurricular activities as well as participating in joint projects, activities, or pastimes, such as cooking, fishing, and household or farm tasks. Grandparents help their grandchildren with schoolwork or homework and provide career or personal advice. They may also transmit values to their grandchildren and engage in religious activities with them. For example, an American Jewish grandmother said, “I hope to pass on Jewish values, family togetherness, decency, respect, the multi-generation family” (Geffen, 2014, p. 59).

Family Custodian and Historian Grandparents attend family events with their grandchildren and may talk to them about their family history or give a wider historical perspective on life. A 13-year-old girl in Griggs et al.’s (2010, p. 208) study reflected on how her grandfather had contributed to her education: My granddad was very into geography and history. . . . They’re always telling us things about that and he used to take us on like historical visits. . . . I do think that helped at school and like I’ll choose to do those subjects now. A 19-year-old African American grandchild described how “I loved listening to her [maternal grandmother’s] stories. . . . I learned about history in general, because you know about the civil rights and stuff, but never get to hear about how someone lived through that” (Pittman et al., 2016, p. 196).

Provider of Tangible Support Sometimes, grandparents assist their grandchildren directly with financial or practical assistance, such as helping in emergencies. This can be especially true when parents are in financial or other 241

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

difficulties; for example, a 19-year-old African American grandchild stated how her maternal grandparents were “helping me through school now actually, tuition” (Pittman et al., 2016, p. 199). In Germany, some 28% of grandparents ages 70–85 provide regular financial support, money, or major gift items to their grandchildren (Mahne, Klaus, and Engstler, 2018). The grandparent-grandchild relationship is a mutual and reciprocal one, and does not run just one way (Dench et al., 1999). Particularly from adolescence onward, grandchildren may assist their grandparents with errands and chores, and help to care for them when they are ill, as discussed later in benefits for grandparents.

Varying Characteristics of Grandparents and Grandchildren External factors such as proximity of residence affect grandparent-grandchild contacts and activities, and so too do factors such as sex, lineage, age, and health of the grandparent; the particular grandchild and age of grandchild; and the qualities of the larger family system of which grandparents and grandchildren are a part.

Gender The grandparenting role is related to overall life satisfaction and morale in both genders, but just as mothers are more often the closer parent to children, many studies find that grandmothers are more involved with grandchildren than grandfathers. Grandmothers anticipate and become involved in the role sooner than grandfathers, are more likely to care for grandchildren, and have greater satisfaction with their current and expected grandparenting role (Dias, Azambuja, Rabinovich, and Bastos, 2018; Moore and Rosenthal, 2017). Often, however, differences in the involvement of grandmothers and grandfathers are small, and the contributions of grandfathers can be underestimated (Buchanan and Rotkirch, 2016b; Mann, 2007). Grandfathers can offer different types of support, or what Bates (2009) called generative grandparenting, often more instrumental and task oriented (Hayslip and Fruhauf, 2018; Moore and Rosenthal, 2017). Consistent with traditional gender roles, grandmothers may be more likely to serve as caregivers and confidantes, whereas grandfathers may be more likely to act as teachers and advisors and to participate in outdoor and skill-based activities with grandchildren (Hilton and Macari, 1997; Van Ranst, Verschueren, and Marcoen, 1995). In many countries, changing views of masculinity and social ideologies encouraging men’s involvement in children’s lives have encouraged grandfathers to form closer and more caring relationships with their grandchildren (Coall, Hilbrand, Sear, and Hertwig, 2016; Rotkirch and Buchanan, 2016). However, more research needs to be conducted into gender role differences in grandparenting and the impact these roles have on the grandchildren and vice versa.

Lineage Grandparents through the mother’s side—maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather—are more involved than those through the father’s side—paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather. As discussed earlier in relation to evolutionary theory, gender and lineage of grandparent may interact as influences, with the maternal grandmother often appearing as having the most contact and closest relationship with grandchildren, for example, in the United Kingdom (Douglas and Ferguson, 2003; Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, Attar-Schwartz, and Griggs, 2010) and the Netherlands (Pollet et al., 2007). Age of grandparent can be an interacting factor here; because on average women marry slightly older men, maternal grandmothers are often the youngest of all four grandparents. However,

242

Grandparenting

the main explanation probably lies in the strength of mother-daughter bonds, often reinforced by societal expectations and perhaps in a more distal causal sense by certainty of relatedness.

Age and Health of Grandparent Poor health or advanced age can limit grandparents’ capacity to be involved with their grandchildren. As one U.S. grandmother with arthritis put it, “I used to lift them up. Now, I can’t run after them . . . I spoke to the parents and told them, ‘If you come here and find them dirty, don’t blame me because I can’t change the diapers’ ” (Abdul-Malak, 2016, p. 76). Better health in grandparents has been associated with more active involvement and/or greater emotional closeness in some studies (Chan and Elder, 2000; Hank and Buber, 2009; Tan et al., 2010; Wood and Liossis, 2007). However, other research suggests that grandparents’ health is not so important (Baranowski and Schilmoeller, 1999; Elder and Conger, 2000; King and Elder, 1995; Uhlenberg and Hammill, 1998). Mild health problems may not decrease relationship satisfaction and may elicit caring from grandchildren (Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1985). Similarly, some research has shown that younger grandparents are more involved with their grandchildren (Dench et al., 1999; King and Elder, 1997; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001), but there is no evidence that adolescent and young adult grandchildren feel closer to younger grandparents (King and Elder, 1995; Mills, Wakeman, and Fea, 2001; Taylor, Robila, and Lee, 2005; Wood and Liossis, 2007). Grandparents’ age may have less effect on their frequency of contact with grandchildren than on the nature of the activities they engage in (Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986). For example, younger grandparents may be more likely to babysit their grandchildren and to take them on trips or outings, whereas older grandparents may be more likely to spend time with their grandchildren in more sedentary activities such as reading or telling stories, and to express their affection through providing gifts or money (Silverstein and Marenco, 2001; Taylor et al., 2005). However, it is important to note that older grandparents are more likely to have older grandchildren, so the age of grandparents and grandchildren may be confounded.

Age of Grandchild Some studies have reported on age of grandchild as a factor in relationships with grandparents. In an Australian sample, Condon, Corkindale, Luszcz, and Gamble (2011) reported contact hours at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of grandchild age. Some 10% of grandparents reported no contact; however, the median contact hours was around 15 for grandmothers and 9 for grandfathers, with some increase in the first year then leveling off. Later in childhood, a common finding is that the quantity of grandparental involvement tends to decline as grandchildren grow older (Griggs et al., 2010; Hank and Buber, 2009; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001; Tan et al., 2010). Compared with younger children, adolescents tend to have less frequent contact with their grandparents (Bridges, Roe, Dunn, and O’Connor, 2007), and feel less close to them (Attar-Schwartz, Tan, and Buchanan, 2009; Dench et al., 1999; Van Ranst et al., 1995). However, Baranowski and Schilmoeller (1999) found no association between the age of grandchildren and grandparental involvement, and Bridges et al. (2007) found that although the frequency of contact declined in adolescence, closeness did not. In a study of 11- to 16-year-olds in England and Wales, Attar-Schwartz, Tan, and Buchanan (2009) found that over a third of adolescents reported that their closest grandparent was the most important person in their life outside immediate family. The nature of grandparents’ involvement may also change as children grow older. Grandparents are more likely to share recreational activities with younger grandchildren; these include activities such as visiting a park or playground, playing games, watching television, and going shopping or to

243

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

the cinema (Dench et al., 1999; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001). Attending religious events also tends to show a downward trend as the grandchild gets older (Silverstein and Marenco, 2001). However, certain shared activities actually increase as children become older and more autonomous. For example, grandparents are more likely to serve as a confidante to older grandchildren, to provide them with advice, and to talk with them about their family history (Dench et al., 1999; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001).

Particular Grandchild The relationship of the grandparent has usually been generalized to all of their grandchildren; but different grandchildren may have different needs and personalities that result in different forms of contact. Kemp (2007) used qualitative data from a study of multigenerational families to illustrate how grandparent-grandchild relationships can vary enormously within families as well as between them. In some instances, the same grandparent could be a source of support to one child in the family while maltreating another. A study in Spain (Bernal and Anuncibay, 2008) found that 38% of grandparents admitted to a favorite grandchild, most likely a firstborn grandchild on the maternal side, living not too far away. Mueller and Elder (2003) found evidence for a modest relation between grandparental involvement and grandchildren’s personal traits. Grandparents who rated their grandchildren’s positive traits highly were more likely to be involved in their lives, but grandparents’ involvement was not significantly associated with their perceptions of children’s negative attributes. However, Fingerman (1998) found that grandparents spent more time with grandchildren they identified as “special” than with those they described as “irritating.” Grandchildren who were identified as special were defined in terms of the grandchild’s personal attributes, accomplishments, or love.

Characteristics of the Family System With the exception of situations in which grandparents are the primary caregivers of grandchildren, contact between grandparents and grandchildren is usually controlled by the parent generation (Sheehan and Petrovic, 2008). Consequently, grandparents tend to be more involved with their grandchildren when parents encourage the grandparent-grandchild bond (Mueller and Elder, 2003; Tan et al., 2010). Children also tend to have better relationships with their grandparents when the grandparent-parent relationship is positive (Brown, 2003; Fingerman, 2004; Michalski and Shackelford, 2005; Silverstein and Marenco, 2001). The relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild’s mother seems to be particularly important—even for paternal grandparents (Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986; Euler and Michalski, 2008). The quality of the grandparent-grandchild relationship also appears to be associated with children’s relationships with their parents, and the extent to which the family unit as a whole is close and cohesive (Brown, 2003; Chan and Elder, 2000).

Great-Grandparents The topic of great-grandparents has been rather neglected in research. The small number of relevant studies find contact to be less frequent, and the role to be less intense or clear, than that of grandparent. Wentowski (1985) interviewed 19 great-grandmothers in the United States, ages 66–92. As a 92-year-old commented: When you’re a grandparent, you love ’em, you’re glad to have them come, you fix ’em food, do things for ’em because they’re precious to you. When you’re a great-grandparent, you’re older and you can’t do as much. It’s different. 244

Grandparenting

But even the youngest and healthiest great-grandmothers (ages 66 and 71) were not so involved with great-grandchildren as with grandchildren: “Other people take care of this now” (p. 594). However, great-grandparents can have a distinctive role in terms of family historian and “kinkeeper,” being (usually) the oldest in the family. Doka and Mertz (1988) described three roles for the great-grandparent: personal and family renewal, diversion in their lives, and a mark of their longevity. Reese and Murray (1996) interviewed eight European American and eight African American great-grandmothers, ages 75–89 years, who saw their role as intrinsic to the family system; they either initiated family gatherings or were the cause of them. Burton and Bengtson (1985), in a study of young grandmothers, interviewed a number of greatgrandmothers ages 46–73 and regarded those ages 42–57 as “early” in the role; they also interviewed seven great-great-grandmothers and one great-great-great-grandmother! Generally, as discussed later, these “early” grandmothers and great-grandmothers do not like being seen in this role, due to their own conflicting life concerns and also what they perceive as an association of (great)grandparenthood with aging and its associated negative stereotypes. Drew and Silverstein (2004) found that in the United States, the role of great-grandparent, although satisfying, was somewhat diminished compared with that of grandparent. This was because being older, they gave less help than grandparents, and grandparents and parents acted as facilitators or “gatekeepers” in arranging meetings. Feelings of well-being associated with being a great-grandparent were mainly via the parenting and grandparenting involved. Similar findings were reported in Israel by Even-Zohar and Garby (2016) in a survey of 103 great-grandparents with great-grandchildren of various ages but average age 6 years. Although having a more minor role than grandparents, they typically saw great-grandchildren several times a month. Their health, and proximity to greatgrandchildren, were major factors in frequency of contact. This study did find a relation between emotional closeness in the relationship(s), and quality of life.

Styles of Grandparenting In describing variations in grandparent/grandchild relationships, researchers have devised typologies of grandparenting, or different styles of grandparenting. The earliest, and one which has remained influential, is that of Neugarten and Weinstein (1964). On the basis of interviews with 70 sets of grandparents, they delineated five major styles: (1) formal (following prescribed roles with a clear demarcation between parenting and grandparenting responsibilities); (2) fun seeker (seeing grandchildren as fun and a source of self-indulgence or mutuality of satisfaction); (3) surrogate parent (taking actual caregiving responsibility); (4) reservoir of family wisdom (dispensing special skills or resources, with authority); and (5) distant (only infrequent contacts with grandchildren on ritual occasions). They found the formal role to be more frequent in grandparents over 65, whereas the fun seeker and distant styles were more frequent in younger grandparents. This typology has been used in several other studies. Sticker (1991) summarized results from several studies, including a number of studies in Germany, which point to the fun-seeking style predominating with younger grandchildren, and the formal style increasing with older grandchildren. The Neugarten and Weinstein roles are a mixture of intrinsically age-related roles (especially “surrogate parent”) with styles which may be overlapping rather than discrete. Cherlin and Furstenberg (1985) distinguished two main aspects of grandparent/grandchild relationships, measured by scales of several items: those relating to exchange of services (giving and receiving help) and those relating to exerting parental-type influence (disciplining, advising on problems). Also, they took account of infrequent (less than once a month) or more frequent contact. This gave them a fivefold typology. Detached grandparents were low on both scales and had infrequent contact, passive grandparents were low on both scales and had more frequent contact, supportive grandparents were high on exchange of services, authoritative grandparents were high on parent-like influence, and those high 245

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

on both scales were influential. Compared with other ethnic groups, more African American grandparents (especially grandmothers) were authoritative or influential. Mangen and McChesney (1988) described 14 types of grandparent role based on hierarchical cluster analysis of a large number of different measures of cohesion in a sample of over 2,000 respondents. The types vary in terms of amounts of contact and exchange, degree of reciprocity, emotional closeness, and geographical distance.

Perceptions of Grandparents However social scientists describe grandparent roles, it is another matter whether grandparents themselves have a clear idea of their own role, and how these roles are viewed by society generally. We discuss here societal views of grandparenthood and stereotypes of aging, on-time and off-time grandparenthood as perceived by grandparents, and perceptions of different generations.

Societal Views of Grandparenthood There have been changes through the last century in the extent to which grandparents have been expected to have “authoritarian” or “authoritative” parental-type duties or just be “supportive” (Kornhaber and Woodward, 1981). One view of grandparents is of someone who spoils grandchildren, being overly lenient or indulgent. As one U.K. song put it, Granny spoils us, oh what fun, Have some sweets and a sticky bun, Don’t tell mum you were up till ten, I want to come and babysit again. (Miller, 1989, p. 4) This image of spoiling has had some basis in reality. In interviews of 155 older people in the United Kingdom with grandchildren, Townsend (1957, p. 106) reported that “the grandparents were notably lenient towards grandchildren.” This leniency and spoiling may have been a reaction, both real and perceived, against the strict and authoritarian role of grandparents which was, by the 1950s, being rejected. As one of Townsend’s informants put it, “I used to slosh my children. But I don’t like to see my grandchildren walloped,” and another said, “the grandmother can be free and easy. She [her daughter] has to be fairly strict with them” (pp. 106–107). A meta-analysis found that in some studies grandparental care was associated with indulgent practices that were not beneficial, such as giving sweets or high sugar content foods (Chambers, Rowa-Dewar, Radley, and Dobbie, 2017). Johnson (1983) found that U.S. grandmothers were able to give a list of rules that they used to regulate their behavior with their grandchildren. The “shoulds” typically included being an advocate, mediator, support, and source of enjoyment; the “should nots” involved not being too intrusive, overprotective, or parental—too “old-fashioned,” in fact. Many of these 1980s grandmothers seem to have taken a “supportive” role and rejected an “authoritative” role more common a generation or so before. Pittman et al. (2016) reported how some U.S. grandparents children had lived with for a while might be overindulgent, but also some might be strict; much depends on the context of the grandparenting.

Stereotypes of Grandparents and Aging The media and children’s books have often portrayed grandparents as aged, fussy, domesticated, and sedentary, probably with infirmities ( Janelli, 1988). A study of images in children’s books from Britain, Italy, Greece, Finland, and Poland (Sciplino, Smith, Hurme, Rusek, and Bäckvik, 2010) found that 70% of grandfathers and 59% of grandmothers had gray or white hair. In a follow-up study, adults rated the apparent ages of 165 images of grandparents; irrespective of nationality, the estimated 246

Grandparenting

age of grandparents in children’s books was significantly higher than would be expected for a firsttime grandparent of a 6-year-old child (the age at which most of these books might be read). Similarly, Crawford and Bhattacharya (2014), in an analysis of 220 children’s picture books, found that few grandparents were shown as employed or with hobbies outside the home, and few were from nontraditional family structures.

On-Time and Off-Time Grandparents For most people, becoming a grandparent is described as a positive experience, but this can depend on the age at which it happens. In an early study, Burton and Bengtson (1985) interviewed African American grandmothers and described those who experienced the transition between 42 and 57 years as being “on-time,” within the normal range of variation. Those women who became grandmothers “early,” between 25 and 37 years, were discontented, feeling obligations placed on them which they were not ready for. “I don’t have time to do what I would like to do as a grandmother. I work everyday. I have young children. Right now I’m just too busy.” They were also affected by the stereotypes associated with grandparenting and age: “I am just too young to be a grandmother. That’s something for old folks, not for me” (p. 68). By contrast, those grandparents who experienced the transition “late,” for example, in their 70s, were likely to be disappointed that they would have relatively little time left to enjoy their grandchildren, and would be less likely to be sufficiently well and physically active to make the most of the grandparental role. Definitions of what age range is “on-time” will change with demographic changes (see earlier). In the United Kingdom, Dench and Ogg (2002) found that grandparents ages 50–65 years felt closer to their grandchildren, and found the role more rewarding, than those who were younger than 50 or older than 65. However, Moore and Rosenthal (2017), with an Australian sample, did not find such differences in contact or role satisfaction, although there were differences in the kinds of activities carried out together.

Perceptions of Different Generations Although three generations are involved in grandparent/grandchild relationships, most studies have focused on the viewpoint of only one generation. Sometimes, the views of grandparents have been elicited; more often, the perspective of the grandchild. However, the differing perceptions of differing generations may be important information. The few studies which have obtained multiple perspectives regularly report some incongruence. Hurme (1988) found that 38% of Finnish grandmothers rated their relationship with the grandchild as “very important,” whereas only 27% of mothers so rated it. Mangen and Miller (1988) reported that correlations across generations for amount of contact, seemingly an objective fact, varied between .41 and .75. Disagreements here often signified relationship difficulties; one father claimed to visit the children’s grandmother once a month, but the grandmother complained that he hardly ever came and that “I do not see my son’s children enough to know their middle names” (p. 121). Landry and Martin (1988) found reasonable levels of agreement across generations about attitudes, but with the grandparent generation underestimating the grandparent/parent difference and the grandchild generation overestimating differences with their parents. These differing perceptions deserve more attention in future, both for their theoretical interest and possible practical benefits that might ensue if misunderstandings can be avoided.

Grandparents, Grandchildren, and Parental Divorce The incidence of separation and divorce has risen over the last few decades in many countries including the United States and the United Kingdom (Kennedy and Ruggles, 2014; Rodgers and 247

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

Pryor, 1998). Parents’ separation and divorce can have a tremendous impact on grandparent-parentgrandchild relationships. Although much research has looked at the effect of parental separation or divorce on the parent-child relationship (Ganong, Coleman, and Sanner, 2019; Hetherington and Stanley-Hagan, 1999), fewer studies have looked at its impact on the grandparents. The relationship of grandparents to parents, particularly to a custodial parent (or one who has care and control of the grandchildren) becomes a crucial issue. Often grandparent-parent relationships are harmonious, opening opportunities for a supportive role; grandparents can provide stability, support, and nurturance to the grandchild(ren) and family, often providing financial assistance or childcare (Ferguson, Douglas, Lowe, Murch, and Robinson, 2004; Yorgason, Padilla-Walker, and Jackson, 2011). Immediately following the separation of their parents, children are more likely to confide in grandparents and other relatives than anyone else (Dunn, Davies, O’Connor, and Sturgess, 2001; Dunn and Deater-Deckard, 2001). Grandparents can negotiate relationship difficulties between the parent and grandchild and be a “stress buffer” during times of family distress, which can benefit grandchildren even when the grandchild’s relationship with the grandparent is not intense (Kennedy, 1990, 1992; McCrimmon and Howell, 1989; Wallerstein, 1986). Close relationships with their grandparents have been associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms and greater social competence, self-efficacy, and self-esteem in adolescents from single-parent, stepparent, and divorced families (Attar-Schwartz, Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, and Griggs, 2009; Dunn and Deater-Deckard, 2001; Henderson, Hayslip, Sanders, and Louden, 2009; Lussier, Deater-Deckard, Dunn, and Davies, 2002; Ruiz and Silverstein, 2007; Silverstein, Giarrusso, and Bengtson, 2003). Grandparental involvement has not always been associated with positive outcomes in children from single-parent, divorced, or stepparent homes, however (Bridges et al., 2007; Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986; Hetherington, 1989). Children may show fewer internalizing and externalizing problems when they are close to grandparents related to the biological parents and stepparents with whom they live, but closeness to grandparents related to noncustodial parents is associated with greater difficulties in the grandchild’s adjustment (Dunn and Deater-Deckard, 2001; Lussier et al., 2002). A difficult or disrupted relationship between grandparents and the custodial parent can threaten proximity of grandparents to grandchildren, contact, involvement, and fulfillment of a satisfying grandparental role (King, 2003; Lavers and Sonuga-Barke, 1997; Lussier et al., 2002). Although parental custody has been suggested as the greater variable in grandchild-grandparent contact after divorce and not the maternal or paternal family relationship per se (Dunn and Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hilton and Macari, 1997; Westphall, Poortman, and van der Lippe, 2015), if (as is usually the case) the children reside with their mother, then paternal grandparents may have to “tread carefully” in obtaining access to their grandchildren. With some 50% of noncustodial fathers in the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada gradually losing all contact with their children (Kruk and Hall, 1995), paternal grandparents are at a higher risk of losing contact with their grandchildren than are maternal grandparents (Westphall et al., 2015). The consequences of unwanted loss of contact with grandchildren can be devastating. Kruk (1995) in Canada, and Drew and Smith (1999) in England, sampled grandparents who were members of support groups; both studies found that after loss of contact with their grandchildren due to parental divorce, grandparents reported symptoms of bereavement and negative effects on their physical and emotional health. In a further study with 192 grandparents who were not members of grandparent support groups, following loss of contact with a grandchild (due to divorce and also to family feud), Drew (2000) found a range of negative consequences, including intense chronic grief, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive intrusion and avoidance, mental health problems, and lowered life satisfaction, with some grandparents being clinically depressed. One grandparent stated: “My feelings most days are as if my heart is being torn from my body” (p. 152). Many of these grandparents were experiencing a threefold grief: Grieving for their adult child, their grandchild, and their own

248

Grandparenting

loss of the grandparent relationship and role. Additionally, the pining/yearning of grandparents was related to the “hope” of reunion with their grandchildren; not totally unrealistic, these hopes make it difficult to work through the grief process. Grandparents can sometimes learn to negotiate their relationship with the custodial parent to have contact with their grandchild (Schutter, Scherman, and Carroll, 1997). The personality, resources, and coping strategies of grandparents can be important in maintaining contact after divorce. King and Elder (1998) found that grandparents who have greater self-efficacy in the grandparenting role find ways to be involved in their grandchild’s life even when obstacles stand in the way. With time, also, grandchildren become more independent; Thompson and Walker (1987) found that if young adult granddaughters had a close intimate relationship with their grandmother, then after parental divorce they would bypass the parent generation and maintain contact.

Death of a Grandchild The few studies which have investigated how the death of a grandchild impacts grandparents have all reported similar findings, despite the varying grandchild ages or causes of the death—accident or sudden infant death syndrome (Defrain, Ernest, Jakub, and Taylor, 1992; Defrain, Jakub, and Mendoza, 1991–1992; Fry, 1997; Ponzetti, 1992; Ponzetti and Johnson, 1991). Anguish, grief, sadness, and emotional and physical pain were reported. Grandmothers were more likely than grandfathers to discuss the death of their grandchild. Some grandparents focus more on the needs of their adult child than their own grief (Ponzetti, 1992). Drew and Silverstein (2007) found that a sudden loss of contact with a grandchild (often death of a grandchild) led to increased levels of depression for some 3 years after the event.

Diverse Family Types and Grandparenting Step-Grandparenthood As divorce has become more common in recent decades, so has stepparenting and hence stepgrandparenting (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017). In fact, a grandchild could have three types of stepgrandparent, resulting from a parent remarrying (the most usual), a grandparent remarrying, or the parent of a stepparent remarrying! Potentially, step-grandparents can have a positive role in helping cohesion in divorced families (Gold, 2015). Such a positive role appears to be easier when the step-grandchild is younger (Christensen and Smith, 2002). Typically step-grandparents do not feel as close to grandchildren as biological grandparents, nor do the grandchildren feel as close to stepgrandparents (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017; Soliz, 2009); nevertheless, many are satisfied with the relationship (Christensen and Smith, 2002).

Grandparents Through Adoption Whereas divorce has become more common in recent decades, adoption has become less common. Even so, there is little research literature on grandparents’ relationships with adopted grandchildren (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017). A study of such families in Britain by Pitcher (2009) found that many grandparents initially focused on supporting their son or daughter. They acted as “approving witnesses,” accepting the new parent-child relationship. Developing their own relationship with the adopted grandchild took time, and it helped if grandparents were told about the planned adoption early on. As with step-grandparenting, many relationships were satisfactory and supportive, but typically not as close as with biological grandchildren.

249

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

LGBT Families Families with a disclosed LGBT member are on the increase, as diversity in sexual orientation becomes more accepted, and gay marriage is becoming legalized in many countries (Patterson, 2019). Again, there can be a great variety of types. Orel and Fruhauf (2006) interviewed grandmothers who were lesbian or bisexual. The role of the parent—facilitating and supportive, or ­discouraging—was seen as crucial in relationships with grandchildren. Some grandmothers had very flexible ideas about what constituted gender-appropriate play for grandchildren. Within the parental generation, female same-sex couples are most common, although in the United States, one third of same-sex couple families are gay men (Gates, 2013). For most such families, grandparents are fully supportive, perhaps after some time of adjustment (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017). Finally, grandchildren may come out as gay or bisexual. In a review, Scherrer (2010) found that grandparents were generally very supportive in such cases, again with parents often acting as important mediators.

Grandparents of Grandchildren With Disabilities A growing research area has been the role of grandparents within the family when their grandchild has a disability (Llewellyn, 2019). Several studies have identified grandparents as vital sources of emotional and practical support when a grandchild has a disability (Brandon, 2016; Mirfin-Veitch, Bray, and Watson, 1996). Using data from a large-scale survey in the United States, Brandon (2016) found that following parents, grandparents were the main source of care of children during nonschool hours; this was especially the case for single mothers. However, sometimes the grandparent’s immediate inability to accept a grandchild’s disability can be a source of stress to the family system. Myer and Vadasy (1986) reported that the birth of a grandchild with a disability evokes emotions that are different from those experienced when the grandchild is healthy. The grandparents often experience a three-fold anxiety for their newborn grandchild’s health, their adult child’s ability to cope, and their role as a grandparent. Scherman, Gardner, Brown, and Schutter (1995) and Nybo, Scherman, and Freeman (1998) suggested that grandparents are frequently trapped in disappointment and grieve for their grandchild as well as their adult child. The majority of research with grandchildren with a disability finds that maternal grandparents provided more emotional support to families (Byrne, Cunningham, and Sloper, 1988; Hornby and Ashforth, 1994; Seligman, Goodrich, Paschal, Applegate, and Lehman, 1997). Maternal grandparents were more likely to learn sign language to communicate with their deaf grandchild than paternal grandparents, due to their closer relationship with their grandchild’s mother (Nybo et al., 1998). Maternal grandmothers were more accurately able to assess the development of their grandchild with autism than paternal grandmothers (Glasberg and Harris, 1997). Schilmoeller and Baranowski (1999) found grandparent education about their grandchild’s disability was associated with greater acceptance and more involvement with their grandchild. Educational workshops for grandparents were helpful in not only educating the grandparent but also letting go of their denial about their grandchild’s disability.

Cultural Differences and Grandparents The literature on grandparenting outside the Western industrialized countries is scattered. In the Pacific Rim countries of China, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia, family ties including grandparental bonds tend to be especially close. Although nuclear families now outnumber three-generation families in these countries, many grandparents in China and South Korea still live in three-generation 250

Grandparenting

households (Maehara and Takemura, 2007; Settles et al., 2009). In addition, many nonresident grandparents provide care and education for infants and preschool children (Röttger-Rössler, 2014; Settles et al., 2009). South Korean grandmothers from a sample of 1,326 extended families were accredited with increasing their grandchildren’s resiliency by providing sources of attachment, affection, and knowledge as well as having indirect effects through their support of parents (Hwang and St JamesRoberts, 1998). According to the Makassar in Indonesia, “Only the aged have the necessary patience for young children” (Röttger-Rössler, 2014, p. 147). In Islamic countries, an emphasis on paternal roles and patrilocality often means an expectation of investment by paternal more than maternal grandparents (Emam, Abdelazsim, and El-Keshky, 2018). However, there may be discrepancies between norms and actual behavior. In Bangladesh, Perry (2017) found that although interviewees often expressed such a norm, maternal grandmothers, in fact, were often primary material resource helpers. The grandparent role is similarly respected in sub-Saharan Africa, where cooperation and reciprocity between generations has long been valued. Grandparents have traditionally played important roles in their families, and particularly in childrearing (Oppong, 2006). In many countries, the caregiving and financial contributions of grandparents have become even more important for children’s survival and development as the AIDS epidemic added to the burdens faced by families already affected by high rates of poverty and unemployment, conflict, migrant labor, and single parenthood (Madhavan, 2004; Oppong, 2006). Grandparents in these situations play a vital role in their communities, but the demands placed on them may exact a toll on their physical and emotional health (Chazan, 2008; Oppong, 2006).

African American Grandparents Several studies have documented the particular importance of grandparents, especially the maternal grandmother, in many African American families (McLloyd et al., 2019). About one half of African American children live in single-parent, female-headed households, about three times the figure for European American families; also, the generation gap tends to be shorter (Burton and DilworthAnderson, 1991; Tolson and Wilson, 1990). There is thus more opportunity in African American families for younger grandparents to be involved with and support their grandchildren. Historically, African American grandmothers were important figures of support and continuity (Hill-Lubin, 1991) and often acted as supplementary and/or surrogate parents (Burton and DilworthAnderson, 1991). Pearson, Hunter, Ensminger, and Kellam (1990) studied a predominantly African American community in Chicago and found that 10% of households with target 6- to 8-year-old children had coresident grandmothers. The grandmothers had substantial childrearing roles in these families, in control, support, and punishment. They were about half as active as the mothers in these areas and considerably more active than fathers (if present) and grandfathers. Timberlake and Chipungu (1992) found that active help with grandchildren was associated with more positive evaluation of the grandparental role in a sample of 100 African American grandmothers. Stevens (1984) found that African American grandmothers were supportive of teenage daughters with young grandchildren (13–30 months); they passed on useful information about norms of development and modeled a more responsive and less punitive interaction style with the infants.

Acculturation and the Grandparent Role Acculturation refers to changes in the cultural behavior and thinking of an individual or group through contact with another culture. Typically through the influence of the peer group (Harris, 1998), children of immigrant parents and grandparents adopt the language, styles, and customs of the new, larger culture they are in. These processes can lead to intergenerational difficulties and 251

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

disagreements, with changes in perceptions of the parent or grandparent role in families (Bornstein and Cote, 2019). In a sample of 54 Muslim mothers in extended families in Britain, acculturation was found to contribute to discrepancies in childrearing practices with grandmothers, often resulting in the mothers having unusually high levels of depression and anxiety (Sonuga-Barke, Mistry, and Qureshi, 1998). The more acculturated the intergenerational family, the greater amount of discrepancy was found in childrearing practices, and grandmothers were more authority oriented and mothers more child centered. In the United States, Pettys and Balgopal (1998) found that Indian American grandparents were more accepting of their grandchildren moving away from the culture than they were of their adult children. They believed it was necessary for their grandchildren to change to get ahead in the American culture which they perceived as positive, whereas they expected their adult children to stay close to their ethnic origins. Silverstein and Chen (1999) found that the extent of acculturation of 375 adult Mexican American grandchildren affected the amount of contact they reported with their grandparents; however, grandparents did not feel a sense of loss of closeness. Grandparents may be minimizing the cultural gap to lessen their feelings of aloneness resulting from their immigration to a foreign country. Issues of acculturation also affect grandchildren of mixed cultural background. Anderson (1999) interviewed several families in Athens, Greece, with a Greek father and a British mother. He found that the differing views of grandparents and parents were difficult to accommodate for grandchildren from two cultural backgrounds when they were developing their own cultural identity, for example of Greekness and Britishness.

Direct and Indirect Influences of Grandparents on Grandchildren What influence do grandparents have on the development of grandchildren? Tinsley and Parke (1984) distinguished between direct influences, resulting from contact and face-to-face interaction, and indirect influences, mediated by other means such as parental behavior, and financial support of parents. Examples of direct influence are giving gifts, being a companion and confidante, acting as an emotional support or “buffer” at times of family stress, passing on family history or national traditions, and acting as a role model for aging. The most direct form of grandparent-grandchild influence is through acting as a surrogate parent. There are three levels of grandparent caregiving: (1) custodial grandparent or “skipped generation” families, in which the child is cared for directly by the grandparent(s), (2) coparenting, where grandparents live in a three-generation household with the child, and (3) temporary childcare or extensive babysitting (Fuller-Thomson, Serbinski, and McCormack, 2014; Jendrek, 1994). Grandparents can modify the behavior of parents or the quality of the marital relationship by providing social and financial support, friendship, company, and/or advice to the child’s parents (Botcheva and Feldman, 2004; Yorgason, Padilla-Walker, and Jackson, 2011). They can also impact children indirectly through the intergenerational transmission of parenting values and styles.

Direct Influences Custodial Grandparenting Custodial care involves grandparents assuming primary responsibility for the child’s care, and is typically defined as children living with their grandparents and without either parent (Pebley and Rudkin, 1999). In the economically developed countries of the Global North, custodial care generally occurs when parents are no longer able or willing to take care of their children, often due to factors 252

Grandparenting

such as parental substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, HIV/AIDS and other illnesses, teenage pregnancy, divorce, incarceration, or death (Shore and Hayslip, 1994; Smith and Palmieri, 2007). In developing countries in the Global South, most of the work on custodial grandparenting has focused on children orphaned as a result of rising AIDS-related mortality rates (Mhaka-Mutepfa, Mpofu, Moore, and Ingman, 2018). However, the majority of children in the care of their grandparents have parents who are alive, but living elsewhere. For example, it is common for children in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia to be left temporarily in the care of their grandparents when their parents migrate to urban areas to seek employment, wish to continue their education, become involved in a relationship with someone other than the child’s father, or are simply unable to provide adequately for their children’s needs (Ng and Wang, 2019; Schröder-Butterfill, 2004; Zimmer and Dayton, 2005). Much of the research on custodial grandparent care has been conducted in the United States, where approximately 2% of children live in grandparent-maintained families (Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, and Kopko, 2014). Several studies suggest that custodial grandchildren evidence higher levels of behavioral and emotional problems and perform less well academically than children reared by both their biological parents ( Jooste, Hayslip, and Smith, 2008; Monserud and Elder, 2011; Pittman, 2007; Smith and Palmieri, 2007); other research suggests that their performance is similar to that of children reared by a single biological parent (Solomon and Marx, 1995). One possible explanation for the elevated risk of mental health and academic problems among custodial grandchildren found in some U.S. studies is that poor, unemployed and poorly educated African American families tend to be overrepresented among custodial grandparent families (Dunifon et al., 2014). Not only do the family and socioeconomic problems that lead to children being placed in the custody of their grandparents pose their own risks to child development (Shore and Hayslip, 1994), but they can also undermine the psychological well-being and parenting of grandparents. Additional stresses associated with custodial grandparenting, such as social isolation and role confusion, may also contribute to poorer psychological functioning in grandparents and lower quality parenting, which, in turn, is associated with increased maladjustment in children (Smith and Palmieri, 2007). Elevated stress levels, poverty and difficulties stemming from the wide generation gap between grandparents and grandchildren have also been found to pose challenges to grandparents caring for children orphaned or affected by HIV and AIDS in the Global South (Nyasani, Sterberg, and Smith, 2009; Oburu, 2005; Parker and Short, 2009). However, in a number of sub-Saharan African countries as well as in rural China, children who lived with a grandmother (and no mother) were just as welladjusted psychologically and just as likely to be enrolled in school as those living with their mothers (Oburu, 2005; Parker and Short, 2009; Tamasane and Head, 2010). Children in the care of their grandparents were also better-adjusted psychologically and more likely to be in school than those who were in the care of other relatives or non-relatives, with the last group displaying the poorest outcomes (Case and Ableidinger, 2004; Parker and Short, 2009; Zhao et al., 2010). In summary, children reared by custodial grandparents may display more psychological problems than those reared in two-parent families, but their overall well-being is likely to be similar to that of children reared by a single biological parent. Furthermore, when parents are deceased or absent, the evidence supports evolutionary theory by suggesting that grandparents are likely to be the “best” substitute caregivers for children. Researchers have called for more social support for custodial grandparents, such as day care assistance and local support groups within communities (Williams, 2011).

Coparenting in Three-Generation Households Multigenerational households are common in the Global South, reflecting both cultural preferences and financial need. For example, about 46% of older adults in sub-Saharan Africa live in a 253

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

three-generation household (Zimmer and Dayton, 2005). Although less normative in the Global North, three-generation households increased in prevalence during the worldwide recession of the late 2000s. In 2012, 8% of U.S. children were living in households that included both parents and grandparents (Dunifon et al., 2014). Living with grandchildren in a three-generation household does not necessarily imply that grandparents are heavily involved in childcare, although research suggests that coresident grandparents often assume a substantial role in taking care of grandchildren (Pebley and Rudkin, 1999). The majority of studies in the United States have found that living with a single mother and a grandparent is associated with greater educational attainment, less deviant or risky behavior, and fewer symptoms of depression among adolescents than living with a single parent alone (DeLeire and Kalil, 2002; Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones, 2007; Hamilton, 2005; Monserud and Elder, 2011; Pittman and Boswell, 2007). Comparisons with children living with two married parents have yielded mixed results. Studies have variously found evidence that children living with coresident grandparents display better, worse, or similar adjustment to those living with both their biological parents (DeLeire and Kalil, 2002; Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones, 2007; Monserud and Elder, 2011). One possible explanation for these varied findings is that family structure is often confounded with co-occurring risk or protective factors such as financial hardship or parenting practices (Pittman, 2007). Research conducted in economically developing countries in which three-generational households are more prevalent than in the United States has found few, if any, negative associations, and some positive associations, between the presence of a grandparent in the household and children’s adjustment (Chang, Yi, and Lin, 2008; Levetan and Wild, 2016; Pong and Chen, 2010).

Temporary Childcare Childcare or day care from grandparents can provide regular help for the middle generation. According to survey data obtained from over 10,000 respondents in 10 European countries, 58% of grandmothers and 49% of grandfathers provided some kind of care for a grandchild age 15 or younger during the previous year (Hank and Buber, 2009). Large-scale British surveys have found that more grandparent care of grandchildren is associated with higher rates of hyperactivity at age 4 years, and with more peer difficulties among both preschoolers and adolescents (Fergusson, Maughan, and Golding, 2008; Griggs et al., 2010). However, Fergusson et al.’s (2008) study suggests that this finding is largely attributable to variations in the types of families using grandparent care. Grandparent care was more common in families with financial problems, and those with adolescent, single, and less well-educated mothers. In contrast, Falbo’s (1991) study in China found that children whose grandparents had cared for them during their preschool years performed better in school than those who were cared for by their parents, probably because caregiving grandparents had higher levels of education than caregiving parents. Grandchild care can later lead to close grandparent-grandchild relationships that provide high levels of emotional and practical support. As was reported by a grandchild in Griggs et al. (2010, p. 210): “It’s someone to go to. . . . It’s like a second set of parents, you know, it’s like having three sets of parents to all come and help you.” For older children and adolescents, stronger ties to grandparents are associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing problems and greater school engagement, even after accounting for other family factors (Lussier et al., 2002; Ruiz and Silverstein, 2007; Yorgason et al., 2011). There is also evidence of an association between grandparent involvement and more prosocial behavior in diverse populations of adolescents (Attar-Schwartz and Khoury-Kassabri, 2016; Attar-Schwartz, Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, and Griggs, 2009; Profe and Wild, 2017; Wild and Gaibie, 2014; Yorgason et al., 2011). By contrast, no association has been found between grandparent involvement and adolescent substance use or sexual behavior (Dunifon and Bajracharya, 2012). 254

Grandparenting

The association between grandparent Involvement and better mental and behavioral health in children is stronger for maternal than paternal grandparents, supporting evolutionary arguments (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka, 2012). Maternal grandmothers and maternal grandfathers both make positive contributions to children’s well-being, although the impact of their involvement differs depending on the outcome being assessed. For example, maternal grandmother involvement has been associated with more prosocial behavior in adolescents, whereas maternal grandfather involvement has been linked to fewer adolescent emotional problems and higher child development scores at the end of the first year of primary school (Levetan and Wild, 2016; Tanskanen and Danielsbacka, 2016; Wild, 2016). Contact and closeness with grandparents may take on particular significance for children faced with family transitions and stress, including parental divorce (Attar-Schwartz, Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, et al., 2009; Dunn and Deater-Deckard, 2001; Dunn, Fergusson, and Maughan, 2006). Silverstein and Ruiz (2006) found evidence that the quality of the grandparent-grandchild relationship (assessed in terms of emotional closeness, frequency of contact, and the extent of confiding) can moderate the link between maternal and child depression. They found that maternal depression was transmitted to late adolescent and young adult grandchildren with weak and moderately strong ties to grandparents, but not to those with the strongest ties. Social and emotional support from grandparents has also been associated with fewer externalizing behavior problems among children from rural methamphetamine-involved families in the United States (Sheridan, Haight, and Cleeland, 2011), and has been found to moderate the relation between the overall number of adverse life events experienced and psychopathology in young British adolescents (Flouri, Buchanan, Tan, Griggs, and Attar-Schwartz, 2010). Thus, although the quantity of children’s contact with grandparents shows little association with their well-being, the quality of their relationship may help to protect children and adolescents from the potential negative effects of a variety of adverse life experiences.

Indirect Influences The intergenerational transmission of parenting refers to the process whereby attitudes and behaviors are transmitted across generations (Kerr and Capaldi, 2019; Van iJzendoorn, 1992). Some of this work has been conducted within the domain of attachment theory (see earlier); other work has used more general assessments of parenting styles such as harsh or positive parenting.

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Styles Several prospective longitudinal studies provide evidence that aggressive, hostile parenting and severe discipline show moderate continuity across generations in a variety of at-risk samples (Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, and Owen, 2003; Conger, Neppl, Kim, and Scaramella, 2003; Hops, Davis, Leve, and Sheeber, 2003). These studies suggest that grandparents’ use of harsh discipline has a small but significant indirect effect on their grandchildren’s externalizing behavior, mediated, in part, by parents’ own antisocial behavior and substance use (Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, and Hawkins, 2009; Brook, Zhang, Balka, and Brook, 2012; Capaldi et al., 2003). Supportive parenting practices characterized by warmth, involvement, and consistent discipline show a similar tendency to be repeated across generations, in part by enhancing social and academic competence (Belsky, Jaffee, Sligo, Woodward, and Silva, 2005; Chen and Kaplan, 2001; Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, and Smith, 2003). Most studies find that about 15% of the variation in parent behavior can be accounted for in terms of earlier parental functioning of grandparents (Belsky et al., 2005; Capaldi et al., 2003; Conger, Belsky, and Capaldi, 2009). The modest strength of these associations highlights the need for future research to identify moderating factors that either reduce or increase the transmission of parenting styles across generations in a family (Conger et al., 2009). 255

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

Effects of Being a Grandparent Being a custodial grandparent can bring considerable stress. In a U.S. sample, Jang and Tang (2016) found a relation to depression, although moderated by the extent of social support grandparents received. The positive moderating effect of social support on depression in grandparents raising grandchildren was also found in a longitudinal study by Hayslip, Blumenthal, and Garner (2015). But how does the normal range of noncustodial grandparenting impact on health and cognition? A number of factors are involved. One is the personality of the grandparent. Ben Shlomo, TaubmanBen-Ari, Findler, Sivan, and Dolizki (2010) examined mental health and personal growth in Jewish Israeli women, during their daughter’s first pregnancy and after the birth of the granddaughter. They also assessed perceived costs (e.g., getting unwanted responsibilities, appearing older). These perceived costs were less for those grandmothers with good physical health and high self-esteem, but greater for those who showed attachment anxiety (less resistance to stressful situations). Another factor is how much time the grandparent spends with the grandchild or grandchildren, and whether this is voluntary contact or actual caring (i.e., babysitting, not custodial care). Another study of grandmothers in Australia by Moore and Rosenthal (2014) found that personal growth (life satisfaction and feelings of generativity) were positively related to frequency of activities with the grandchild, and satisfaction with the grandmothering role. An Australian study by Condon, Luszcz, and McKee (2016) of both grandfathers and grandmothers found the transition to grandparenthood was associated with benefits for mental health when more time was spent in grandchild care (babysitting). A study in Chile on noncustodial grandparents ages 66–68 years by Grundy et al. (2012) also found beneficial effects on grandparents of providing help for grandchildren, especially if it was at least 4 hours/week. Over a 2-year period, depression scores went down, and for grandfathers especially, life satisfaction went up. A study in Australia by Burn and Szoeke (2015) found a curvilinear relation; the amount of childcare for grandchildren had a positive effect on measures of cognition (such as executive functioning) for up to 1 day/week, but not for more than 1 day/week. This study was on older grandmothers (mean age 70 years). However, a study in 10 European countries by Di Gessa, Glaser, and Tinker (2016) found health benefits of caring for grandchildren whether this was intensive (>15 hours/ week) or non-intensive, compared with those not caring for grandchildren. A longitudinal study in rural China by Zhou, Mao, Lee, and Chi (2017) also found benefits of caring for grandchildren on the physical health of grandparents, especially when there was good emotional support from the parental generation. Things may be different so far as adult grandchildren are concerned. In a longitudinal study of grandparents with adult grandchildren in the United States, Moorman and Stokes (2016) found that greater affinity reduced depression, but greater contact increased depression. The authors surmise that increases in contact over time with adult grandchildren may signal nonnormative and troubling life events that increase stress. In summary, becoming a grandparent is usually a joyful transition, and active engagement, most notably in babysitting, can bring benefits from physical activity and meaningful social engagement. Provisos are likely to be that engagement with grandchildren is largely voluntary, and not excessive given the age, health, and personality of the grandparent involved.

Practical Aspects of Grandparenting The increased recognition of the practical importance of grandparenthood is shown by two developments in modern industrial societies. One is the advent of courses for effective grandparenting and of foster grandparent programs. The other is the growing pressure for grandparents to have visitation rights in cases of family separation and divorce. 256

Grandparenting

Grandparents in Society A number of community and education programs support grandparents, especially in the United States. A pioneering program by Strom and Strom (1989, p. 163) offered “an educational program for grandparents to help strengthen families” including components on sharing feelings and ideas with peers, listening to the views of younger people, learning about life-span development, improving family communication skills, and focusing on self-evaluation. Interventions following these programs were self-evaluated and found to be effective within various communities, including in Japan and Taiwan. A range of programs developed in subsequent decades are described by Moore and Rosenthal (2017; Chapter 9); they point out that many lack rigorous evaluation for effectiveness. However, a randomized control was employed by Kirby and Sanders (2014), who adapted a parenting program for use with grandparents. After nine sessions, the intervention grandparents reported a range of positive outcomes including less anxiety, more confidence, and improved relationships with grandchildren. A similar program and randomized control trial in Hong Kong also produced benefits for grandparent self-efficacy and a decrease in child behavior problems (Leung, Sanders, Fung, and Kirby, 2014). There are also “foster grandparent” programs. Werner (1991, p. 78) described how these give “elders with low income the opportunity to provide companionship and caring for a variety of highrisk children and youths in return for a tax-exempt stipend.” These take place in hospitals, residential institutions, day care programs, and family shelters. The evaluation of these programs appears to be positive. More recently, an “Adopt a Grandparent” movement has spread to many countries, with the internet and social networks (such as Facebook) being used for offering, and finding, surrogate grandparents/grandchildren. Potentially a positive development, safeguards are important, and more efforts for regulation and research in this area is needed (Moore and Rosenthal, 2017).

Obtaining Contact: The Courts or Mediation? An important issue for grandparents is what access and visitation rights they have with grandchildren of a noncustodial parent (Cavanagh and Cauffman, 2019). Generally, what is in the best interests of the child is considered as the prime criterion in making legal decisions. Nevertheless, grandparents’ rights can vary by country, and by state in the United States. Thompson, Tinsley, Scalora, and Parke (1989) reviewed the then legal situation in the United States; statutes granting grandparents legal standing to petition for legally enforceable visitation with their grandchildren, even over parental objections, had been passed in all 50 states. Contact orders have been transferable from state to state since 1998, following the Visitation Rights Enforcement Act. However, in many states, parents have challenged such laws on the basis that the statute is an infringement of their fundamental constitutional right to rear their children as they see fit. A landmark decision in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law in the state of Washington that gave grandparents rights to contact with their grandchildren, a precedent followed by a few other states such as Florida and Tennessee. The American Grandparents Association is dedicated to pursuing the best for grandparents and their families, and their website summarizes rights in every U.S. state (www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-rights). In the United Kingdom, the 1989 Children Act, which highlights the interests of children, allows any person (not just grandparents or relatives) to request a leave to seek an order for contact with a child (Douglas and Lowe, 1990). When deciding whether to grant a leave, the court will consider the applicant’s connection with the child. But even if the grandparent has obtained a contact order, there is little which holds the parent to abide by the court ruling. Legal action by the grandparent would likely increase the anger of the parents; also court proceedings can be very expensive, and often beyond the means of grandparents who have retired and are on fixed incomes. The Grandparent 257

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild

Association in the United Kingdom has defended rights of grandparents, and advice can be found at websites such as www.thefamilylawco.co.uk/information/what-are-grandparents-rights/. In Australia, the Family Law Act of 1975 states that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare, and development (such as grandparents or other relatives). To obtain contact with a grandchild, a grandparent must attempt mediation with the parents before issuing court proceedings (https://www.diyfamilylawaustralia.com/pages/child-issues/what-are-grandparents-rights-to-see-their-grandchildren/#.W2MjVk2Wzcs). Generally, mediation has been found to be effective in some cases, and is clearly to be preferred as the best initial option. However, sometimes legal contact orders are the only way of preserving the child’s continued contact with their grandparent.

Future Directions for Theory and Research in Grandparenting Here, we focus on the integration of theoretical approaches, the challenge of historical change, and the impact of new communication technologies. Regarding methods of obtaining data, it remains true that most studies of grandparenthood have employed interviews or structured or semi-structured questionnaires. Other approaches, such as direct observation of behavior in standard situations, and projective or open-ended methods (such as essays or drawings about grandparents), together with case studies and more qualitative approaches, can add important insights and complement more quantitative results (Smith and Drew, 2002). It also remains true that most research on grandparenthood has been carried out in Western countries, notably the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. However, there is now a greater range of studies from other cultures, and Shwalb and Hossain (2018) provide reviews from across the globe. A challenge for theory is to account for both the differences between cultures and the commonalties across cultures. Some aspects of theory have developed, especially approaches from evolutionary theory. What is still lacking, however, is an integration of different theoretical perspectives. Ideas from evolutionary theory can be quite compatible with those developed from, for example, attachment theory, or behavioral economic approaches, but these need to be elaborated on to provide a more comprehensive understanding of aspects such as grandparental investment in grandchildren (Friedman, Hechter, and Kreager, 2008), the costs and benefits to all parties, and the different factors involved. Furthermore, a fuller account needs to be taken of historical changes. “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” (Hartley, 1953, p. 5). We are very aware that research findings from the 1970s or 1980s (on, for example, the nature and frequency of grandparent-grandchild contacts) may not be applicable to contemporary circumstances. Demographic, economic, and social changes can have major impacts on intergenerational relationships. Longitudinal studies are a powerful way of examining changes with age and (given multiple time assessments) of disentangling cause-and-effect relations. But, inevitably, the earlier assessments will be referring to times past—sometimes, considerably past. For example, Moorman and Stokes (2016) made use of the Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG) data from the United States. This study started in 1971, with subsequent waves of data collection, up to 2004 for Moorman and Stokes’s analyses. As the authors comment (p. 418), “These data are growing old, and as they age, they become less representative of modern grandparent-adult grandchild relationships.” Of course, older studies may still have an historical interest, insofar as we attempt to describe and explain how grandparent-grandchild relationships have changed over the decades, and why. Cohortsequential designs are really needed to explore these complex issues. The impact of historical change over the last decade is brought home dramatically by the rise of the internet, social networking sites, and communication technologies such as Skype. These new 258

Grandparenting

technological developments have enhanced the possibility of easy and regular communication over long distances and have likely led to some reduction in the importance of proximity as a variable in terms of satisfying grandparent-grandchild relationships. For example, Condon et al. (2016) found (contrary to their hypothesis) that having no direct contact with a grandchild did not have significant negative impact on grandparents’ mental health. They suggested (pp. 6–7) that one possible reason may have been “the use of technologies (e.g., video Skype) to help minimize the effects of a lack of actual physical contact.” The use of such technologies needs to be fully incorporated in research designs, and a fuller examination of the impact of these new technologies is a priority area for research in grandparent-grandchild relationships. This will be an ongoing process, as these technologies continue to develop, and as newer generations of grandparents become more accustomed to their use.

Conclusion Demographic trends in modern industrialized societies mean that grandparenthood is an important part of the life span for most people. In understanding grandparenthood, theoretical perspectives can be brought to bear from evolutionary theory, psychoanalysis and attachment theory, family systems theory, family sociology, life-span development, and gerontology. Being a grandparent does not usually have as much significance as being a parent, but relationships with grandchildren are usually seen as being positive and satisfying. Typically, grandparents may see grandchildren once or a few times a month. Grandparents engage in a variety of activities with grandchildren, including acting as family historian, as a confidante, and as a support in times of family discord. Living close to grandchildren, being a grandmother (especially maternal grandmother), being relatively young and healthy, all predict greater contact. In addition there are individual and cultural differences in style and role perceptions: among African Americans, for example, the maternal grandmother tends to have a particularly influential role. Grandparents can be “on-time” or “off-time” depending on when they first become a grandparent; generally, “on-time” grandparents experience the most satisfaction in the role. Great-grandparents, and step-grandparents, tend to have less contact and lower satisfaction. Grandparents can influence their grandchildren’s development in many ways. Some are direct, via contact. Some grandparents become particularly close to young grandchildren by acting as a surrogate parent or running a grandparent-maintained household. Some are indirect, via support of parents and intergenerational transmission of parenting skills. Generally, the influence of grandparents can be very positive. On occasions, it can be less so, if grandparents conflict with parents on childrearing values, or even abuse grandchildren. Similarly, grandparents themselves generally benefit in terms of physical and mental health, provided demands on them are not too great. Some issues connected to grandparenthood have direct societal implications, including programs for grandparents and issues around rights of access to grandchildren separated from them by their parent’s divorce. Research on grandparenthood is growing in strength and relevance: Future directions may usefully see a greater integration of theoretical perspectives, including around historical change, and more assessment of the impact of new technologies on intergenerational relationships.

References Abdul-Malak, Y. (2016). Health and grandparenting among 13 Caribbean (and one Latin American) immigrant women in the United States. In M. H. Meyer and Y. Abdul-Malak (Eds.), Grandparenting in the United States (pp. 61–80). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Anderson, M. (1999). Children in-between: Constructing identities in the bicultural family. Royal Anthropological Institute, 5, 13–26. Arber, S., and Timonen, V. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary grandparenting: Changing family relationships in global contexts. Bristol: Policy Press.

259

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Archer, J. (1999). The nature of grief. London: Routledge. Attar-Schwartz, S., Tan, J-P., and Buchanan, A. (2009). Adolescents’ perspectives on relationships with grandparents: The contribution of adolescent, grandparent, and parent-grandparent relationship variables. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1057–1066. Attar-Schwartz, S., Tan, J-P., Buchanan, A., Flouri, E., and Griggs, J. (2009). Grandparenting and adolescent adjustment in two-parent biological, lone-parent, and step-families. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 67–75. Attar-Schwartz, S., and Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2016). The moderating role of cultural affiliation in the link between emotional closeness to grandparents and adolescent adjustment difficulties and prosocial behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86, 564–572. Babu, N., Hossain, Z., Morales, J. E., and Vij, S. (2018). Grandparents in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 159–186). New York: Routledge. Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., and Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Parenting practices and problem behavior across three generations: Monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug use in the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1214–1226. Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626. Baranowski, M. D., and Schilmoeller, G. L. (1999). Grandparents in the lives of grandchildren with disabilities: Mothers’ perceptions. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 427–446. Barnett, M. A., Scaramella, L. V., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L., and Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational relationship quality, gender, and grandparent involvement. Family Relations, 59, 28–44. Bar-On, D., Eland, J., Kleber, R. J., Krell, R., Moore, Y., Sagi, A., . . . Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1998). Multigenerational perspectives on coping with the holocaust experience: An attachment perspective for understanding the developmental sequelae of trauma across generations. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 22, 315–338. Bates, J. S. (2009). Generative grandfathering: A conceptual framework for nurturing grandchildren. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 331–352. Belsky, J., Jaffee, S. R., Sligo, J., Woodward, L., and Silva, P. A. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of warmsensitive-stimulating parenting: A prospective study of mothers and fathers of 3-year-olds. Child Development, 76, 384–396. Bengtson, V. L. (1987). Parenting, grandparenting, and intergenerational continuity. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, and L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 435–456). New York: Aldine. Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1–16. Bengtson, V. L., and Robertson, J. F. (Eds.). (1985). Grandparenthood. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Benoit, D., and Parker, K. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations. Child Development, 65, 1444–1456. Ben Shlomo, S., Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Findler, L., Sivan, E., and Dolizki, M. (2010). Becoming a grandmother: Maternal grandmothers’ mental health, perceived costs, and personal growth. Social Work Research, 34, 45–57. Bernal, J. G., and Anuncibay, R. D. (2008). Intergenerational grandparent/grandchild relations: The socioeducational role of grandparents. Educational Gerontology, 34, 67–88. Boon, S. D., and Brussoni, M. J. (1996). Young adults’ relationships with their “closest” grandparents: Examining emotional closeness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 439–458. Bornstein, M., and Cote, L. R. (2019). Immigrant parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 198–233). New York: Routledge. Botcheva, L. B., and Feldman, S. S. (2004). Grandparents as family stabilizers during economic hardship in Bulgaria. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 157–168. Bowlby, J. (1974). Attachment and loss (Vol 1): Attachment. London: Hogarth Press. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. Brandon, P. D. (2016). Grandparent-provided childcare for families raising elementary-school-aged children with disabilities. In M. H. Meyer and Y. Abdul-Malak (Eds.), Grandparenting in the United States (pp. 81–105). Abingdon: Routledge. Bridges, L. J., Roe, A. E. C., Dunn, J., and O’Connor, T. G. (2007). Children’s perspectives on their relationships with grandparents following parental separation: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 16, 539–554. Brook, J. S., Zhang, D., Balka, E. B., and Brook, D. W. (2012). Pathways to children’s externalizing behaviour: A three-generation study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 173, 175–197.

260

Grandparenting Brown, L. H. (2003). Intergenerational influences on perceptions of current relationships with grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1, 95–112. Buchanan, A., and Rotkirch, A. (Eds.). (2016a). Grandfathers: Global perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchanan, A., and Rotkirch, A. (2016b). Introduction. In A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 3–20). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bugental, D. B., and Corpuz, R. (2019). Parental attributions. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 722–761). New York: Routledge. Burn, K., and Szoeke, C. (2015). Grandparenting predicts late-life cognition: Results from the Women’s Healthy Aging Project. Maturitas, 81, 317–322. Burton, L. M., and Bengtson, V. L. (1985). Black grandmothers: Issues of timing and continuity of roles. In V. L. Bengtson and J. F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 61–77). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Burton, L. M., and Dilworth-Anderson, P. (1991). The intergenerational family roles of aged Black Americans. In S. K. Pfelfer and M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Families: Intergenerational and generational connections (pp. 311–330). Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press. Byrne, E. A., Cunningham, C. C., and Sloper, P. (1988). Families and their children with Down’s syndrome. London: Routledge. Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Patterson, G. R., and Owen, L. D. (2003). Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127–142. Case, A., and Ableidinger, J. (2004). Orphans in Africa: Parental death, poverty, and school enrollment. Demography, 41, 483–508. Caspari, R., and Lee, S-H. (2004). Older age becomes common late in human evolution. PNAS, 101, 10895–10900. Cavanagh, C., and Cauffman, E. (2019). Parenting and the law. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 5: The practice of parenting (3rd ed., pp. 465–490). New York: Routledge. Chambers, S. A., Rowa-Dewar, N., Radley, A., and Dobbie, F. (2017). A systematic review of grandparents’ influence on grandchildren’s cancer risk factors. PLOS ONE, 12(11), e0185420. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0185420 Chan, C. G., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000). Matrilineal advantage in grandchild-grandparent relations. The Gerontologist, 40, 179–190. Chang, Y., Yi, C., and Lin, K. (2008). Kin network and its effects on the psychological well-being of the youth. The case of Taiwan. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 19–36. Chazan, M. (2008). Seven ‘deadly’ assumptions: Unravelling the implications of HIV/AIDS among grandmothers in South Africa and beyond. Ageing and Society, 28, 935–958. Chen, Z., and Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17–31. Cherlin, A., and Furstenberg, F. F. (1985). Styles and strategies of grandparenting. In V. L. Bengtson and J. F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 97–116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cherlin, A., and Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The new American grandparent. New York: Basic Books. Christensen, F. B., and Smith, T. A. (2002). What is happening to satisfaction and quality of relationships between step/grandparents and step/grandchildren? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37, 117–133. Coall, D. A., and Hertwig, R. (2010). Grandparental investment: Past, present, and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 1–59. Coall, D. A., and Hertwig, R. (2011). Grandparental investment: A relic of the past, or a resource for the future? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 93–98. Coall, D. A., Hilbrand, S., Sear, R., and Hertwig, R. (2016). A new niche? The theory of grandfather involvement. In A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 21–44). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(supplement), S95–S120. Condon, J., Corkindale, C., Luszcz, M., and Gamble, E. (2011). The Australian First-time Grandparents Study: Time spent with the grandchild and its predictors. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 32, 21–27. Condon, J., Luszcz, M., and McKee, I. (2016). The transition to grandparenthood: A prospective study of mental health implications. Aging & Mental Health. Advance online publication, 22, 336–343. doi:10.1080/136078 63.2016.1248897 Conger, R. D., Belsky, J., and Capaldi, D. M. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of parenting: Closing comments for the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1276–1283.

261

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Conger, R. D., Neppl, T., Kim, K. J., and Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry and aggressive behavior across three generations: A prospective, longitudinal study of parents and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 143–160. Cox, M. J., and Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. Crawford, P. A., and Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Grand images: Exploring images of grandparents in picture books. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28, 128–144. Cunningham-Burley, S. (1985). Constructing grandparenthood: Anticipating appropriate action. Sociology, 19, 421–436. Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., Jokela, M., and Rotkirch, A. (2011). Grandparental child care in Europe: Evidence for preferential investment in more certain kin. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 3–24. Davey, A., Savla, J., Janke, M., and Anderson, S. (2009). Grandparent-grandchild relationships: From families in contexts to families as contexts. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 69, 311–325. Defrain, J., Ernest, L., Jakub, D., and Taylor, J. (1992). Sudden infant death: Enduring the loss. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Defrain, J. D., Jakub, D. K., and Mendoza, B. L. (1991–1992). The psychological effects of sudden infant death on grandmothers and grandfathers. Omega, 24, 165–182. DeLeire, T., and Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in threes: Single-parent multigenerational family structure and adolescent adjustment. Demography, 39, 393–413. Dench, G., and Ogg, J. (2002). Grandparenting in Britain. London: Institute of Community Studies. Dench, G., Ogg, J., and Thomson, K. (1999). The role of grandparents. In R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, and K. Thomson (Eds.), British social attitudes: The 16th report (pp. 135–156). Aldershot: Ashgate. Dias, C., Azambuja, R., Rabinovich, E., and Bastos, A. C. (2018). Grandparents in Brazil: The contexts of care and economic support for grandchildren. In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 60–79). New York: Routledge. Di Gessa, G., Glaser, K., and Tinker, A. (2016). The health impact of intensive and nonintensive grandchild care in Europe: New evidence from SHARE. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 71, 867–879. Doka, K. J., and Mertz, M. E. (1988). The meaning and significance of great-grandparenthood. The Gerontologist, 28, 192–197. Douglas, G., and Ferguson, N. (2003). The role of grandparents in divorced families. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 17, 41–67. Douglas, G., and Lowe, N. (1990). Grandparents and the legal process. Journal of Social Welfare Law, 2, 89–106. Drew, L. M. (2000). What are the implications for grandparents when they lose contact with their grandchildren? (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Goldsmiths College, University of London. Drew, L., and Silverstein, M. (2004). Intergenerational role investments of great-grandparents: Consequences for psychological well-being. Ageing and Society, 24, 95–111. Drew, L., and Silverstein, M. (2007). Grandparents’ psychological well-being after loss of contact with their grandchildren. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 372–379. Drew, L. M., and Smith, P. K. (1999). The impact of parental separation/divorce on grandparent-grandchild relationships. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 48, 191–215. Dunifon, R., and Bajracharya, A. (2012). The role of grandparents in the lives of youth. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1168–1194. Dunifon, R., and Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2007). The influence of grandparents in single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 465–481. Dunifon, R. E., Ziol-Guest, K. M., and Kopko, K. (2014). Grandparent coresidence and family well-being: Implications for research and policy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 110–126. Dunn, J., Davies, L. C., O’Connor, T. G., and Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships: The perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272–287. Dunn, J., and Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Children’s views of their changing families. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Dunn, J., Fergusson, E., and Maughan, B. (2006). Grandparents, grandchildren, and family change in contemporary Britain. In A. Clarke-Stewart and J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count: Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 299–318). New York: Cambridge University Press. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. Elder, G. H., Jr., and Conger, R. D. (2000). Children of the land: Adversity and success in rural America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Emam, M., Abdelazsim, Y., and El-Keshky, M. (2018). Grandparents in the Middle East and North Africa. In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 223–244). New York: Routledge.

262

Grandparenting Euler, H. A., and Michalski, R. L. (2008). Grandparental and extended kin relationships. In C. Salmon and T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective (pp. 230–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Even-Zohar, A., and Garby, A. (2016). Great-grandparents’ role perception and its contribution to their quality of life. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 14, 197–219. Falbo, T. (1991). The impact of grandparents on children’s outcomes in China. Marriage and Family Review, 16, 369–376. Ferguson, N., Douglas, G., Lowe, N., Murch, M., and Robinson, M. (2004). Grandparenting in divorced families. Bristol: Policy Press. Fergusson, E., Maughan, B., and Golding, J. (2008). Which children receive grandparental care and what effect does it have? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 161–169. Fingerman, K. L. (1998). The good, the bad, and the worrisome: Emotional complexities in grandparents’ experiences with individual grandchildren. Family Relations, 47, 403–414. Fingerman, K. L. (2004). The role of offspring and in-laws in grandparents’ ties to their grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1026–1049. Flouri, E., Buchanan, A., Tan, J-P., Griggs, J., and Attar-Schwartz, S. (2010). Adverse life events, area socioeconomic disadvantage, and adolescent psychopathology: The role of closeness to grandparents in moderating the effect of contextual stress. Stress, 13, 402–412. Fox, M., Sear, R., Beise, J., Ragsdale, G., Voland, E., and Knapp, L. A. (2010). Grandma plays favourites: X-chromosome relatedness and sex-specific childhood mortality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 567–573. Friedman, D., Hechter, M., and Kreager, D. (2008). A theory of the value of grandchildren. Rationality and Society, 20, 31–63. Fruhauf, C. A., Jarrott, S. E., and Allen, K. R. (2006). Grandchildren’s perceptions of caring for grandparents. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 887–911. Fry, P. S. (1997). Grandparents’ reactions to the death of a grandchild: An exploratory factor analytic study. Omega, 35, 119–140. Fuller-Thomson, E., Serbinski, S., and McCormack, L. (2014). The rewards of caring for grandchildren: Black Canadian grandmothers who are custodial parents, co-parents, and extensive babysitters. GrandFamilies: The Contemporary Journal of Research, Practice and Policy, 1, 4–31. Gates, G. J. (2013). Lesbian parenting in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Gauthier, A. (2002). The role of grandparents. Current Sociology, 50, 295–307. Geary, D. C. (2005). Evolution of paternal investment. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 483–505). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Geffen, R. M. (2014). The roles of American Jewish grandparents: An exploration of the intergenerational transmission of values. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 89, 55–60. Glasberg, B. A., and Harris, S. L. (1997). Grandparents and parents assess the development of their child with autism. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19, 17–27. Gold, J. M. (2015). Intergenerational attachments in stepfamilies: Facilitating the role of the step-grandparents. The Family Journal, 23, 194–200. Griggs, J., Tan, J-P., Buchanan, A., Attar-Schwartz, S., and Flouri, E. (2010). ‘They’ve always been there for me’: Grandparental involvement and child well-being. Children and Society, 24, 200–214. Grundy, E. M., Albala, C., Allen, E., Dangour, A. D., Elbourne, D., and Uauy, R. (2012). Grandparenting and psychosocial health among older Chileans: A longitudinal analysis. Aging & Mental Health, 16, 1047–1057. Hamilton, H. A. (2005). Extended families and adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 260–266. Hank, K., and Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Findings from the 2004 survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 53–73. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption. New York: Touchstone. Hartley, J. P. (1953). The go-between. London: Penguin Books. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., and Blurton Jones, N. G. (1997). Hadza women’s time allocations, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology, 38, 551–577. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., Blurton Jones, N. G., Alvarez, H., and Charnov, E. L. (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, 1336–1339. Hayslip, B., Jr., Blumenthal, H., and Garner, A. (2015). Social support and grandparent caregiver health: Oneyear longitudinal findings for grandparents raising their grandchildren. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 70, 804–812. Hayslip, B., Jr., and Fruhauf, C. A. (2018). Grandparenting in the United States: Cultural and subcultural diversity. In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 41–59). New York: Routledge.

263

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Hayslip, B., and Kaminski, P. L. (2005). Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A review of the literature and suggestions for practice. Gerontologist, 45, 262–269. Hayslip, B., and Smith, G. (2013). Resilient grandparent caregivers: A strength-based perspective. New York: Routledge. Henderson, C. E., Hayslip, B., Jr., Sanders, L. M., and Louden, L. (2009). Grandmother-grandchild relationship quality predicts psychological adjustment among youth from divorced families. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1245–1264. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14. Hetherington, E. M., and Stanley-Hagan, M. (1999). The adjustment of children with divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 129–140. Hill-Lubin, M. A. (1991). The African-American grandmother in autobiographical works by Frederick Douglass, Langston Hughes, and Maya Angelou. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33, 173–185. Hilton, J. M., and Macari, D. P. (1997). Grandparent involvement following divorce: A comparison in singlemother and single-father families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 28, 203–224. Hops, H., Davis, B., Leve, C., and Sheeber, L. (2003). Cross-generational transmission of aggressive parent behavior: A prospective, mediational examination. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 161–169. Hornby, G., and Ashforth, T. (1994). Grandparents’ support for families who have children with disabilities: A survey for parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 403–412. Hurme, H. (1988). Child, mother and grandmother: Intergenerational interaction in Finnish families. Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla Press. Hurme, H. (2006). Grandparents as resource factors in the family. In L. Pulkinnen, R. Rose and J. Caprio (Eds.), Socioemotional development and health from adolescence to adulthood, (pp. 245–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hurme, H., Westerback, S., and Quadrello, T. (2010). Traditional and new forms of contact between grandparents and grandchildren. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8, 264–280. Hwang, H. J., and St James-Roberts, I. (1998). Emotional and behavioural problems in primary school children from nuclear and extended families in Korea. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 973–979. Ivan, L., and Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2017). Older people and the use of ICTs to communicate with children and grandchildren. Transnational Social Review, 7, 41–55. Janelli, L. M. (1988). Depictions of grandparents in children’s literature. Educational Gerontology, 14, 193–202. Jang, H., and Tang, F. (2016). Effects of social support and volunteering on depression among grandparents raising grandchildren. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 83, 491–507. Jappens, M., and Van Bavel., J. (2012). Regional family norms and child care by grandparents in Europe. Demographic Research, 27, 85–120. Jendrek, M. P (1994). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Circumstances and decisions. The Gerontologist, 34, 206–216. Johnson, C. L. (1983). A cultural analysis of the grandmother. Research on Aging, 5, 547–567. Jooste, J. L., Hayslip, B., and Smith, G. C. (2008). The adjustment of children and grandparent caregivers in grandparent-headed families. In B. Hayslip Jr. and P. Kaminski (Eds.), Parenting the custodial grandchild: Implications for clinical practice (pp. 17–39). New York: Springer. Kachel, A. F., and Premo, L. S. (2012). Disentangling the evolution of early and late life history traits in humans. Evolutionary Biology, 39, 638–649. Kahana, B., and Kahana, E. (1970). Grandparenthood from the perspective of the developing grandchild. Developmental Psychology, 3, 98–105. Kemp, C. L. (2007). Grandparent-grandchild ties: Reflections on continuity and change across three generations. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855–881. Kennedy, G. E. (1990). Quality in grandparent/grandchild relationships. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 35, 83–98. Kennedy, G. E. (1992). Shared activities of grandparents and grandchildren. Psychological Reports, 70, 211–227. Kennedy, S., and Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 51, 587–598. Kerig, P. K. (2019). Parenting and family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 3–35). New York: Routledge. Kerr, D. C. R., and Capaldi, D. M. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parentingVol 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 443–481), Being and becoming a parent. New York: Routledge. King, V. (2003). The legacy of a grandparent’s divorce: Consequences for ties between grandparents and grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 170–183.

264

Grandparenting King, V., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (1995). American children view their grandparents: Linked lives across three rural generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 165–178. King, V., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with grandparents and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 848–859. King, V., and Elder, G. H. (1998). Perceived self-efficacy and grandparenting. Journal of Gerontology, 53B, S249–S257. Kirby, J. N., and Sanders, M. R. (2014). A randomized control trial evaluating a parenting program designed specifically for grandparents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 52, 35–44. Kornhaber, A., and Woodward, K. (1981). Grandparents/grandchildren: The vital connection. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Kruk, E. (1995). Grandparent-grandchild contact loss: Findings from a study of “Grandparents Rights” members. Canadian Journal on Aging, 14, 737–754. Kruk, E., and Hall, B. L. (1995). The disengagement of paternal grandparents subsequent to divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 23, 131–147. Landry, P. H., Jr., and Martin, M. E. (1988). Measuring intergenerational consensus. In D. J. Mangen, V. L. Bengtson, and P. H. Landry Jr. (Eds.), Measurement of intergenerational relations (pp. 126–155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lavers, C. A., and Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (1997). Annotation: On the grandmother’s role in the adjustment and maladjustment of grandchildren. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 747–753. Leopold, T., and Skopek, J. (2015a). The demography of grandparenthood: An international profile. Social Forces, 94, 801–832. Leopold, T., and Skopek, J. (2015b). The delay of grandparenthood: A cohort comparison in East and West Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 441–460. Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. PNAS, 111, 18112–18115. Leung, C., Sanders, M., Fung, B., and Kirby, J. (2014). The effectiveness of the Grandparent Triple P programs with Hong Kong Chinese families: A randomized control trial. Journal of Family Studies, 20, 104–117. Levetan, J. L., and Wild, L. G. (2016). The implications of maternal grandmother coresidence and involvement for adolescent adjustment in South Africa. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 356–365. LeVine, R. A., and White, M. (1987). Parenthood in social transformation. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, and L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 271–293). New York: Aldine. Llewellyn, G. (2019). Parents with disabilities. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 234–273). New York: Routledge. Lussier, G., Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., and Davies, L. (2002). Support across two generations: Children’s closeness to grandparents following parental divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 363–376. Madhavan, S. (2004). Fosterage patterns in the age of AIDS: Continuity and change. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1443–1454. Maehara, T., and Takemura, A. (2007). The norms of filial piety and grandmother roles as perceived by grandmothers and their grandchildren in Japan and South Korea. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 585–593. Mahne, K., and Motel-Klingebiel, A. (2012). The importance of the grandparent role—a class specific phenomenon? Evidence from Germany. Advances in Life Course Research, 17, 145–155. Mahne, K., Klaus, D., and Engstler, H. (2018). Grandparenthood in Germany: Intimacy at a distance or emeritus parents? In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 83–110). New York: Routledge. Main, M., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment and research (pp. 66–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mangen, D. J., Bengtson, V. L., and Landry, P. H. Jr. (Eds.). (1988). Measurement of intergenerational relations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mangen, D. J., and McChesney, K. Y. (1988). Intergenerational cohesion: A comparison of linear and nonlinear analytical approaches. In D. J. Mangen, V. L. Bengtson, and P. H. Landry Jr. (Eds.), Measurement of intergenerational relations (pp. 208–221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mangen, D. J., and Miller, R. B. (1988). Measuring intergenerational contact in the family. In D. J. Mangen, V. L. Bengtson, and P. H. Landry Jr. (Eds.), Measurement of intergenerational relations (pp. 98–125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

265

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Mann, R. (2007). Out of the shadows? Grandfatherhood, age and masculinities. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 281–291. Margolin, L. (1992). Sexual abuse by grandparents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 735–741. Margolis, R. (2016). The changing demography of grandparenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 610–622. Mayer, K. U. (2009). New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 413–433. McChesney, K. Y., and Bengtson, V. L. (1988). Solidarity, integration and cohesion in families: Concepts and theories. In D. J. Mangen, V. L. Bengtson, and P. H. Landry Jr. (Eds.), Measurement of intergenerational relations (pp. 15–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCrimmon, C. A., and Howell, R. J. (1989). Grandparents’ legal rights to visitation in the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Bulletin of American Academic Psychiatry Law, 17, 355–366. McLoyd, V. C., Hardaway, C., and Jocson, R. M. (2019). African American parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 57–107). New York: Routledge. Mehta, K. K., and Thang, L. L. (Eds.). (2012). Experiencing grandparenthood: An Asian perspective. New York: Springer. Meyer, M. H., and Abdul-Malak, Y. (Eds.). (2016). Grandparenting in the United States. Abingdon: Routledge. Mhaka-Mutepfa, M., Mpofu, E., Moore, A., and Ingman, S. (2018). Carer grandparents of Sub-Saharan Africa. In D. W. Shwalb and Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (pp. 245–268). New York: Routledge. Michalski, R. L., and Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Grandparental investment as a function of relational uncertainty and emotional closeness with grandparents. Human Nature, 16, 293–305. Miller, J. (1989). Myself. Christchurch: Golden Apple Productions. Mills, T. L., Wakeman, M. A., and Fea, C. B. (2001). Adult grandchildren’s perceptions of emotional closeness and consensus with their maternal and paternal grandparents. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 427–455. Minuchin, P. (1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In R. A. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 7–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mirfin-Veitch, B., Bray, A., and Watson, M. (1996). “They really do care”: Grandparents as informal support sources for parents of children with disabilities. New Zealand Journal of Disability Studies, 2, 136–148. Monserud, M. A., and Elder, G. H. (2011). Household structure and children’s educational attainment: A perspective on coresidence with grandparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 981–1000. Moore, S. M., and Rosenthal, D. A. (2014). Personal growth, grandmother engagement and satisfaction among non-custodial grandmothers. Aging and Mental Health, 19, 136–143. Moore, S., and Rosenthal, D. (2017). Grandparenting: Contemporary perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. Moorman, S. M., and Stokes, J. E. (2016). Solidarity in the grandparent-adult grandchild relationship and trajectories of depressive symptoms. The Gerontologist, 56, 408–420. Mueller, M. M., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (2003). Family contingencies across the generations: Grandparent-grandchild relationships in holistic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 404–417. Mueller, M. M., Wilhelm, B., and Elder, G. H., Jr. (2002). Variations in grandparenting. Research on Aging, 24, 360–388. Myer, D. J., and Vadasy, P. F. (1986). Grandparent workshops: How to organize workshops for grandparents of children with handicaps. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Myers, B. J., Jarvis, P. A., and Creasey, G. L. (1987). Infants’ behavior with their mothers and grandmothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 245–259. Neugarten, B. L., and Weinstein, K. K. (1964). The changing American grandparent. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 199–204. Ng, F. F-Y., and Wang, Q. (2019). Asian and Asian American parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 108–169). New York: Routledge. Nyasani, E., Sterberg, E., and Smith, H. (2009). Fostering children affected by AIDS in Richards Bay, South Africa: A qualitative study of grandparents’ experiences. African Journal of AIDS Research, 8, 181–192. Nybo, W. L., Scherman, A., and Freeman, P. L. (1998). Grandparents’ role in family systems with a deaf child: An exploratory study. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 260–267. Oburu, P. O. (2005). Caregiving stress and adjustment problems of Kenyan orphans raised by grandmothers. Infant and Child Development, 14, 199–210. Oppong, C. (2006). Familial roles and social transformations: Older men and women in sub-Saharan Africa. Research on Aging, 28, 654–668. Orel, N. A., and Fruhauf, C. A. (2006). Lesbian and bisexual grandmothers’ perceptions of the grandparentgrandchild relationship. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2, 43–70.

266

Grandparenting Owen, C., Mooney, A., Brannen, J., and Statham, J. (2004). Wider family. In S. Dex and H. Joshi (Eds.), Millennium Cohort study first survey: A user’s guide to initial findings (pp. 51–74). London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Bedford Group for Lifecourse and Statistical Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. Parker, E. M., and Short, S. E. (2009). Grandmother coresidence, maternal orphans, and school enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 813–836. Patterson, C. J. (2019). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., 345–371). New York: Routledge. Pearson, J. L., Hunter, A. G., Ensminger, M. E., and Kellam, S. G. (1990). Black grandmothers in multigenerational households: Diversity in family structure and parenting involvement in the Woodlawn community. Child Development, 61, 434–442. Pebley, A. R., and Rudkin, L. L. (1999). Grandparents caring for grandchildren: What do we know? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 218–242. Perry, G. (2017). Alloparental care and assistance in a normatively patrilocal society. Current Anthropology, 58, 114–123. Pettys, G. L., and Balgopal, P. R. (1998). Multigenerational conflicts and new immigrants: An Indo-American experience. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 74, 410–423. Pitcher, D. (2009). Adopted children and their grandparents: Views from three generations. Adoption and Fostering, 33, 56–67. Pittman, L. D. (2007). Grandmothers’ involvement among young adolescents growing up in poverty. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 89–116. Pittman, L. D., and Boswell, M. K. (2007). The role of grandmothers in the lives of preschoolers growing up in urban poverty. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 20–42. Pittman, L. D., Ioffe, M., and Keeports, C. R. (2016). Young adults’ perceptions of living with their grandparents during childhood. In M. H. Meyer and Y. Abdul-Malak (Eds.), Grandparenting in the United States (pp. 185–206). Abingdon: Routledge. Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., and Nelissen, M. (2007). Maternal grandmothers do go the extra mile: Factoring distance and lineage into differential contact with grandchildren. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 832–843. Pong, S-L., and Chen, V. W. (2010). Co-resident grandparents and children’s academic performance in Taiwan. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 111–129. Ponzetti, J. J., and Johnson, M. A. (1991). The forgotten grievers: Grandparents’ reactions to the death of grandchildren. Death Studies, 15, 157–167. Ponzetti, J. J. (1992). Bereaved families: A comparison of parents’ and grandparents’ reactions to the death of a child. Omega, 25, 63–71. Profe, W., and Wild, L. G. (2017). Mother, father, and grandparent involvement: Associations with adolescent mental health and substance use. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 776–797 Quadrello, T., Hurme, H., Menzinger, J., Smith, P. K., Veisson, M., Vidal, S., and Westerback, S. (2005). Grandparents’ use of new communication technologies in a European perspective. European Journal of Ageing, 2, 200–207. Reese, C. G., and Murray, R. B. (1996). Transcendence: The meaning of great-grandmothering. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 4, 245–251. Reitzes, D. C., and Mutran, E. J. (2004). Grandparenthood: Factors influencing frequency of grandparentgrandchildren contact and grandparent role satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 59B(1), S9–S16. Rice, W. R., Gavrilets, S., and Friberg, U. (2010). The evolution of sex-specific grandparental harm. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2727–2735. Robertson, J. F. (1977). Grandmotherhood: A study of role conceptions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 165–174. Rodgers, B., and Pryor, J. (1998). Divorce and separation: The outcomes for children. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Rotkirch, A., and Buchanan, A. (2016). Conclusions: What have we learnt? In A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 285–309). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Röttger-Rössler, B. (2014). Bonding and belonging beyond WEIRD worlds: Rethinking attachment theory on the basis of cross-cultural anthropological data. In H. Otto and H. Keller (Eds.), Different faces of attachment: Cultural variations on a universal human need (pp. 141–168). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ruiz, S. A., and Silverstein, M. (2007). Relationships with grandparents and the emotional well-being of late adolescent and young adult grandchildren. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 793–808. Scherman, A., Gardner, J. E., Brown, P., and Schutter, M. (1995). Grandparents’ adjustment to grandchildren with disabilities. Educational Gerontology, 21, 261–273.

267

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Scherrer, K. S. (2010). The intergenerational family relationships of grandparents and GLBQ grandchildren. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 229–264. Schilmoeller, G. L., and Baranowski, M. D. (1999). Intergenerational support in families with disabilities: Grandparents’ perspectives. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 79, 465–476. Schröder-Butterfill, E. (2004). Inter-generational family support provided by older people in Indonesia. Ageing and Society, 24, 497–530. Schutter, M. E., Scherman, A., and Carroll, R. S. (1997). Grandparents and children of divorce: Their contrasting perceptions and desires for the postdivorce relationship. Educational Gerontology, 23, 213–231. Sciplino, C., Smith, P. K., Hurme, H., Rusek, M., and Bäckvik, P. (2010). Representations of grandparents in children’s books in Britain, Italy, Greece, Finland and Poland. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8, 298–316. Sear, R., and Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37(Supplement), 81–112. Seligman, M., Goodrich, C., Paschal, K., Applegate, A., and Lehman, L. (1997). Grandparents of children with disabilities: Perceived levels of support. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 293–303. Settles, B. H., Zhao, J., Mancini, K. D., Rich, A., Pierre, S., and Oduor, A. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Emerging roles and exchanges in global perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 827–848. Sheehan, N. W., and Petrovic, K. (2008). Grandparents and their adult grandchildren: Recurring themes from the literature. Marriage and Family Review, 44, 99–124. Sheridan, K., Haight, W. L., and Cleeland, L. (2011). The role of grandparents in preventing aggressive and other externalizing behaviour problems in children from rural, methamphetamine-involved families Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1583–1591. Shore, R. J., and Hayslip, B., Jr. (1994). Custodial grandparenting: Implications for children’s development. In A. E. Gottfried and A. W. Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families: Implications for children’s development (pp. 171– 218). New York: Plenum Press. Shwalb, D. W., and Hossain, Z. (Eds.). (2018). Grandparents in cultural context. New York: Routledge. Silverstein, M., and Chen, X. (1999). The impact of acculturation in Mexican American families on the quality of adult grandchild-grandparent relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 188–198. Silverstein, M., Giarrusso, R., and Bengtson, V. L. (2003). Grandparents and grandchildren in family systems. In V. L. Bengtson and A. Lowenstein (Eds.), Global aging and challenges to families (pp. 75–102). New York: Walter de Gruyter. Silverstein, M., and Marenco, A. (2001). How Americans enact the grandparent role across the family life course. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 493–522. Silverstein, M., and Ruiz, S. (2006). Breaking the chain: How grandparents moderate the transmission of maternal depression to their grandchildren. Family Relations, 55, 601–612. Smith, G. C., and Palmieri, P. A. (2007). Risk of psychological difficulties among children raised by custodial grandparents. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1303–1310. Smith, P. K. (1991a). Introduction: The study of grandparenthood. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge. Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (1991b). The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective. London: Routledge. Smith, P. K. (1995). Grandparenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, volume 3: Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 89–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Smith, P. K., and Drew, L. (2002). Grandparenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, volume 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 141–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Soliz, J. (2009). Communicative predictors of a shared family identity: Comparisons of grandchildren’s perceptions of family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 1771–1794. Solomon, J. C., and Marx, J. (1995). “To grandmother’s house we go”: Health and school adjustment of children raised solely by grandparents. The Gerontologist, 35, 386–394. Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. Mistry, M., and Qureshi, S. (1998). The mental health of Muslim mothers in extended families living in Britain: The impact of intergenerational disagreement on anxiety and depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 399–408. Staples, R. (1952). Appreciations and dislikes regarding grandmothers as expressed by granddaughters. Journal of Home Economics, 44, 340–343. Stevens, J. H., Jr. (1984). Black grandmothers’ and black adolescent mothers’ knowledge about parenting. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1017–1025.

268

Grandparenting Sticker, E. J. (1991). The importance of grandparenthood during the life cycle in Germany. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective (pp. 31–48). London: Routledge. Strassmann, B. I., and Gerrard, W. (2011). Alternatives to the grandmother hypothesis: A meta-analysis of the association between grandparental and grandchild survival in patrilineal populations. Human Nature, 22, 201–222. Strauss, C. A. (1943). Grandma made Johnny delinquent. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 13, 343–347. Strom, R., and Strom, S. (1989). Grandparents and learning. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29, 163–169. Svensson-Dianellou, A., Smith, P. K., and Mestheneos, E. (2010). Family help by Greek grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8, 249–263. Szinovacz, M. (1998). Handbook of grandparenthood. New York: Greenwood Press. Tamasane, T., and Head, J. (2010). The quality of material care provided by grandparents of their orphaned grandchildren in the context of HIV/AIDS and poverty: A study of Kopanong municipality, Free State. Sahara J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 7, 76–84. Tan, J-P., Buchanan, A., Flouri, E., Attar-Schwartz, S., and Griggs, J. (2010). Filling the parenting gap? Grandparent involvement with UK adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 992–1015. Tanskanen, A. O., and Danielsbacka, M. (2012). Beneficial effects of grandparental involvement vary by lineage in the UK. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 985–988. Tanskanen, A. O., and Danielsbacka, M. (2016). Maternal grandfathers and child development in England: Impact on the early years. In A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 217– 228). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Tanskanen, A. O., Rotkirch, A., and Danielsbacka, M. (2011). Do grandparents favor granddaughters? Biased grandparental investment in UK. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 407–415. Taylor, A. C., Robila, M., and Lee, H. S. (2005). Distance, contact, and intergenerational relationships: Grandparents and adult grandchildren from an international perspective. Journal of Adult Development, 12, 33–41. Thompson, L., and Walker, A. J. (1987). Mothers as mediators of intimacy between grandmothers and their young adult granddaughters. Family Relations, 36, 72–77. Thompson, R. A., and Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and methodological challenges for attachment theory. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 691–718. Thompson, R. A., Tinsley, B. R., Scalora, M. J., and Parke, R. D. (1989). Grandparents’ visitation rights: Legalizing the ties that bind. American Psychologist, 44, 1217–1222. Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., and Smith, C. A. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171–184. Timberlake, E. M., and Chipungu, S. S. (1992). Grandmotherhood: Contemporary meaning among African American middle-class grandmothers. Social Work, 37, 216–221. Tinsley, B. J., and Parke, R. D. (1984). Grandparents as support and socialization agents. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Beyond the Dyad (pp. 161–194). New York: Plenum Press. Tolson, T. J. F., and Wilson, M. N. (1990). The impact of two- and three-generational black family structure on perceived family climate. Child Development, 61, 416–428. Townsend, P. (1957). The family life of old people. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. Uhlenberg, P., and Cheuk, M. (2010). The significance of grandparents to grandchildren: An international perspective. In D. Dannefer and C. Phillipson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social gerontology (pp. 447–458). London: Sage. Uhlenberg, P., and Hammill, B. G. (1998). Frequency of grandparent contact with grandchild sets: Six factors that make a difference. The Gerontologist, 38, 276–285. Van iJzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76–99. Van iJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. Van Ranst, N., Verschueren, K., and Marcoen, A. (1995). The meaning of grandparents as viewed by adolescent grandchildren: An empirical study in Belgium. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 41, 311–324. Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Pasco Fearon, R. M., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., . . . Van iJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 337–366. Vollmer, H. (1937). The grandmother: A problem in child rearing. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7, 378–382.

269

Peter K. Smith and Lauren G. Wild Wallerstein, J. S. (1986). Child of divorce: An overview. Behavioral Science and the Law, 4, 105–118. Wentowski, G. J. (1985). Older women’s perceptions of great-grandmotherhood: A research note. Gerontologist, 25, 593–596. Werner, E. E. (1991). Grandparent-grandchild relationships amongst US ethnic groups. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective (pp. 68–82). London: Routledge. Westphall, S. K., Poortman, A., and Van der Lippe, T. (2015). What about the grandparents? Children’s postdivorce residence arrangements and contact with grandparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 424–440. Wild, L. (2016). Grandfather involvement and adolescent well-being in South Africa. In A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 249–266). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wild, L. G., and Gaibie, F. (2014). Grandparental involvement and South African adolescents’ psychological well-being. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(4), 425–441. Williams, M. N. (2011). The changing roles of grandparents raising grandchildren. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 948–962. Wood, S., and Liossis, P. (2007). Potentially stressful life events and emotional closeness between grandparents and adult grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 380–398. Yorgason, J. B., Padilla-Walker, L., and Jackson, J. (2011). Nonresidential grandparents’ emotional and financial involvement in relation to early adolescent grandchild outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 552–558. Zhao, G., Zhao, Q., Li, X., Fang, X., Zhao, J., and Zhang, L. (2010). Family-based care and psychological problems of AIDS orphans: Does it matter who was the care-giver? Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 15, 326–335. Zhou, J., Mao, W., Lee, Y., and Chi, I. (2017). The impact of caring for grandchildren on grandparents’ physical health outcomes: The role of intergenerational support. Research on Aging, 39, 612–634. Zimmer, Z., and Dayton, J. (2005). Older adults in sub-Saharan Africa living with children and grandchildren. Population Studies, 59, 295–312.

270

8 SINGLE PARENTHOOD Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Introduction What does it mean to be a single parent? Single parents are parents raising their children alone. They can be unmarried and living alone, or separated, divorced, or widowed. They can be male or female, young or old, educated or uneducated. Often, single parents are classified as single because they are unmarried, but the “single parent” is actually living in a home with a partner who is sharing the parenting responsibility. In this chapter, we explore what it means to be a single parent in the United States today. We describe the changing incidence of single parenthood over the last half century, and we explore the many types of single parenting situations. We address the question of whether there are unique features of single-parent families that put these families at risk, or whether the circumstances that have contributed to the increasing formation of single-parent families in recent decades are responsible for many of the risk factors that have been observed. Finally, we acknowledge that not all children of single-parent families are at risk; some children of single-parent families emerge strong and grateful for being the children of dedicated, hard-working parents who model strength and courage.

Rising Incidence of Single Parenthood The proportion of children living in single-parent families has increased markedly around the world since 1970, and this increase has been especially significant in the United States (Burns, 1992; Cherlin, 2004; Cherlin, 2010; Hobbs and Lippman, 1990). The United States has a higher proportion of single-parent households than nearly any other developed country. In 1970, the vast majority of American families with children under 18 years of age were married-couple families, and single-parent families made up less than 12% of all families. By 2016, this situation had changed dramatically. Currently, what are commonly called single-parent families make up nearly a third of all families (Cherlin, 2014). Now, with 35.2 million American families with children under 18, only 24.5 million (69%) families are married-couple families; 8.4 million families (24%) are considered mother-only families, and 2.2 million (6%) are considered father-only families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Figure 8.1 shows this dramatic change over time in the numbers and percentages of married, mother-only, and father-only families with children under 18 living in the home. Although most single-parent families are headed by a mother, nearly one in six of all single-parent families are headed by a father (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

271

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman 40000 35000 30000

Married couple

25000 20000

Mother only

15000 10000

Father only

5000 0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 8.1 Families with children under 18 (number of families in thousands) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017. Historical living arrangments of children [data file]

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1960

1968

1969

1970

Two parents

1975

1980

1985

One parent

1990

1995

Mother only

2000

2005

2010

2015

Father only

Figure 8.2 Living arrangements of children: 1960 to present Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. Living arrangments of children. Available: http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/ graphics/CH-1.pdf

Another way to look at these changes is in terms of children’s living arrangements. The U.S. Census Bureau data presented in Figure 8.2 show how the proportion of children in the United States living with one parent increased since 1970, whereas the percentage of children who reside with two parents decreased. As the figure shows, nearly 90% of all children resided with two parents in 1960, and the percentage of children living in a single-parent family was only 9.1%. Around 1970, the proportion of all children living with one parent began a steady increase such that by 2005, the percentage of children living in single-parent families had tripled to 27.4%. This is a 200% increase in the number of children living in a single-parent family. Since 2005, however, on average, the number of and percentages of children living in single-parent families have remained stable. Today, nearly 1 in 3 children are living, for at least some part of their lives, in what the Census Bureau calls a singleparent home (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2016). Not unique to the United States, these changes are part of an international trend. According to a 2016 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2016), the proportion of children under 18 years of age living in a single-parent household is about 20% in

272

Single Parenthood

most OECD countries. Latvia is the country with the highest rate of single-parent households, and the United States is close behind. Turkey and Greece, with about 10% of single-parent households, are among the countries with the lowest percentage of single-parent households (Eurostat, 2015). Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States all have at least 1 in 5 five children living with a sole parent. Single parenthood occurs in all groups across the United States. In 2017, slightly more than 27% of all children under 18 years old lived with a single parent. About 4% of all children lived with their father only, whereas nearly 23% of all children lived with their mother only (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). There are differences in the prevalence of married, single-mother, and single-father families across ethnic groups. According to 2015 Census Department figures (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2015), many African American children are living in mother-only (49%) or father-only (4%) families. While about half of all African American children are living in two-parent families, the majority of Asian American (83%), White (74%), and Hispanic children (60%) are living in two-parent families. Premarital births among African American women have been more common than in any other group, but the increase in the number of and percentage of premarital births has been shared across ethnic groups. In fact, the largest percentage of decreases in births outside of marriages has been for African American and Latina women.

Attitudes Toward Single-Parent Families Wide-scale public alarm concerning single parenthood was raised in 1965 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” As U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor in President Johnson’s War on Poverty, Moynihan hoped that his report would serve to stimulate more successful federal programs designed to create economic and social equality for African American families living in poverty. However, by singling out family structure as an important intervening variable in the “tangle of pathology” (Moynihan, 1965) among African Americans, Moynihan’s report focused concerns on single-parent families themselves rather than on the complex socioeconomic conditions that he argued were responsible for the growing number of African American female-headed families (Chafe, 2015). By not addressing the economic and social inequalities that Moynihan identified as contributing both to poverty and to the formation of single-parent families, inequalities worsened. The incidence of single-parent families in the United States not only increased in the decade of the 1960s, but also accelerated over more than four decades. Concerns about the rise in single-parent families increased as single parenthood appeared to spread beyond the African American family. In the 1990s, some observers saw single parents as a prime symptom of the erosion of American culture, blaming single-parent families for society’s declining values and the breakdown of the social fabric. Indeed, the term “single parent” became a euphemism for family breakdown, a kind of social pathology, and a major contributor to all that is wrong with our society (Kamerman and Kahn, 1988). These concerns were further supported by additional research from sociologists and psychologists (Amato, 1988; Amato and Keith, 1991; Astone and McLanahan, 1991; Cashion, 1982; Dawson, 1991; Herzog and Sudia, 1973; McLanahan and Bumpass, 1988; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994) showing that children of single-parent families were more likely to have unfavorable outcomes compared with children from married-parent families. Specifically, children from single-mother families were shown to be more likely to have behavioral problems, lower educational attainment, later marriage, and earlier childbearing compared with children of two-parent families (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, 2002). Because children of single parents appeared more vulnerable than children of two-parent families to a wide variety of societal problems, children of single-parent families became routinely referred to as “at risk” for developmental difficulties.

273

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Alarms concerning single-parent families appear to be diminishing somewhat in recent decades. Since the1990s, the public has become more accustomed to seeing single-parent families on the national scene. For example, popular television shows now feature single-parent families of varying types (Baftijari, 2016), and two of the last three U.S. presidents—William Clinton and Barack Obama—and the well-known television comedian/commentator Trevor Noah have described their experiences growing up in single-parent families (Clinton, 2005; Noah, 2016; Obama, 2004). Pew researchers documented attitudinal changes toward single parenting from 2005 to 2013. In 2007, 71% of Americans saw the growing trend of single mothers as a “big problem”; in 2013, this figure was down to 64%. Young adults (42%) were less concerned than older adults (65%) about this trend, and non-White people (56%) were less likely than Whites to view it as a big problem (67%). Men and women do not differ (Wang, Parker, and Taylor, 2013). Even the television show Murphy Brown famously maligned by Vice President Dan Quayle in a speech during the 1992 presidential campaign for having a single mother as star of the series, is making a comeback on a major television network in 2018 (http://deadline.com/2018/01/murphy-brown-revival-candice-bergen-creatordiane-english-cbs-2018-2019-season-1202267897/).

Research on “Fragile Families” Researchers have provided detailed information about the effects of being born into a family with a nonmarried parent. In the late 1990s, researchers at Columbia and Princeton Universities designed and implemented a large and ongoing national study—the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS; Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, and McLanahan, 2001). They interviewed the married and nonmarried mothers and fathers of nearly 5,000 children born in hospitals located in 20 large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. They tracked families when the children were 1, 3, 5, 9, and 15 years old with interviews as well as assessment of the home environment and the child’s cognitive and emotional development. (As of this writing, data have just been released for children up to 15 years of age; soon, findings from analyses of these more recent data will be available.) Three quarters of the families selected for the nonrandomized study were termed “fragile families”—individuals or couples who were not married when their children were born. The researchers compared these fragile families with married families in the study whose children were born during the same time period in the same hospitals. Their research was directed to understanding the conditions of fragile families, the nature of the relationships between biological mothers and fathers in fragile families, the long-term effects on children living in fragile families, and the effects of different policies and environmental conditions on the stability of fragile families. Today, the bulk of empirical research on fragile families confirms that children who grow up with only one biological parent in the home are likely to have lower academic success and more behavior problems than children living in families with married two biological parents (Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn, 2010). When measured at age 5, children born to single-parent households have higher rates of asthma and obesity, lower cognitive scores, and higher levels of behaviors associated with social problems. The effects of living in a single-parent family are not restricted to children. McLanahan and Percheski (2008) reported that unmarried mothers are poorer and less educated than married mothers. In addition, Waldfogel et al. (2010) reported that compared with married mothers, unmarried mothers receive less financial and instrumental support from their children’s biological fathers, have a lower quality coparenting relationship with the child’s father, and are more likely to be stressed and depressed. Fewer than 3% of unmarried parents have a college degree compared with a third of the married parents. Parental incarceration rates are also higher in fragile families. By the time the children were age 5, half the fathers in the fragile families study had been incarcerated at some point in their child’s lives. Although nonmarried mothers were more disadvantaged than married 274

Single Parenthood

mothers before their pregnancies, preexisting disadvantages did not account fully for deficits in family income and maternal mental health mothers experience later in life (Lichter, Graefe, and Brown, 2003: McLanahan, 2004, as cited in Martin and Brooks-Gunn, 2015). Even after statistically adjusting for income and selection effects (Ryan, 2012), fragile family effects on children’s behavioral problems remained. Additional research shows that some of the observed effects may have been moderated by involvement of the biological father and presence of other figures in the child’s life (Waldfogel et al., 2010).

Single-Parent Families at Risk? These studies show that children growing up in single-parent families have more problems than other children, but the majority of children growing up in single-parent families are not more harmed than children growing up in two-parent families under similar conditions. Most children who grow up in mother-only families or stepparent families become well-adjusted, productive adults (Solomon-Fears, 2014), and some are truly exceptional (Ford, 2017). Research shows that growing up in a single-parent family has more positive effects than growing up in a conflict-ridden married family (Musick and Meier, 2010). At the same time, there is widespread agreement that because children growing up in single-parent families have statistically higher average scores on problematic child and parent measures than children in stable two-parent families, they are considered at risk for subsequent developmental problems. What is “risk”? To say that a child is “at risk” is a statistical statement, indicating that probabilistically speaking, children in single-parent families are more likely to have unfavorable outcomes or lower scores in comparison to other children. One factor that puts children from single-parent families at risk is that single-parent families, particularly those composed of single mothers, are disproportionately poor compared with other families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2016). Data from the 2016 census indicate that among children living in a single-parent household, about 38% were living below the poverty line in 2016 compared with only 11.7% of children living in two-parent families. As a consequence of poverty alone, many children grow up in deteriorated and dangerous neighborhoods, often with inferior housing and educational systems. Although the majority of children of single-parent families are not living in poverty, the group as a whole is considered at risk because its poverty rate is higher than those of children living in two-parent families. Similarly, contrary to stereotypical views, only about half of single mothers draw funds from government assistance programs (Grall, 2016; Irving and Loveless, 2015). Among children living with a single-parent father, about 22% live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Thus, children living with a single father are at lower risk than children living with a single mother, but all children living with single parents are considered “at risk” because their poverty rates are nevertheless higher than children growing up in two-parent families. How much of the single-parent risk status is related to poverty and how much of the single-parent risk status is due to other factors also associated with single-parent families are questions with important psychological and social policy implications. Researchers continue to examine other factors in addition to poverty that provide risk or resilience to children growing up in single-parent families (Murray and Farrington, 2010; Ryan, 2012; Taylor and Conger, 2014; Waldfogel et al., 2010).

Variations Among Single-Parent Families To unravel the multiple factors that may be related to our understanding of whether children of single-parent families are at risk, we need to understand the unifying and divergent characteristics among different kinds of single-parent families. One of the most important characteristics of single-parent families and their children is their heterogeneity. The phenomenological experience of 275

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

growing up in a single-parent family varies depending on the nature of the family, the experiences of the parent, and the family context. Single parents may be divorced, widowed, or unmarried; they may be teenage or older; they may have been previously married or not married. Not surprisingly, single mothers with the lowest poverty rates are women with full-time year-round employment or a college degree or higher. Single fathers have been less likely than single mothers to receive public assistance. Although most single parents are women, the number of male single parents is modestly increasing. Of the 11 million single-parent families with children under 18 years old, nearly 2.5 million are single-father headed households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2016). Differences in how the parents came to be single parents affect the parents’ employment, their financial circumstances, their relationships with other adults, their involvement with their child, and their competence as parents. The etiology of the parent’s single parenthood also may have implications for the child’s perceptions and experiences growing up. For example, imagine that 10 children from different types of single-parent families are brought together to discuss their experiences. They would describe many common experiences, such as not having enough money, missing their mothers or fathers, and problems getting along with their mothers and their fathers. These concerns, however, do not differ substantively from those of children living in all families. Those issues that are unique to single-parent families are issues for which there are large individual differences across single-parent families. Depending on their age, children with nonmarried, cohabiting parents may not notice any differences between their families and other families in their neighborhood, but they may wonder why their parents are not married and they may worry that their parents may not stay together. Children of recently divorced single-parent families might talk of anger at their parents’ separation, of fights between mother and father over custody and child support, and about what happens on dad’s day for visitation (Ganong, Coleman, and McCalle, 2012). Some single-family children of divorce may wonder why their parents are no longer living together; others may be relieved to be free finally from the marital discord. Children of adolescent single mothers may have difficulty with mothers’ inexperienced and immature ways and wonder when she will ever finish going to school, whereas children of widowed single parents may be mourning their parent’s loss. Children of some nonmarried mothers may wonder about their father, who he is, what he is like, and where he is. Some children may be confused about who their fathers are, and why they are not around, whereas other children, albeit a minority, may be learning to live without a mother. Some children may feel isolated and alone, whereas others are living in cramped households, with not too much in the way of material goods but with plenty of people to be with and love. Some children may not see their single-parent family as unusual at all, because many children in their neighborhood live in a family with only one parent present. Researchers need to unravel these various psychological experiences to understand what it is about the single-parent family that might contribute to the at-risk status of these children and what variables might serve as protective factors. These issues are our foci in this chapter: To describe similarities and differences across parenting situations in single-parent families and to explore some of the parenting factors that might or might not place children growing up in single families at risk. In the first section, we consider the changing demographics of single-parent families over the past several decades. We show that not only is the number of single-parent families increasing, but also the circumstances that are responsible for the formation of single-parent families—divorce and separation, widowhood, and out-of-marriage births—are changing, too. In the next section, we summarize the literature on parenting in common types of single-parent families—adolescent parents, not-married single mothers, single-parent fathers, and divorced custodial mothers and divorced fathers. Our intent is to identify parenting features both unique to these specific single-parent family types and common to single parents as a group. We suggest that single-parent families that arise from different circumstances differ in a number of important ways, and these differences need to be considered before any understanding of the more general effects of rearing children in a single-parent family is attained. In the third section, on 276

Single Parenthood

the basis of these findings, we advance a model of single parenting that offers suggestions for public policy and intervention. In the fourth section, we consider research directions that appear to be especially promising. In the final section, we consider with a broad brush directions for public policy.

Demographic Changes in Single-Parent Family Formation The distribution of the types of single-parent families has changed dramatically from that of previous decades (Amato, 2000; Goldscheider, Bernhardt, and Lappegård, 2015; Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008). Whereas in the 1970s, most single-parent families were created by divorce or separation, census data indicate the proportion of single-parent children living in a family created by divorce or separation has continually declined—from 86% of all single-parent families in 1970, to 73% in 1990, to 58% in 1997, to only 45% in 2015. Also declining, from 5% in 1997 to 3.9% in 2015, is the proportion of children living in single-parent families created by the death of a parent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The most significant change is the increase in single-parent families headed by a never-married parent (Mather, 2010). This group increased from approximately 6% of all single-mother families in 1970, to 26% in 1990, to 37% in 1997, and to 46% in 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). This increase in the proportion of children living in a home with a never-married mother is partly a function of the decrease in the proportion of single-parent families created by divorce, separation, or the death of a parent and largely due to the decrease in the birthrate among married women. In 2015, 41% of single parents (both single mothers and single fathers) were never married, 22% of single parents were separated, 27.5% of single parents were divorced, 8% of single parents were widowed, and nearly 5% of single parents had a married spouse who was absent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2017). Figure 8.3 showed the information for children living alone with their mother, and Figure 8.4 shows the corresponding information for children living alone with their father. About half the children in single-mother families had a mother who was never married (49%), and 42% of children who lived in a single-parent household had parents who are divorced or separated. About 4.8 million children (28%) lived with a divorced single mother, and about 2.3 million children (14%) lived with a separated single mother. Among children living with a single father, 1.2 million lived with a divorced single father (46%), 842,000 lived with a nonmarried, single father (31%), and 351,000 lived with a separated, single father (13%).

Married spouse absent

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never married

Figure 8.3 Living arrangements of children under 18 years living with mother only, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

277

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Married spouse absent

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never married

Figure 8.4 Living arrangements of children under 18 years living with father only, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

Yet children born to never-married mothers are not technically living in “single-parent families”; all these children have two biological parents, and many of them see both parents and have both parents in their lives, just often not at the same time. Even more important, many children categorized as living in single-parent families are living with both their biological parents; it is just that these parents are not married. Many of what are considered single-parent families are really two-parent, cohabiting, nonmarried parent families. In 2015, 40.3% of births to unmarried women were to cohabiting parents (National Survey of Family Growth, 2015). (We describe the special circumstances of cohabiting parents later in this chapter.)

Increasing Percentage of Births to Unmarried Mothers The increase in the number of single-parent families headed by unmarried mothers is a result of dramatic fluctuations in the numbers of births and birthrates both to nonmarried and married women. In the 1960s, nonmarital births averaged 285,600 per year. This number quadrupled over the next two decades to approximately 1.1 million by 1990 and peaked in 1994 at nearly 1.3 million. Nonmarital births have leveled off since peaking in 2007 and 2008; since then, the nonmarital birthrate has been relatively stable. Although nonmarital birthrates have fallen or leveled off, the percentage of nonmarital births as a proportion of all births continues to increase. That is, the proportion of unmarried women’s births to births to all women (both married and nonmarried) has been increasing. In 2015, the percentage of unmarried women’s births as a percentage of all births was 40.3%. For a number of reasons— increased employment, delayed marriage, reduced likelihood of marriage, and delayed childbearing, single motherhood has increased most dramatically among affluent and well-educated women. A 2016 Child Trends report (Child Trends, 2016) attributes the rising percentages of nonmarital births to two important changes. First, there has been a large increase in the number of unmarried women in the childbearing years, and, second, there has been a 40% decrease in birthrates for married women since 1940. These factors combine to show a dramatic rise in the percentage of births to unmarried women over all births. In addition, the marriage rates have also steadily decreased. In the 278

Single Parenthood

span of 14 years, the rate fell from 8.2 marriages in 2000 to 6.9 marriages in 2014 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2017). Ethnic differences in premarital births persist, but the changes over time differ for different groups. Premarital births have been more common among African American women than among women from other ethnic groups since at least the early 1960s. In 2013, 71% of all African American births were to unmarried women while 66% of all American Indians or Alaskan Native were to unmarried women, 53% of all births to Latinas were to unmarried women, 29.3% of all White American births were to nonmarried women, and 17% of all Asian American births were to unmarried women. While responsibility for the increase in the number of and percentage of premarital births has been shared across groups, African American and Latina women have had the largest decrease in the percentages of births outside of marriages over the last few years. In 2002, Latinas had their highest nonmarital birthrate (87 per 1,000); this rate increased 4 years later in 2007 (102 per 1,000), but later decreased 28% by 2012 (73 per 1,000) (Curtin, Ventura, and Martinez, 2014). The rising incidence of births outside of marriage has been particularly dramatic among White American, more educated, older, and mothers in managerial and professional occupations. In 2007, births to unmarried mothers with at least a bachelor’s degree accounted for 2.2% of all births; by 2015, births to unmarried mothers with at least a bachelor’s degree accounted for 7.2% of births (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). For professional or managerial mothers, the percentages more than doubled from 3.1% in 1980 to 8.2% in 1990. According to Bachu (1998), the “propensity to marry,” that is the tendency to avoid a nonmarital birth with a forced marriage, decreased most dramatically for White American women by over 30% from the 1930s to the 1990s. The desire to marry to avoid birth before marriage has historically been lower for African American women than for White American women, but this propensity to marry has also decreased for African American women over time (Bachu, 1998; Cherlin, 1998). The statistics of the declining propensity to marry partially reflect the abating stigma associated with a nonmarital birth, the concurrent financial gains women have made, and the declining popular interest in marriage. For low-income women in general, that there are fewer eligible or appealing men to marry has also fueled the declining marriage rate (Cherlin, 1998; Edin and Kefalas, 2006). Perhaps the most dramatic change in the nature of single-parent births has been changes in the proportion of births as a function of mothers’ age and changes in the birthrates of women at different ages. As Figure 8.5 shows, the distribution of births to unmarried women have differentially increased by age group. In 1970, unmarried women who were under 20 years old accounted for approximately 50% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 20–24 accounted for 32% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 25–29 accounted for 10% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 30–34 accounted for 5% of all births to unmarried women, and unmarried women over 35 years accounted for 3% of all births to unmarried women. In 2015, unmarried women who were under 20 years old accounted for only 13% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 20–24 accounted for 35% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 25–29 accounted for 27% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women ages 30–34 accounted for 16% of all births to unmarried women, unmarried women over 35 years accounted for 9% of all births to unmarried women. Thus, the percentage of births to adolescent women went from 50% in 1970 to only 13% in 2015, whereas the percentage of births to women over age 30 went from 8% to 25%. Figure 8.5 shows the changes in the birthrates to unmarried women at different ages. The nonmarital birthrate is the number of nonmarital births per 1,000 unmarried women. Although teen birthrates have fallen for all population groups, the drop in teen birthrates has been sharpest for African American women and Latinas (Hamilton, Martin, Osterman, Curtin, and Mathews, 2015). Between 2006 and 2014, births to all American teenagers dropped more than 40%, and declines in births among Latina American and African American teens declined 51% and 44%, respectively. 279

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Less than 20 Years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35+ years

Figure 8.5 Percent distribution of births to unmarried women by age group: United States 1970–2015

However, birthrates among African American and Latina American teens remain twice as high as the rates for White American teens. The percentage of women over 30 having children out of marriage is growing (Curtin et al., 2014). Rates rose for all age groups over age 30, reaching a historic peak for women ages 30–34 in 2016 (Martin, Ryan, Riina, and Brooks-Gunn, 2017). Overall, the age of single mothers has increased over the last several decades. In 2014, nearly 40% of single mothers were over 40 years old (Grall, 2016). Clear differences in birthrates exist as a function of education, income, and parity (Shattuck and Kreider, 2013). Women with less education are much more likely to have a nonmarital birth than women with college degrees. For example, in 2011, 57% of the nonmarital births were to women who had not yet completed high school, and only 9% were to women who had completed college. Nearly half of the never-married mothers in 2012 had incomes below the poverty level, and only 19.8% had incomes above $50,000 (Solomon Fears, 2014). Most people think births to single mothers are first and only births, but Child Trends (2011) reported that more than half of nonmarital births were to mothers who already have one previous child.

Single-Parent Families Created by Adoption The number of single parents, both male and female, who adopted children increased in the 1980s (Groze, 1991), but these percentages have remained small ever since (National Survey of Family Growth, 2015). In 2002, 1.1% of all females ages 18–44 had ever adopted a child. In 2006, slightly less than 1% had ever adopted a child; in 2015, about .7% or 400,000 women between the ages of 18 and 44 had ever adopted a child. It appears that the number of single parents who adopt children is still low compared with the number of single-parent households in the general population (Groza, 1996). Shireman (1995, 1996) and others (Feigelman and Silverman, 1977; Shireman and Johnson, 1976) have suggested that most single-parent adoptions are to women, and when single parents adopt, they tend to adopt children of the same gender as themselves. Adoptions by single fathers are still uncommon. Perhaps as a consequence of the fact that most single adoptive parents are women, single-parent adoptive families tend to have lower incomes than dual-parent adoptive families (Groze, 1991; Shireman, 1996; Shireman and Johnson, 1976).

280

Single Parenthood

African American Families Although the dramatic increase in the percentage of single-parent families pervades all social strata and ethnic groups, the preponderance of single-parent families in African American homes requires special attention (McLoyd, 1990). Overall, there are more White American children reared in singleparent homes than there are African American children reared in single-parent homes. However, an African American child has a higher probability of growing up in a single-parent home than a White American child because there is a higher incidence of single parenthood among African American households than among White households. That a higher proportion of African American children are born to unmarried mothers than is the case for other American families reflects historical trends concerning marriage and childbearing (Dixon, 2009). Over the last few decades, the marriage rate among African Americans has declined significantly. In 1970, 64% of African American women were married; by 2004, only 32% were married. In 1970, nearly 95% of African Americans had ever been married at ages 40–44; by 2012, that figure was closer to 60% (Raley, Sweeney, and Wondra, 2015). Increasingly, African American women are less likely to marry or remarry than are African American men or women from other ethnic groups (Hurt, McElroy, Sheats, Landor, and Bryant, 2014). Also, African Americans are more likely to get divorced or separated than White Americans. The declining marriage rate among African Americans, according to Cherlin (1998, p. 56) could be accounted for by the “inseparable web of society-wide cultural change, the African American cultural heritage, and worsening economic constraints.” More recently, Coates (2015) attributed the declining marriage rate to increasing incarceration rates and complications related to incarceration (see Dallaire, 2019). Additional, and often related, reasons include economic instabilities of men and women, concerns about trust, pain from past relationships, and feelings of not being ready for marriage (Edin and Kefalas, 2006; Levine, 2013). Some observers report that many women are happy not to be married, mainly as a result of conflicting messages from their elders and their communities about the untrustworthiness of partners and the importance in the African American community for women to be self-reliant and independent (Boyd-Franklin and Franklin, 1998). Chronic and increasing male unemployment and the low ratio of male to female wages have made African American women less likely to marry and less tolerant of unsatisfactory relationships. Long-standing cultural traditions stemming from African styles of family life, specifically the greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin that extend across households (Garcia-Coll, Meyer, and Brillon, 1995), have also contributed to a reduced emphasis on marriage as the foundation of family life. The influence of the history of slavery as contributing to the higher incidence of African American single-parent families has been refuted (Chafe, 2015). Contrary to stereotypes, the dramatic increase in the number of African American single-parent families appears to be largely a response to the nature of the U.S. economy rather than a contributor to social or economic problems. Although economic problems contribute to higher rates of single-parent families in the African American community, the processes by which these economic factors influence parenting behavior within single-parent African American (McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, and Borquez, 1994) and twoparent White American (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, and Simons, 1994) families appear to be similar. For those women and men who wish to marry, there are significant barriers to marriage, including structural inequalities in education and employment as well as unfavorable sex-ratios (Harknett and McLanahan, 2004) in the marriage market. This is particularly true in families of color, largely but not exclusively due to the large number of incarcerated minority men (Clayton and Moore, 2003; Coates, 2015; Dallaire, 2019; Lane, 2004) and the high rates of mortality and morbidity among African American males (as cited in Hurt et al., 2014). According to Western and McLanahan (2000), “the expansion of the penal system over the last two decades emerges as a key suspect in

281

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

explaining the growing number of single-parent families in disadvantaged communities” (p. 2). At the same time, the incarceration rate for women and mothers has increased (Dallaire, 2019). Incarceration has direct effects on reducing individuals’ availability to live with their families, and indirect effects by reducing parents’ employment prospects, earning capacity, and relationship skills. Growing since the 1970s has been the trend for women’s reduced reliance on men for economic support. With increasing economic equality and opportunities in the workforce, women find themselves less likely to marry for financial stability than ever before (Hertz, 2006). This seems to be especially true in the African American community, as Hurt et al. (2014) illustrated from their in-depth interviews with a sample of African American married men who completed the Program for Strong African American Marriages. There are also micro-level factors and difficulties with interpersonal trust that impact African American marital rates, some of which have been traced back to gender relationships, communication difficulties, and confusion about gender roles between African American men and women, issues that relate back to conditions of discrimination generations ago (Pinderhughes, 2002). Consequently, it is not surprising that in two early samples of married and unmarried parents from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Western and McLanahan, 2000), half the unmarried mothers were African American compared with just 16% of the married mothers. Among fathers, African Americans constituted half the unmarried sample (48%) and only 14.9% of the married sample.

Cohabiting Families Single parents have been defined as parents who are not married. However, not all single parents are “single.” In fact, most children classified on their birth certificates as being born to single parents are really born to cohabiting couples, a man and a woman who are living together but not married and often are the child’s biological parents. Because the birth certificate lists the mother as not married, the child is listed in Census Bureau statistics as single. The FFCWS project found that 82% of the unmarried mothers in their study were romantically involved at the time of the child’s birth and optimistic about their future together with the child’s biological father. Mothers reported relatively high levels of relationship quality, and about half were living together and had hopes of getting married. More than 80% of unmarried fathers provided support to the mother during pregnancy, and more than 70% of the fathers visited the mother and the baby in the hospital. The majority of fathers said they wanted to help rear their child (Edin, Kefalas, and Reed, 2004). These findings raise important questions about what it means to talk about being a “single-­ parent” or “growing up in a single-parent family.” The rising rates of single parenthood are not about an increasing number of single parents rearing children alone; they are about having and rearing a child outside of marriage. The FFCWS uses the term “fragile families” to identify these families. Child Trends (2015) reported that between 2006 and 2010, 58% of unmarried births were to cohabiting parents. Thus, the majority of children born to single mothers live especially during infancy with both of their biological parents who are not married to each other. Of those children who are born to single mothers who are not married and also not cohabiting, many mothers arrange for non-cohabiting biological dads or for “social dads” (fathers not biologically related to the child) to coparent the child to ensure the child’s optimal development (Hertz, 2006). In the FFCWS study, using data collected in 1998–2000, 72% of the unmarried mothers and 90% of the unmarried fathers at the time of the child’s birth said that they had a 50/50 chance of getting married. The majority (65% of mothers and 78% of fathers) said that they believed that marriage is better for children than growing up in a single-parent home. Many studies show that support for marriage is high within all ethnic groups; both cohabiting parents and unmarried parents seem to be as “enthusiastic” for marriage as other members of the general population.

282

Single Parenthood

So why don’t parents get married? First, it is important to note that the United States is not unique in this regard. According to Garrison (2007), marriage is in decline all over the industrialized world. A 2016 report from the OECD noted that living with two cohabiting parents is becoming increasingly common across all countries (Eurostat, 2015). The share of children living with two married parents decreased between 2005 and 2014, from 72.3% to 67.1%, whereas the share of children living in households with sole parents stayed relatively stable, and the proportion of children living with cohabiting parents increased from 10.3% in 2005 to 15.2% in 2014. In other words, the average share of children living with two cohabiting parents increased by almost 50% in the years between 2005 and 2014. Compared to all other OECD countries, the United States was among the lowest, with 5% of all children living with two cohabiting parents, and the U.S. increase from 2005 was about a third smaller increase than that of most other countries. In the United States, marriage rates declined more in African Americans than White Americans (Garrison, 2007). Another contributing factor to the increase in the percentage of cohabiting couples is the decrease in the rate of childbearing of married couples (Heuveline and Timberlake, 2004). Observers have offered a number of explanations for why children’s biological parents do not marry. First among these reasons for not marrying before or after the birth of a child are financial reasons. Economic researchers have shown that higher male earnings and possibilities for future wages are positively associated with marriage; marriage rates decline during periods of low employment and earnings (Garrison, 2007). Interviews with new parents corroborate these economic concerns. According to Cherlin (2004), many adults believe that it is important to be “economically set before you get married” (p. 856). Some observers and researchers have suggested that parents’ over-idealization of marriage is partially responsible for delaying marriage until after childbirth. Parents interviewed for the FFCWS project reported that they wanted to postpone marriage until they could afford a nice wedding a house or a good job (McLanahan, Garfinkel, Reichman, and Teitler, 2001; Waldfogel et al., 2010). In a Pew Research Center report of survey data collected in the summer of 2017, many never-married adults (59%) said that they were not married because they had not found the right person, but many also cited financial reasons (41%) for not marrying. Never-married adults of color (48%) were more likely than White American (33%) to say a major reason they were not married is that they were not financially stable (Parker and Stepler, 2017). In her book Ain’t No Trust, sociologist Judith Levine (2013) describes yet another perspective on low-income mothers’ unwillingness to marry. Levine’s in-depth interviews show how mothers’ experiences with partners’ failures as economic contributors, as emotional supports, as fathers, and as sexually loyal partners contributed to a pervasive distrust of men and unwillingness to form lasting unions with the fathers of their children. Public opinion and attitudes toward marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing are shifting (Garrison, 2004) as cohabitation for many people, even those who are not yet parents, becomes more common. According to the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (Copen, Daniels, and Mosher, 2013), by age 30, 74% of women had lived with a male partner without being married to him. Trends have changed from marrying before pregnancy, to marrying as a result of pregnancy, to becoming pregnant and not marrying (Wildsmith, Steward-Streng, Manlove, 2011). “Shotgun marriages” (marriages which are triggered by pregnancy), which were common in the 1950s, are less common today (Bachu, 1998). What has occurred is “de-linking of marriage and having children” (Roberts, 2007, as cited in Solomon Fears, 2014). Although some have attributed the rise in births to nonmarried women to increased sexual activity outside of marriage, participation in risky behaviors that often lead to sex, and improper use of contraceptive methods, many observers have pointed to the lack of a marriageable partner. This is especially true for African American women who have highest rate of nonmarital births. Some

283

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

researchers have attributed the high rate of births in unmarried African American women to a shortage of marriageable African American men. Demographically speaking, there are wider differences in the numbers of unmarried males for each unmarried African American female compared with other groups (Carlson, McLanahan, and England, 2004). For example, in 2012 (Solomon Fears, 2014), for every 100 African American females, there were only 75 unmarried males; for every 100 White American women, there were 88 White American men. If the number of desirable p­ artners— men with steady jobs, men without a criminal record, and heterosexual men, for example, is included, the ratio of marriageable men to women is further reduced, and differences among ethnic groups increased

Single-Father Families A small group of single-parent families that has shown increases, especially in the past decades, is single-father families. Approximately 17% of all single-parent families in 2012 were headed by fathers, up one-third since 1990, and three times the number of single-father families in 1970 (Livingston, 2013a). Compared with single-parent families headed by mothers, single-parent families headed by fathers are more often created by circumstances of divorce, and the fathers are more likely to be employed and less likely to be economically disadvantaged. Single-parent fathers are more likely to have custody of older children, more likely to be older, more likely to be living with a cohabiting partner, and more likely be of White American background than single-parent mothers (Livingston, 2013b). Reasons for fathers becoming single parents have also changed. Instead of becoming single parents from widowhood, as was common around the turn of the twentieth century, most fathers, and most single parents in general, are becoming single parents because of divorce or separation or are assuming responsibility for the child from a nonmarital birth (Amato, 2000). More important, the gap between single fathers who are divorced and single-parent fathers who have never been married is narrowing. The fastest growing group of single-parent fathers living with their children includes single-parent fathers who have never been married. About half of these fathers are living without a cohabiting partner, whereas about 40% are living with a nonmarital partner and about 10% are married but living apart from their spouse (Livingston, 2013b).

Summary There is great heterogeneity across single-parent families with regard to the conditions that lead to their formation. Unlike 50 years ago, when the preponderance of single-parent families had been created from situations of divorce and widowhood, today nearly one half of the single parents were not married when they became parents. Nonmarried mothers today are more likely to be older and better educated than previous single-parent mothers. Increasingly, single fathers are becoming primary custodial parents. In the next section, we examine the unique features of each of these single-parent family types to better understand why it may be misleading to generalize across all single-parent families in describing parenting circumstances and parenting behaviors.

Similarities and Differences Across Different Types of Single-Parent Families We begin this section by examining the circumstances common across single-parent families, and then we examine the special cases of single parents in different situations. We start with single parents who are considered single parents because they are not married at the time of their child’s birth. These parents include most teen parents, single parents living in a cohabiting situation, and singleparent fathers. Then we address the issue of older unmarried parents and mothers who are identified 284

Single Parenthood

as “single-parent by choice,” lone parents, or solo parents. In the final section, we describe the special circumstances of divorced single-parent families. Because of the small percentages of single-mother families created by widowhood, and the dearth of new findings in this area, we do not discuss single mothers by widowhood.

Overview of Families With Single Parents Compared with married parent families, families with a single-parent are more likely to experience poverty (U.S. Census, 2016), stress (Taylor and Conger, 2014) and lower levels of social support (Taylor and Conger, 2017). Single mothers are also more likely to be younger and less educated than married mothers (Cairney, Boyle, Offord, and Racine, 2003). Single mothers are more socially isolated than other parents. They work longer hours, receive fewer emotional and tangible supports, and have less stable social networks (Harknett and Harknett, 2011). Single mothers are more likely to report that their own parents had alcohol, drug, and depression problems, and they also report higher rates of childhood abuse than married mothers (Lipman, MacMillan, and Boyle, 2001). These problems may contribute to difficulties in developing and maintaining a committed, long-term relationship with a parenting partner, especially because available marriage partners are subject to the same poverty, low education, and mental health problems (Lahey, Hartdagen, Frick, McBurnett, Connor, and Hynd, 1988). More educated, emotionally stable, and financially able women also become single mothers, often planning to address romantic needs later after parenthood.

Special Cases: Parents Who Are Single at the Birth of Their Child Teen Mothers In the 1940s and 1950s, teen birthrates were much higher than they are today, but they were mostly in the context of marriage (Razza, Martin, and Brooks-Gunn, 2015). Births to teen mothers were not recognized as a national problem until the 1980s, when births to unmarried teens began to rise and researchers began to report on poor academic and behavioral outcomes in children growing up in single-parent families (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Since 1991, birthrates for women in their adolescent years have been declining. Birthrates to teens have fallen by more than half since 1995, and they continue to drop. Birthrates declined 9% from 2014 to 2015 for teenagers ages 15–19 (to 20.2 per 1,000 in 2015; Martin et al., 2017). These reductions have been attributed to decreased levels of sexual activity, increased use of contraception among teens, increased availability of abortions (Schneider, 2017), and increases in educational attainment (Erdmans and Black, 2015). As a result, researchers are paying less attention to teenage births today and more attention to unmarried births in general. Despite the downturn in teen birthrates, a 2004 national poll showed that 79% of adults judged teenage pregnancy a very serious or important problem for the United States (Erdmans and Black, 2015). This public concern is warranted because, as Martin and Brooks-Gunn (2015, p. 734) noted, teen mothers “face more difficulties than unmarried adult mothers due to their developmental status, education, living arrangements, and long-term prospects for work.” Unmarried teen mothers come from more disadvantaged segments of the population in terms of social class, ethnicity, and geographic location. Demographic research reviewed by Erdmans and Black (2015) shows that teenage pregnancy is especially affected by chronic exposure to neighborhood poverty, especially in adolescence. Data from the 2001 to 2002 ECLS-B shows that about half of all teenage mothers lived below the federal poverty line compared with one fifth of older mothers, and more than half (56%) of the infants in poverty lived with a mother who had been a teen mother (Halle et al., 2009). In the United States, teenage birthrates are highest for states in the South and 285

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Southwest and lowest for states in the Northeast and Midwest. Teen birthrates are highest for Latina and African American teens, nearly double those for White American teens. Native Americans fall between African Americans and White Americans; Asian American teen births have the lowest teen birthrates. Higher religiosity and limited access to family planning are associated with higher rates of teenage pregnancy. With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception. (Strayhorn and Strayhorn, 2009, p. 6) The effects of teen mother parenting on the child depend on whether the pregnancy was intended or wanted (East, Chien, and Barber, 2012, as cited in Erdmans and Black, 2015). Martin and BrooksGunn (2015) quoted findings from Mosher, Jones, and Abma (2012) that a greater proportion of teenagers’ births than older women’s births are unintended, and teenage mothers are less likely than older mothers to get prenatal care. Teenage parenting is often less than optimal. Razza et al. (2015) cite research showing that adolescent mothers are more punitive, less sensitive, and less stimulating as parents with their young children than older mothers. However, for those mothers in neighborhood cultures where teenage pregnancy is more accepted, the effects of teenage parenting can sometimes be positive (Ford, 2017). At the same time, grandparent circumstances and the relationships between the mother, the biological and social father, and the grandparent can either ameliorate or complicate teenage parenting effects (Muzik et al., 2016; Scannapieco and Connell-Carrick, 2016). Previous research had suggested that teenage pregnancy was associated with lower educational outcomes for the teenage mothers, but more recent research shows that it is educational disengagement prior to pregnancy that contributes to teenage pregnancy. Teenage motherhood, in general, may be more of an outcome than a contributor to poverty and the chaos that accompanies it. According to interviews with teenage mothers (Erdmans and Black, 2015), limited economic and social options along with the “life worlds of chaos”—including violence, abuse, risky neighborhood and inequalities—contribute to teenage motherhood and other kinds of risks. As Erdmans and Black (2015) explained, motherhood can motivate a young woman to become a good mother, increase her education, and get a good job, but the limited resources and unreliable social supports available to many teenage mothers make motherhood very difficult. That some young women succeed under these difficult circumstances shows the complexity and importance of understanding teenage motherhood and its effects. In Telling Our Stories, Culturally Different Adults Reflect On Growing Up In Single-Parent Families (Ford, 2017), successful African American professionals who grew up in single-parent families share their personal stories to counter the prevailing stories of failure and defeat they heard growing up. Mostly university professors and administrators, high school counselors and teachers, these individuals talk about how it felt to be seen by society as “inferior” for having come from single-parent homes, and they describe how they had to consciously defy these expectations. Some felt different because friends and neighbors came from middle class, two-parent families, but most reported feeling normal—others around them had similar family and economic situations. In contrast to the instability and uncertainty they experienced as a result of poverty, they describe hardworking mothers and tight kinship communities who were there to support them when they needed help, creating in them a sense of hope and an expectation that obstacles posed by poverty could be overcome. For their professional success, they credit their mothers’ model of hard work, provision of unconditional love, and high academic expectations. For their personal success, they cite their mothers’ strong spiritual 286

Single Parenthood

and moral guidance and her expectation that they take responsibility for themselves and other family members at an early age. Research using propensity score matching has shown that most of the consequences of teenage single parenthood are not as negative as previously thought (Erdmans and Black, 2015). Using data from the FFCWS, Waldfogel et al. (2010) found that the association between teenage parenthood, lower academic scores, and increased behavior problems was moderated by father involvement. They also found that most of the negative outcomes of being a single-parent or growing up in singleparent families derive from the social disadvantages experienced before the teenagers became mothers. Difficulties in accessing education and job training, already challenging for low-income women, pose even greater challenges for teenagers, and even greater challenges for teenagers who find themselves caring for an infant or young child. One factor that several authors have noted that amplifies the problems of teenage parenthood is having multiple partners. Partly as a function of their longer reproductive lives after their first baby, and partly as a function of their youth and immaturity, having multiple partners is more likely for single mothers who have their first baby as teens. Thus, it is no surprise that teenage parents are more likely than any other group of single mothers to have multiple pregnancies over the course of their lives with other partners after their first (Carlson and Furstenberg, 2006).

Single Parents in Cohabiting Relationships Most births to single mothers are not to families with a single mother, but to cohabiting parental partners—biological mothers and fathers who are often living together but not married. Women included in the statistical reports of women unmarried at childbirth include those who are unmarried but living with a partner in an extralegal relationship. Although many of these couples are composed of a man and woman, some are also same-gender pairs (Patterson, 1992). Cohabiting parent families can be of two types. One type is a household in which both parents are the child’s biological parents not married to each other, and the second type is one in which only one parent is the child’s biological parent. The number and percentage of births to biological parents not married to each other increased between the early 1980s when the percentage was about 6%, and the early 2000s, when the percentage increased to about 25%. This type of cohabiting families, characteristic of the families studied in the Eiduson and Weisner (1978) and FFCWS studies described ahead, is estimated to be about 43% of all cohabiting families, and the rate has remained stable (Manning, Brown, and Stykes, 2016). Early research on cohabiting couples, conducted by Eiduson and Weisner (1978) and Weisner and Garnier (1992), focused on “social contract” or “unmarried couples by choice” in their study of nonconventional family lifestyles of the 1970s. Generally, these were women and men who were experimenting with living together. Eiduson (1983) reported that the circumstances of unmarried mothers living with male partners were similar to those of married women except that their partnerships tended to be more unstable and the values and beliefs about childrearing authority relationships and morality were less traditional. Compared with married couples and their children, these mothers and their children experienced relatively more frequent changes in their household composition, lived on lower and more unpredictable incomes, and often faced various social stigmas, such as lower teacher expectations (Weisner and Garnier, 1992). Regardless of these potential risks, Weisner and Garnier noted that when parents from nonconventional lifestyles had a strong commitment to their chosen family style, their children did not differ from children living in more traditional families on measures of adjustment and school performance. More recent data comes from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/), a study that followed a large sample of unmarried mothers, married mothers, and cohabiting families from the time of childbirth. At the time of their child’s birth, about half 287

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

of the non-cohabiting mothers, a third of unmarried cohabiting mothers and fathers, 13% of the married men, and 14% of the married women were poor. Compared with married partner families in the FFCWS study, cohabiting parents were more likely to have started parenting in their teens and to have had children with other partners, more likely to be depressed and substance abusing, and more likely to have spent time in jail than parents from married couples. Fewer than 3% of cohabiting parents had a college degree, compared with a third of the married parents. Parents in cohabiting families went on to have higher rates of incarceration than parents in married families. By the time the children were age 5, half the fathers in these fragile families had been incarcerated at some point in their child’s lives. Compared with married mothers, cohabiting mothers were less likely to engage their children in literacy activities and more likely to use harsh discipline and have less stable home routines, such as regular mealtimes and bedtimes (Geller, Jaeger, and Pace, 2018). Most single parents in the FFCWS had high hopes of eventually marrying their child’s biological parent, but they were not successful in either marrying or establishing long-term coparenting relationships (McLanahan and Sawhill, 2015). Despite the romantic inclinations of many of the unmarried parents, these relationships were less than ideal. At the interview in the hospital after the child’s birth, “9% of the unmarried mothers reported being ‘hit, slapped, or seriously hurt’ by the father, compared to three percent of married mothers” (RWJF Program Results Report, 2014). Nearly half the cohabiting others and almost 80% of the non-cohabiting unmarried mothers had ended their relationship with their child’s father by the time their children were 3 years old (McLanahan, 2004). Five years after the birth of their child, only 35% of the unmarried FFCWS couples were still living together, and fewer than half were married. In the general population also, the longevity of cohabiting unions is lower than that of traditional marriages. Solomon Fears (2014) reported several sources showing that the median duration of the first premarital cohabitation among women ages 15–44 was about 22 months; the median length of marriage before divorce was 8 years. Bumpass and Lu (2000) estimated that the median length of time children spent living with a cohabiting parent (1.5 years) is considerably less than the 11.5 years living with married parents (including stepparents). A second type of cohabiting parent family is one in which children live with one biological parent, mother or father, and the parent’s partner who is not the child’s biological parent. Manning and Brown (2013) report that 56% of children live in this second type of cohabiting parent family. These families are often more complex than other families, because they often include half or stepsiblings and the children are often older than in married parent families. The effects on the child of living in a stepparent cohabiting family depend on the child’s age, with more negative effects for younger children. Observers concur that across all cohabiting families, the biggest problem with cohabitation is family instability. It is family instability that is associated with poorer child outcomes and poorer parenting behaviors (Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, and Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Meadows, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2015). Evidence suggests that both coresidential and dating transitions are associated with higher levels of maternal stress and harsh parenting (Beck, Cooper, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Stable cohabiting families with two biological parents do not appear to differ from married biological parent families in the benefits that they provide to their children (Manning et al., 2016), but evidence suggests that married mothers report better mental and physical health than unmarried cohabiting mothers the year after children’s birth (Meadows et al., 2008). Not surprisingly, predictors of relationship instability include poverty, multiple parent fertility, depression, and substance abuse (McLanahan and Carlson, 2004). Men with multiple partner fertility or depression are likely to become absent fathers. Families separate when the mother and father report different levels of stress, if the mother has had children with other fathers prior to this child, if the mother had been receiving public assistance before the child’s birth, and if the mother but not the father regularly attends religious services. Separation is more likely if the family is African American 288

Single Parenthood

than if the family is White American, and least likely if the parents are Latina. Families are more likely to be stable if the father has higher income or is abusing drugs, and families are more likely to be stable if father attends religious services and mother does not or if neither parent attends services. Family stability does not appear to be related to child gender, but if the child has a disability, it is less likely that the parents will be together 3 years later. Most of what we know about cohabiting parents applies to different-sex parent families. Increasingly, with marriage rights, same-sex parent families are marrying, and their children are being reared in two-parent married families. Among families with LGBT parents, the vast majority—two thirds— were either married or cohabiting couples (Gates, 2015).

Single-Parent Families Headed by Fathers Until the 1980s, most single-father families were created by divorce and secondarily by widowhood. Today, that situation has changed. Single-father families are still most likely to be created by divorce (43.8%); the second most frequent cause (30.6%) of single-father families is as a result of births to never-married single fathers (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2015). Like never-married mothers, nevermarried fathers are more likely to be from minority and less educated backgrounds (Mincy and Nepomnyaschy, 2005; National Survey of Family Growth, 2015). The circumstances of single-parent fathers and single-parent mothers differ. Single-parent fathers are more likely to be employed and less likely to be as economically disadvantaged as single-parent mothers (Livingston, 2013b). In addition, single-parent fathers are more likely to have custody of older children, to be older, to be living with a cohabiting partner, and White American than singleparent mothers (Livingston, 2013b). One large difference between never-married fathers and nevermarried mothers is that never-married fathers are more likely to be cohabiting with another adult who is not the child’s parent than are mothers (22.4% versus 10.5%). Thus, for fathers as for single mothers, there are questions about whether a large portion—25%—of single-father households are in a truly “single” parenting situation. The FFCWS provides useful information concerning the formation of single-parent families headed by fathers. Cohabiting fathers were more likely to become single fathers after cohabitation if the mother had had children with different fathers before this child and if the mother had been receiving public assistance before the child was born. Single-parent fathers were also more likely to be younger than fathers who did not become single-parent fathers. According to Schneider et al. (2016), 3-year-old children were more likely to be living with their fathers than their mothers if the child’s mother had emotional or mental health problems, more drug or alcohol abuse than the father, or mental health problems such as depression. Children were less likely to be living with the custodial mother or father if that parent had children from previous partners. There are no ethnic differences in which parent becomes a single-parent after separation from coresidential status. With the increasing prevalence of single-parent fathers, research on custodial single fathers has gone from a heavy reliance on qualitative research to more quantitative research findings. Summarizing research, Coles (2015) reported that single fathers are less likely than single mothers to engage in private talks with their children and in housework, and single fathers are more likely than single mothers to be involved in play and be employed for longer hours. Coles also noted that “single mothers tend to provide more closeness, monitoring and supervision than do fathers, who appear more lenient, allowing children to experiment a bit more” (p. 159). Reviewing the findings concerning child outcomes in single father and single-mother homes, Coles reported few differences between children in internalizing behavior and academic performance, but children from single-father families participate more in externalizing behaviors and substance use (though not abuse). Coles noted that it is difficult to rule out selection effects such that older and more troublesome children might be more likely to live with their fathers than their mothers. 289

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Older Single-Mother Families The fastest growing group of single parents is nonmarried women over 25 years of age. Many of these mothers may be living in cohabiting relationships, although the exact number is not known. Observers have noted several cultural changes that have contributed to this international trend for women to have and rear children outside of traditional marital relationships. These include later age of marriage for men and women, increased infertility and childlessness of later marrying women, increasing divorce rates, and changing social attitudes (Burns and Scott, 1994; Edin and Kefalas, 2006; Hertz, 2006; Kamerman and Kahn, 1988). The social stigma attached to having a child out of marriage has been declining since the 1960s, as witnessed by the increasing acceptance of unmarried mothers as characters in popular films and television programs. Even the politicized labels that have been used to describe unmarried mothers and their children—“out-of-wedlock mothers” and “illegitimate children”—have been replaced in the popular literature with more morally neutral terms like “single mothers” or “unmarried mothers.” Within the group of unmarried mothers, there is great diversity, and this diversity has important implications for understanding parents, parents’ circumstances, and the effects of these differences on parenting and subsequent child outcomes. In this subsection, two groups of single parents are considered “single mothers by choice” and a more inclusive group, whom we call “solo mothers.” Each is described in turn.

Single Mothers by Choice One group of women with nonmarital births has been described as single mothers by choice (SMCs). Single Mothers by Choice (SMC) is a national support and informational group founded in New York City in 1981 by Jane Mattes. SMC defines a single mother by choice as a woman who starts out rearing her child without a partner. A single mother may have decided to have or adopt a child, knowing she will be her child’s sole parent at least at the outset (Mattes, 1994). Mothers who identify with SMC align with other single mothers in their struggle to assert their legitimacy as competent parents. Information concerning the incidence of single mothers by choice, their living circumstances, their parenting experiences, and effects on children growing up in these homes is available on the SMC website www.singlemothersbychoice.org/. Most research in this area is in the form of in-depth interviews, many with women identified as members of SMC. Generally, there are no comparison groups, and the sample sizes are not large. As a participant-observer in a SMC support group for 2 years, Bock (2000) interviewed 26 single mothers by choice. She found that they decided to have or adopt a child only after serious thought and consideration of the child’s ultimate well-being. They often sought guidance from various sources including their SMC support group, members of their spiritual community, parents, and friends. Bock noted that women were often discouraged from having or adopting children if they failed to meet the criteria SMC recommend before embarking on becoming SMCs: being older, responsible, emotionally mature, and financially capable. Many of the single mothers by choice Bock interviewed made serious lifestyle changes before having or adopting a child. Some of these changes included buying a new home in a more child-friendly community, saving money for the child, and changing jobs or careers to be better prepared to be both a mother and a solo provider. Hertz (2006) provided detailed qualitative information from interviews with 65 mothers whom she described as “single by chance and mothers by choice,” asking them about motherhood, men, and how they managed their lives and families as single-parent mothers. These were not randomly selected mothers, but mostly well-educated mothers who had taken a range of different paths to motherhood, from buying anonymous sperm from sperm banks over the internet, to within-country or international adoptions, to sometimes planned and sometimes not-so-consciously planned pregnancies. Hertz found these women to be quite conventional in their careers and life decisions, with 290

Single Parenthood

one exception—they chose to become a mother and rear their children before becoming part of a committed relationship. Their one shared feature was that they were eager to be a mother and to nurture a child, but for varied reasons, they did not have a partner. These women were not willing to get married just to have a child, nor were they willing to wait until they found the “right” partner. Hertz described the varied paths these women took to motherhood and their sometimes highly creative approaches to combining motherhood and employment. These mothers formed creative alliances with their roommates, friends, relatives, and in some cases, childcare providers to help them care for their hard-won children. Many of these mothers deliberately sought out men to be male figures in their children’s lives. A number of them were not parenting alone—they had friends, relatives and, in some cases, romantic partners who sometimes also served as parenting figures to their children. What distinguished these women was their eagerness to show that despite their unconventional choices, they were rearing their children without government support to be healthy, happy, and independently functioning. Observers of single parents by choice report that these parents have a high level of emotional maturity, have a high capacity for frustration tolerance, and are not overly influenced by others’ opinions (Branham, 1970; Groze, 1991; Hertz, 2006). Single mothers by choice appear to be in their middle to upper 30s, mostly but not exclusively White American, and of middle to upper-middle socioeconomic status. They tend to be more financially secure, well educated, and more likely to be employed in well-paying professional jobs than many married mothers (Bock, 2000; Hertz, 2006; Kamerman and Kahn, 1988; Mannis, 1999; Mattes, 1994). The majority of these mothers gave very serious attention to either becoming pregnant or adopting a child. Some single mothers by choice became pregnant accidentally and found themselves delighted at the possibility of having children even though they were not married. Although the single mothers studied by Eiduson and Weisner (1978) chose their lifestyle as a result of feminist concerns and the desire to live independently of traditional family styles, the single mothers by choice of the 1980s and the 1990s appear to be motivated by a “ticking biological clock” (Bock, 2000; Kamerman and Kahn, 1988) and the desire to follow one’s dream of motherhood (Hertz, 2006). For many women, the decision to become a single parent was a long and difficult one, but one that brought a great deal of joy and fulfillment (Hertz, 2006). Some single people who decide to become parents choose to adopt, most single-parent adoptions are to women, and many single parents adopt children of the same gender (Shireman, 1995, 1996). Often a high level of maturity is necessary because, as Shireman (1995) reported, many of the children that single parents are eligible to adopt are children with special needs. Adoptive single parents are often oriented toward children and derive great personal fulfillment from their interactions with them ( Jordan and Little, 1966; Shireman and Johnson, 1976). The single adoptive parents that Groze (1991, p. 326) observed “had an ability to give of themselves, were not possessive of their children, and were capable of developing a healthy relationship with their children.” In recent decades, international adoptions have become more common for both singles and married couples (Hertz, 2006). Because of the expense, upper-middle socioeconomic single parents are more likely than other parents to pursue international adoptions (V. Groza, personal communication, August 24, 2000) (Hertz, 2006). Different countries have different rules about who is allowed to adopt, but overall, single women are permitted to adopt in more countries than are single men. Single parents by choice, whether they birth or adopt a child, face similar difficulties other single parents face in meeting the demands of single parenthood. Like other single and married parents, they have difficulty procuring quality childcare, balancing parenthood and career plans, and obtaining emotional support for themselves (Hertz, 2006; Kamerman and Kahn, 1988). The extent to which single parents by choice have recognized and prepared for these difficulties may help them better adapt to these circumstances than other single parents. Some observers have questioned whether this classification of mothers as single by choice is useful from a scientific, descriptive point of view. Adopting the label “single mother by choice” serves 291

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

to differentiate these mothers from other single mothers, making it clear that for these mothers, becoming a single mother is a carefully chosen identity. Yet, this nomenclature is often viewed as discriminating against other single mothers (Bock, 2000). The words “by choice” imply that other single mothers did not choose to be single parents, or at least did not come to choose this way of life as conscientiously and responsibly as these single mothers by choice did. However, just how different SMC are from other single mothers who choose to remain single may be open to some question. Clearly these mothers do not have to contend with the effects of divorce and separation or contested custody or child support payments, and they are older than adolescent mothers. To what extent is this SMC category a socioeconomic, sociopolitical distinction, based solely on a mother’s access to resources? To what extent is the SMC category an attempt on the part of some women to distance themselves from stereotypes of poor and adolescent mothers? Bock (2000) reported that the single mothers she interviewed see themselves as at the top of the single parenthood hierarchy. Hertz (2006) described these mothers as women trying to show that they are much like other mothers, and certainly, as successful in rearing their children as these other mothers. Edin and Kefalas (2006) interviewed 292 White American and African American low-income mothers in three U.S. cities. Almost all single mothers reported that they preferred to live separately or to cohabit with the fathers of their children rather than marry. Cohabitation allowed these mothers to enforce a “pay and stay” rule. If the father contributed to the household and followed the agreed-on rules, he could stay. If not, the mother had the power to evict him, because his name was generally not on the rental lease or mortgage. Are not these women single mothers by choice? There is reason to believe that many more women are single mothers by choice than commonly believed. Census data indicate that women are not only less likely than ever before to marry, but also women are less likely to marry to avoid a nonmarital birth (Cherlin, 2004). With contraception, adoption, and affordable abortion as options, women who have babies can all be considered to have become mothers by choice. Many women—rich and poor alike—think hard before continuing a pregnancy and entering the institution of marriage. In their interviews with less privileged single mothers in Chicago, Illinois, Charleston, South Carolina, and Camden, New Jersey, Edin and Kefalas (2006) learned that poor mothers held clear reasons for avoiding marriage, with economic factors most important. Poor mothers were reluctant to take in a husband who did not contribute in a predictable manner to the family’s economic welfare. Men with illegal earnings and unstable employment were viewed as poor economic risks. The women Edin and Kefalas interviewed held marriage in high esteem, and they wanted to be sure to find worthy partners who would treat them fairly. They worried that a man who was frequently out of work or engaged in criminal activity would not only be a poor economic risk, but also, he would neither enhance their status nor be a parental role model. Noting the possibly stalled gender-role revolution among the lower socioeconomic groups, Edin and Kefalas reported that women were also unwilling to enter relationships in which they perceived would have a subservient role in bargaining and decision-making. They were also fearful of being joined legally to a man whom they might not fully trust emotionally to support them or their children. Finally, approximately half of the White American women and approximately a fifth of the African American women Edin and Kefalas interviewed reported concerns about domestic violence. The women Edin and Kefalas interviewed chose to have their children outside of marriage, not because they did not value marriage as an institution, but because they preferred to forego marriage until a partner could be found. Edin and Kefalas’ findings suggest that low-income women have high ideals for marriage and resist unions that promise trouble. Thus, many rich and poor single mothers can be said to be “single mothers by choice,” remaining single for a number of clear and easily understood reasons. Like the single women in Bock’s study and those interviewed by Hertz, the women in Edin and Kefalas’s study were not opposed to the idea of marriage; they simply wanted to wait until the right man came along. A major difference between these two groups of mothers may have to do with legal regulations concerning child 292

Single Parenthood

support. Because they are dependent on federal or state subsidies to rear their children, the poor women in Edin and Kefalas’s study are required to identify the children’s fathers for child support. Another difference may be related to the amount of preparation that went into deciding to become a single-parent before pregnancy or adoption that was reported by the women in Bock’s study. Certainly, the women in Bock’s and Hertz’s studies were better educated, and they may have been more career oriented. No doubt, because they had more money, they were perceived to be better able to provide for their children. But the similarities between these women raise questions about the unique denomination of “single mothers by choice” selected by some women over others.

Solo Mothers In this subsection, we discuss the findings from several studies with a focus on mothers who appear to be rearing their children outside a partnered union without regard to the reasons for their singleparent status. One is a small study that relied primarily on interviews with parents and observations of them with their children. The other two studies used large-scale national data sets and utilized mainly questionnaire-type measures. In a series of reports, Weinraub and Wolf (1983, 1987), Gringlas and Weinraub (1995), and Wolf (1987) focused on a group of women they called solo mothers: adult women rearing their children from birth without a male partner. This group of mothers included single mothers by choice as well as other mothers who may not have deliberately chosen to be single when they became pregnant. As a result of circumstances not always under their control, these mothers had been rearing their children from birth or shortly thereafter without a male father figure in the home. Children of these solo mothers were those who had, at least in their memory, no experience living with a father figure in the home and, more important, no experience of family dissolution, marital discord, or family realignment since early in life, or at least before the onset of language. Weinraub and Wolf (1983) compared the solo mothers and their children with mothers and children of two-parent families matched on characteristics, including maternal age, education, ethnicity, per capita income, neighborhood, child age, and child gender. The solo mothers were a varied group. Some mothers were not married or had already been divorced when they unintentionally conceived; some were married and then separated from their husbands soon after conception or pregnancy; and some mothers deliberately became pregnant with full understanding that there would be no father in their young child’s life. Some of these mothers could be classified as solo mothers by choice, some could be seen as divorced mothers. Most mothers were college educated and professionally employed. Observational measures of maternal and child behavior were taken in the laboratory when the children were between 27 and 55 months of age, and parents completed questionnaires and in-depth interviews in their homes. Of the families, 70% returned for observation and interviews when the children were between 8 and 13 years of age (Gringlas and Weinraub, 1995). For the older children, child measures included a self-perception profile and maternal and teacher reports of behavior problems, social competence, and academic performance. Maternal measures included maternal and child reports of parenting practices, social supports, and stress. Comparisons between solo-parent mothers and comparable married mothers highlight some of the important ways in which even the most stable of solo-parent families differed from married-­ parent families. First, despite careful attempts to match solo- and two-parent mothers on employment status, solo parents worked longer hours both when their children were in preschool and at preadolescence. When their children were in preschool, solo parents reported more difficulties coping with finances, more daily hassles, and slightly more stresses relating to employment. Solo mothers of sons reported more stressful life events relating to interpersonal areas of their lives. The largest difference between the mothers concerned social supports. During the preschool period, solo parents 293

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

received fewer emotional and parenting supports. During the preadolescent period, solo mothers of sons reported lower satisfaction with their emotional supports. Their friends and relatives either did not understand or did not address their emotional and parenting needs as well as those of solo mothers of daughters or two-parent mothers. Observations of parents administering a teaching task to their preschool-age children revealed differences in solo mothers’ parenting as a function of the child’s gender. Although no differences in maternal communications and degrees of maternal nurturance were observed, solo mothers had difficulties exercising control over and setting appropriate maternal demands on their sons. Preschool boys from solo-parent homes were less compliant with their mothers’ requests than boys from twoparent homes. By preadolescence, teachers reported that children of solo mothers had more behavior problems, lower social competence, and poorer school performance than children of married mothers. Within each group, maternal social support and stress predicted parenting and child outcomes. During the preschool period, maternal social supports contributed to more optimal parent-child interaction for both solo- and two-parent families. The more mothers received support in their role as parents, the more optimal was their behavior in interaction with their preschool child. During preadolescence, only for solo parents did social support predict children’s academic performance. At both assessment periods, more stressful maternal life events predicted less optimal child outcomes but, again, only for solo-parent families. During the preschool period, solo mothers with frequent stressful life events had less optimal interactions with their children in a teaching task, and their children were perceived as moodier and had lower intelligence and readiness-to-learn scores. More frequent stressful life events were associated with reduced parental effectiveness, poorer communication, and less nurturance in solo-parent families. The effects of maternal stress not only indirectly affected child outcome by means of maternal parenting behavior, but also had direct effects on child outcome independently of the solo mother’s parenting behavior. During preadolescence, children from solo-parent families with high levels of maternal stress were described by teachers and mothers as having the most behavior problems. Children from low-stress solo-parent families were indistinguishable from children from two-parent families. These results are similar to other findings documenting the psychological vulnerability of women rearing their children alone (Burden, 1986; Compas and Williams, 1990; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, and Lord, 1995; Hastings-Storer, 1991; McLanahan, 1983). This vulnerability seems to affect children of single-parent families not only indirectly through parenting behavior, but also possibly directly as well. These findings suggest that reduced social supports and increased stresses may be more common for solo parents, even when there are no separation, divorce, and custody difficulties and even when mothers are mature, well educated, and from secure financial circumstances. Differences in social support and stress can affect parent behavior and child outcomes, especially in solo-parent families. Most important, stress may be the main factor placing solo-parent children at risk; children from soloparent families with low stress do not appear to be at any increased risk. In fact, a study examining the effect of neighborhood stress among low-income single mothers’ psychological distress on positive parenting practices found that social support influenced positive parenting particularly among mothers who reported low levels of support (Kotchick, Dorsey, and Heller, 2005). In Great Britain, single mothers have been referred to as “lone mothers.” In a number of studies, lone mothers were identified as having poorer physical as well as mental health (Benzeval, 1998; Hope, Power, and Rodgers, 1999; Macran, Clarke, and Joshi, 1996; Whitehead, Burstrom, and Diderichsen, 2000). Various researchers have examined why lone mothers and particularly never-married lone mothers have poorer health compared with that of their cohabiting or married counterparts. According to these studies, the poorer health of lone mothers appears to stem from the higher levels of psychological distress they experience. The higher levels of psychological distress that characterize 294

Single Parenthood

lone mothers are related to financial hardship and lack of support both from the community, friends, and family (Benzeval, 1998; Hope et al., 1999). Surprisingly, employment status did not appear to affect psychological or physical health (Baker, North, and ALSPAC Study Team, 1999). Using a large American data set, Amato (2000) examined data from the 1987–1988 National Survey of Households and Families (NSHF). Focusing on 1,515 single parents who were not cohabitating, Amato examined how different groups of single parents varied along such measures such as income, psychological well-being, and relationships with children. With regard to income, Amato (2000, pp. 161–162) found that the poorest single parents “were mothers, high school dropouts, separated or never married, aged 24 or younger and living with kin.” With regards to psychological wellbeing, Amato found no differences between men and women or never-married and other women on indices of happiness, depression, and health. However, single parents who reported being separated from their spouse reported being the least happy and most depressed of the single parents who were widowed, divorced, or never married. Married mothers were more authoritative than singleparent mothers, and more educated single parents were more authoritative than other single parents. In the NSHF survey, Amato found no single social address variable that most effectively predicted parenting, but he identified a complex, intertwined combination of factors that affected the parents’ situation and ability to effectively parent. Having a child outside of marriage did not necessarily put a mother at risk for being stressed, depressed, unemployed, or inadequate. However, having an outof-marriage birth in combination with little education put a mother and her child at risk for poverty. Poverty placed families and children at developmental risk, introducing a myriad of stresses and strains, including hunger, lack of material necessities, poor educational resources, and unsafe, crime ridden neighborhoods (Amato, 2000; Magnuson and Duncan, 2016).

Divorced Custodial Parents Custodial parents are single parents who are responsible for their children on a regular, daily basis. Their custodial situation may be the result of divorce, separation, or widowhood, unmarried birth, or separation from a cohabiting relationship. According to Grall (2016), in 2014, five times more women (82% versus 17.5%) are custodial parents than men. However, men are more likely than women to become custodial parents as a result of divorce, and women are more likely to become custodial parents never having been married. Few parents become single parents (less than 2%) as a result of widowhood. Custodial fathers are more likely than custodial mothers to be White American (59%) and less likely to be African American (17%) than other custodial fathers. Although many custodial parents are not formally divorced, in this section, we focus on the unique situations of divorced custodial parents because it is a more defined situation. When marriages end in divorce, newly single parents have to come to terms with the loss of their marriage and often, too, with the failure of their marital hopes and expectations. The single parent’s partner may have served as an attachment figure or a best friend, and these emotional losses can be devastating (Weiss, 1979). Resolving these emotional experiences can take months or years. During this time, these emotional experiences may affect the parent’s adjustment, well-being, and relationships with other adults, and the parent’s interactions with the children. Soon after separation and divorce, divorced mothers have higher stress (Hope et al., 1999) and more depression and anxiety than never-married mothers (Afifi, Cox, and Enns, 2006). During the time of separation and divorce, household routines become reorganized, and children often become more angry, aggressive, and resentful (Bolton and MacEachron, 1986). These conditions pose significant challenges for competent parenting. Many families experience dramatic changes in financial status (Morrison and Cherlin, 1995). Mothers seem to suffer more financial setbacks postdivorce than fathers, but fathers too are affected. Even though almost half of all custodial parents have child support awards (52% for mothers and 31% for fathers) and 74% of custodial 295

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

parents awarded these awards receive full or partial payment, 31% of custodial mothers and 17% of custodial fathers are still considered poor (Grall, 2016). About 62% of custodial parents receive noncash support from noncustodial parents. As further stress, some families experience employment and housing changes, creating adjustment difficulties for parents as well as for children ( Jones, 1984; Richard, 1982). Parental responses to divorce and the subsequent life-altering events include anger, anxiety, and depression, with possible impulsive and antisocial behavior and excessive swings of mood and self-confidence (Hetherington, 1993). Recurring health problems and difficulties with the immune system are not uncommon (Richard, 1982). Given what is known about how economic and psychosocial stress may affect parents (McLoyd, 1990; McLoyd et al., 1994), it is not surprising that during the first months and years after divorce, divorced parents are more irritable and unresponsive in their interactions with their children (Thiriot and Buckner, 1991). They show poor supervision and erratic and sometimes punitive discipline (Camara and Resnick, 1988; Hetherington, Cox, and Cox, 1982; Wallerstein, Corbin, and Lewis, 1988). Many of these symptoms subside as families attain a new homeostasis, usually within 2 years (Hetherington and Stanley-Hagan, 1995) provided they are not faced with sustained or new adversities. Loneliness, task overload, and increased childrearing stress are common experiences of divorced custodial parents. However, financial security, employment stability and satisfaction, at least neutral relationships with their ex-spouses, confidence in their parenting skills, and the formation of a new intimate support relationship are factors can increase the well-being and parenting skills of the custodial parent (Richard, 1982; Thiriot and Buckner, 1991). Within 2 years, three fourths of divorced women report that they are happier in their new situation than in the last year of their marriage, and most, in spite of the stresses, find rearing children alone easier than with a disengaged, undermining, or acrimonious spouse. Furthermore, in addition to perceiving themselves as more able parents than mothers in conflictual, unsatisfying marriages, divorced women on the average are less depressed, show less state anxiety, drink less, and have fewer health problems than those in unhappy, acrimonious, or emotionally disengaged marriages (Amato, 2000). Investigating 626 divorced single mothers and 100 divorced single fathers with custody, Hill and Hilton (2000) reported that satisfaction with the new role was the strongest predictor of adjustment in both groups. The custodial situations of fathers and mothers differ. Generally, mothers have to adjust to a new role as a financial supporter, and fathers have to adjust to a new role as a homemaker (Hill and Hilton, 2000). Divorced custodial mothers and fathers both face new challenges in trying to balance family and career goals. New challenges for custodial fathers in the primary caregiver role include cutting back on hours at the office or work and conflicts in scheduling business trips. For mothers, adding the primary provider role may be especially frustrating. According to Hill and Hilton (2000), it may be easier for fathers to incorporate the primary parenting role than it is for mothers to add the primary provider role. Compared with mothers who were previously homemakers and returned to work upon divorce ( Jones, 1984), newly divorced fathers rarely needed to find new employment, most continued in their same jobs, and income levels rarely plummeted as they did for newly divorced mothers. Many fathers cut back on employment so that they could devote more time to household and childrearing duties. Fathers were often surprised at how unsympathetic employers are to their situation of having to combine childrearing and employment, and many working-class fathers find these changes a huge challenge, if not impossible in their work. Divorced fathers generally receive more offers of support from their relatives and community, but they are less likely to take them. Sometimes, their lack of experience with housekeeping, household chores, childrearing, and arranging childcare and activity schedules make the transition difficult, but most fathers adjust quickly, soliciting help from their children, particularly older children, most particularly daughters (Greif, 1985; Kissman and Allen, 1993). As time goes on, both divorced fathers and mothers develop a household and social routine adequate to their family needs. DeFrain and Eirick (1981) questioned 33 divorced single-parent 296

Single Parenthood

fathers and 38 comparable single-parent mothers on a wide variety of topics and found substantial similarities between fathers and mothers. Both reported that their marriages before the divorce were “more bad than good,” with lack of communication, extramarital affairs, sexual problems, and loss of interest given as reasons for the breakup. Both mothers and fathers rated divorce as a medium—high to highly stressful event. Both men and women reported that their moods had improved since the divorce and many of their initial fears had subsided, with the majority of both groups feeling that they were doing “reasonably well.” The minority of parents who reported yelling at and/or hitting their children after the divorce said that those behaviors had decreased over time, and they found it much easier to control their children since the divorce. Both men and women reported they did not get to spend as much time with their children as they would prefer. Nevertheless, fathers reported feeling quite satisfied with themselves for coping as well as they did in their new role as a single parent. Divorced fathers and mothers both report having an easier time with younger than with older children (Greif, 1985). They report more difficulties with sons than daughters, but single-parent fathers experience more childrearing problems with daughters than do single-parent mothers (Greif, 1985; Santrock, Warshak, and Elliott, 1982). Compared with their age mates, boys in single-parent father homes appear equally sociable and mature; daughters in single-parent father families are less sociable, less independent, and more demanding (Santrock et al., 1982). Many fathers in Greif ’s study reported difficulties understanding and meeting their daughters’ emotional needs, and they sometimes called on their daughters to shoulder childcare and household chores disproportionately. Puberty seems especially difficult for fathers and their daughters, with fathers uncomfortable talking about maturation and sexual matters (Greif, 1985). One of the greatest stresses reported by divorced custodial fathers is combining work and childrearing (Greif, 1985; Kissman and Allen, 1993); with nearly 4 out of 5 fathers in Greif ’s sample reporting that this was difficult. Men reported that compared with their experiences before divorce, after divorce they had more interruptions in their daily work schedules and fewer opportunities to take on additional hours and projects, inhibiting their hope for career progress and higher incomes. Of the 1,136 fathers Greif interviewed, 66 men had to quit their job because of conflicts with childrearing responsibilities, and 43 men reported being fired. They also experienced problems with having to arrive at work late or leave early, missing workdays, or not being able to engage in work-related travel. Only 27% of the men interviewed reported that no work-related changes were necessary. As stressful as childrearing-employment conflicts are for single-parent fathers, they are often more stressful for single-parent mothers. In Greif ’s (1985) comparison of single divorced mothers who were asked the same questions as men, women reported greater employment—childrearing conflicts than men. Only 10% of the women said that work had not been difficult, and more mothers than fathers were fired from or had to quit their jobs. In summary, the situations of divorced single parents, both men and women, are different from the situation of nonmarried single parents. Divorced fathers and mothers face more adjustment and role changes than other single custodial parents. Although the first months and years after separation or divorce are filled with multiple changes, often including relocation, changing roles and changing family schedule, many of these stresses subside within 2 years, and parents report great satisfaction with their lives postdivorce than during marriage. Divorced single parents are the most prosperous of all single parents, and divorced fathers are more financially stable than divorced mothers, with better jobs and incomes than unmarried mothers and fathers.

Summary The group of parents identified as single parents is varied and diverse. Current statistics show that approximately one third of families are headed by single parents. Of these, 41% of single-parent 297

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

families were families in which the mother was never married. Some of these single parents may not be truly “single” parents. Although not married, 51% of these mothers are living in homes—­ cohabiting—with a partner who is often the child’s biological father. Although parents in these single parent cohabiting families are more likely to be poor and less educated than parents in two-parent families, a major problem with these families is that they are “fragile”—more likely to come apart than families with married parents. As the early research of Eiduson and Weisner (1978) and Patterson (1995) showed and the Fragile Families Study has confirmed, when nonmarried parents are stable— committed to each other and their chosen lifestyle, their children do not differ from children of more traditional household unions on measures of psychological adjustment and school performance. Family circumstances vary widely among single-parent homes. For adolescent mothers, negotiating the multiple challenges of personal identity, preparation for adulthood, and parenthood poses significant risks for the adolescent and her child, especially because the adolescent is often coming from a situation of economic and educational disadvantage. Older unmarried parents, sometimes cohabiting and sometimes single mothers by choice, often face life circumstances revolving around issues of financial, social conventions, and relationship stability. Now replicated by large-scale studies, the early observational research of Weinraub and her colleagues showed that variations in these stressful life events and social supports, even when taking into consideration family income, influenced the quality of mothers’ interactions with their children, especially sons. These social context differences and the differential effects they may have on single parents may ultimately be the most important factors separating single-parent from two-parent families. For divorced families, disruption of the family members’ lives and their household present major challenges; how the parent negotiates these challenges has important implications for the child’s temporary coping and long-term adjustment. Because the common factor influencing parenting across all of these different single-parent families is the degree of economic, interpersonal, and emotional stress along with the degree of social support in the family and community, these variables hold the keys for predicting whether single parenthood will affect children’s development.

Single Parenthood and Child Outcomes: A Conceptual Model Understanding single parenthood is challenging because single parents are not all alike. There are different types of single-parent families, each created by complex and interacting antecedent conditions, and these conditions pose different challenges and have different consequences. Of course, this process is neither linear nor direct; there are many influences that reverberate throughout the system, and these challenges are differentially experienced as a result of moderating factors, such as culture, income, education, and the child’s experiences. Many researchers have provided complex models to show how different influences unite and co-act to influence child outcomes. In the conceptual model we present in Figure 8.6, we list the factors in each category that need to be considered in understanding how single parenthood can affect family circumstances, parenting and, ultimately, child development. Antecedent factors (those factors that contribute to individuals becoming single parents) include variables that have been shown to or are hypothesized to predict single parenthood—poverty, low education, low wage jobs, undesirable or unavailable marriage partners, and mental health problems. These factors often continue throughout the child’s and parents’ lives, affecting each component of the model. Possible family consequences of single parenthood include reduced amounts of parenting input, parents’ low wage and unstable jobs, unfavorable living conditions, low-quality schools and dangerous neighborhoods, family instability, and stress for both parents and children. Potential parenting behaviors affected by these circumstances can include reduced stimulation in the home, fewer learning opportunities for the child, and inattentive, harsh, or unresponsive parenting. All of these variables, along with the continuing effects of poverty, low 298

Figure 8.6 A conceptual model of single parenting

CULTURE AND ETHNICITY

INCOME

Separation / divorce

Births to nonmarried women

SINGLE PARENTING STATUS

MODERATORS/ PROTECTIVE FACTORS:

Mental health problems

Undesirable or unavailable marriage partners

Low education and low wage jobs

Poverty

SELECTION FACTORS / ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS

INCOME / SOCIAL SUPPORT / EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Stress

Family instability / unstable relationships / multiple partners

Unfavorable living conditions, poor schools, and dangerous neighborhoods

Low wage and unstable jobs

Reduced parenting input

POSSIBLE FAMILY CONSEQUENCES

SPIRITUAL / MORAL GUIDANCE

Expectations for increased responsibility

Insensitive, harsh, or unresponsive parenting

Fewer learning opportunities

Less stimulation in the home

POSSIBLE PARENTING OUTCOMES

CHILD OUTCOMES

AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FIGURES

School performance Behavioral adjustment Life achievement

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

education, and mental health problems cumulate and interact to affect child outcomes across a variety of areas—school performance, behavioral adjustment, and children’s life achievements. Also included in the model are variables—culture and ethnicity, family income, social support, and parental educational level—that that moderate the effects of each of these component, often serving as protective factors.1 Less studied, but probably critically important as a protective factor for children of single-parent families, is the spiritual and moral guidance provided by the single parent and community members and the availability of additional authority figures outside the home, such as teachers, coaches, and religious or community leaders.

Father Absence Notably absent from the model and from this entire chapter so far is the term “father absence.” There are three reasons for this. First, not all single-parent families are absent father families, and nearly one fifth of all single-parent families today are father-only families. Second, even in single-mother custodial families, there is often a biological father or social “dad” who contributes to the family. Third, the research on father absence has been long criticized for its reliance on cross-sectional research and for the confounding of father absence with separation and loss as well as family conflict that precedes father absence in the case of divorce, and the selection bias, stress, and financial difficulties that generally accompany father absence in nearly all cases (Weinraub, 1978). Some studies in the 1990s and 2000s tried to adjust for these effects, but most left questions of causal inference. McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider (2013) investigated the status of father absence effects by reviewing studies published in peer-reviewed journals using innovative research designs to identify the causal effect of father absence. The studies that McLanahan and her colleagues included in their review used a variety of statistical techniques to examine the causal contributions of father absence on development in educational attainment, mental health, relationship formation and stability, and labor force success. (See McLanahan et al., 2013, for a description of difficulties in drawing causal inferences from studies of father absence. Their article also provides a table of findings from father absence studies from 1992 to 2010 included in their review.) Although they found that the effects of father absence were not completely consistent and smaller in size than had been previously assumed, there remained persuasive evidence that father absence influenced high school graduation rates in the United States children’s socioemotional adjustment, and adult mental health. Father absence increased externalizing behavior, with stronger effects for boys and stronger effects when father absence occurred during early childhood than later. In adolescence, McLanahan et al. reported consistent findings that father absence increased risky behavior, such as cigarette smoking, drug use, or alcohol use. Finding mixed or weak effects of father absence on cognitive ability, McLanahan and her colleagues speculated that educational attainment differences may emerge from increasing problem behaviors over time rather than any impaired cognitive ability. Although there was some evidence that children who grew up in divorced families had lower levels of adult employment, there was little consistent evidence in the literature that father absence affected adult children’s subsequent marriage or divorce rates, income or earnings, early childbearing, or the attainment of a college degree. They found little evidence that father absence was differentially affected by ethnicity or social class. However, McLanahan and her colleagues note that their analysis of the effects of growing up in a single-parent family do not fully take into consideration the effects of parental self-selection. Their finding that divorce seems to have negative effects although widowhood does not can be taken as evidence of parental selection into different types of family situations, a factor that is difficult to account for even in the most sophisticated types of analysis. Analyses such as these are valuable in pinpointing associations, but they do not tell the full story of the process by which fathers, and their absence, might affect child outcomes. Studies comparing

300

Single Parenthood

different types of single-parent families have yielded some useful information about the role of fathers in child development (Parke and Cookston, 2019). Research on children of remarried single-parent families (Acock and Demo, 1994; Amato and Keith, 1991; Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich, and Clingempeel, 1991; Zimiles and Lee, 1991) showing that children whose mothers have remarried do not necessarily show better psychological adjustment than children whose mothers have not remarried, suggests that the presence of a male figure in the home may not be the critical variable responsible for the at-risk status of single-parent families. Similarly, studies of two-adult households in which one parent is not a father figure (Kellam, Ensminger, and Turner, 1977; Patterson, 1992) indicate that children reared in these households may not differ substantially from those in households in which there is a father, suggesting further that it may not be the father’s “genderedness” that is responsible for his important contribution to the family so much as it is his role as a “second,” although not second-class, parent. The importance of father’s contributions may derive more from his serving as one of two involved, accepting, warm, nurturing caregivers who support each other emotionally and financially more than it derives from the uniqueness of the father’s male gender (Weinraub, 1978). Indeed, father absence and father involvement can be a double-edged sword. Taylor and Conger (2014) reported studies that show that under some circumstances and for children of different ages and in different cultures, father involvement can be negative. Another key to understanding the effects of fathers and their absence comes from a study examining the effects of father absence on child telomere length. Telomeres are the protective nucleoprotein ends of chromosomes thought to reflect cell-functioning and overall health. Shorter end telomeres are associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer in adults and appear to be related to increased stress and reduced immunological functioning. Mitchell et al. (2017) measured telomere length in the nearly 5,000 children in the FFCWS to see whether father loss as a result of incarceration, death, separation, or divorce affected telomere length. Overall, children who had lost their father before 9 years of age had 14% shorter telomeres than children who had not. More specifically, children who lost their father due to death (16% shorter) had the largest association with telomere length, followed by incarceration (10%) and separation and/or divorce (6%). Changes in income partially mediated these effects, and the effects were stronger for boys than girls. There were no differences as a function of ethnicity, but some suggestion that the effects of father absence differed with measures of the child’s genotype. Certainly, biological effects are to be expected when behavioral effects are known to exist. These behavioral changes need to be “housed” in the individual someplace. Nevertheless, finding the specific location of these effects helps us understand the nature of the effects of father absence. These findings—that father absence affects telomere length, a particular biological indicator of health associated with stress and disease outcomes—suggest that father absence affects children, and possibly their mothers, through its association with increasing stress in the child’s life. This information suggests that interventions to reduce family stress may serve to counteract concerns regarding the negative effects of the rising number of single-mother families.

Promising Research Directions in Single Parenthood Research into understanding single parenthood has made great leaps since the last edition of this Handbook. Researchers have documented the diversity between and within different types of singleparent families, and they have begun to untangle the complex, dynamic processes—both systemic, psychological, and now biological—associated with different types of single-parent families. Using large and representative samples and sophisticated statistical methods, researchers have begun to tease out the effects of a wide variety of co-occurring variables associated with single parenthood— variables such as poverty, family instability, employment, low-quality childcare—on child outcomes.

301

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

Qualitative in-depth interviews and observational studies have helped to flesh out the psychological processes that lay beneath the theoretical and statistical analyses. Now, more research is needed to and identify supports that can help single parents be more effective in raising healthy children and that can help policy makers understand how to best support different types of single parents. In the hopes of reducing the incidence of single parenthood, researchers from multiple disciplines have examined factors that encourage and maintain marriage. Economists have explored how tax and transfer policies can affect marriage rates in low-income families; educators and sociologists have examined how educational interventions might hold promise for improving the quality and stability of low-income parents’ relationship. So far interventions inspired by these research approaches have not proven effective in reducing the incidence of single parenthood. Most observers agree that reducing the incidence of single parenthood will require a range of public policy, and cultural and civic strategies (Haskins, 2015; Wilcox, Wolfinger, and Stokes, 2015); further research into these factors influencing the occurrence and consequences of single parenthood might prove helpful. Efforts directed at reducing the antecedent conditions that lead to single parenthood, such as poverty, low education, and mental health problems and ameliorating the correlates of single parenting, such as stress and reduced social supports may hold the most promise for intervention. In addition, efforts to support parents once they are single parents—with quality infant childcare, pre-K, and after school programs; access to education and training; improved mental health services; and access to public transportation—are likely to provide direct benefits to single parents and their children, enabling parents to provide less stressed parenting and for single parents and their children to have increased educational opportunities.

Conclusion Understanding the diverse etiology and nature of single-parent families requires consideration of the specific contextual issues and factors confronting these families. These issues and factors may pose significant risks as well as potential benefits to the successful socialization and parenting of children. Single-parent families are a heterogeneous group, and knowing that a parent is single may not be as helpful as knowing the factors that contributed to the parent becoming a single-parent and challenges she or he faces given the parent’s specific life circumstances. Parenting is a difficult process. Parents who face the challenge of parenting without the supportive assistance of, or collaboration with, other concerned and involved adults may find their parenting abilities strained beyond limit. In particular, economic disadvantage, employment, minimal social supports, and physical exhaustion can exact a toll on a single parent’s parenting abilities and resources. Poor parental psychological well-being hinders parents’ ability to develop and maintain child-directed energy, optimism, and achievement. Primary risks to the development of children living in single-parent homes can derive from an ongoing pattern of stress, exhaustion, depression, and isolation experienced by family members. Economic difficulties, incarceration, chronic illness, and intellectual, academic, or emotional child difficulties place increased stress and demands on single-parent families. If a single-parent is frequently unavailable because she or he is overly stressed, exhausted, or depressed, younger children may be at risk for social withdrawal and depression, and the discipline of older children may be erratic and inconsistently enforced. Given this myriad of potential difficulties, it is critical to remember that many single parents can and often do rear their children successfully. Decades ago, in a chapter on family variations, Sargent (1992) described what he believed to be central features that led to effective childrearing in singleparent families. He cited emotional support from a social network, secure financial status, quality alternative sources of childcare, capacity to maintain appropriate discipline, capacity to parent when exhausted or overwhelmed, abilities to develop one’s own rewarding social life and relationships, and capacity to collaborate effectively in childrearing with other involved adults. These are also the

302

Single Parenthood

parenting variables that researchers in the twenty first century have found to be critical in understanding and predicting successful child outcomes. Single parents are a strikingly diverse group, yet single parents have the same hopes and dreams for their children as their married counterparts do. Despite concerns that the increasing incidence of single-parent families reflects growing disaffection with marriage and two-parent childrearing, there is reason to believe that the rising incidence of single-parent families reflects the high esteem that many parents still hold for the institution of marriage. It may be precisely because of this high regard for the institution of marriage that parents are reluctant to commit to a relationship that does not promise continuity, trust, intimacy, safety, and love. As women see themselves growing more competent and powerful in the workplace, they are less inclined to commit themselves to a marriage in which they are challenged economically and subjugated personally. The United States and many other Western countries have seen enormous cultural change in how families are created and maintained. No longer does marriage precede childbirth for the majority of families; in some cases, marriage does not happen at all. Policy initiatives to encourage relationship skills and marriage (Hymowitz, Carroll, Wilcox, and Kaye, 2013) have largely failed. Instead, researchers and policy makers are learning that what it takes to rear healthy children may not be a two-parent family, but a community in which parents can earn a decent living wage, provide quality childcare and education, and stable living arrangements in safe neighborhoods for their children. Moynihan was right in pointing out that what families need is access to economic and social equality to ensure that all children have an opportunity to become successful, contributing citizens. The question for researchers and policy makers is whether the community—not simply the marital ­relationship—can now provide the necessary social, emotional, and economic supports to promote healthy parenting and child outcomes for all children.

Acknowledgments The first two editions of this chapter were written while the first author was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (U10-HD25455). Barbara Wolf, Marcy Gringlas, and Danielle Dallaire were coauthors on those editions, and Jennifer Tweed provided editorial and bibliographic help in the first edition. This third edition of the chapter was prepared when the first author was supported on sabbatical from Temple University. We are indebted to Jeanne Brooks Gunn, Judith Levine, and Ronald Taylor for suggestions and comments on early drafts of this manuscript. Finally, we express our caring and appreciation to all the other single-parent families who have taught us so much about parenting and child development.

Note 1. This model builds on the Family Stress Model (FSM; Conger et al., 2010), which describes how economic pressures create parental hardship-related emotions, behaviors, and conflicts that influence parenting and child outcomes and the Family Investment Model (FIM, Conger and Donnellan, 2007), which describes how families with higher socioeconomic status have greater access to money, education, and skills, and social capital (connections to and the status and power of other individuals). For a more specific and detailed description of these models, how factors within the models may interact, and how these models may affect individual differences in risk and resilience within single-mother families, see Taylor and Conger (2014). For research that demonstrates the contribution of each of these components and more information about how they are affected by moderating factors, see Acock and Demo (1994); Conger, Conger, and Martin (2010); Cooper, Osborne, Beck, and McLanahan (2011); Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov (1994); Kalil and Ryan (2010); Kotchick et al., 2005; Larson and Gillman (1999); Lee and McLanahan (2015); Ryan, Claessens, and Markowitz (2015); Sandstrom and Huerta (2013) and Taylor and Conger (2014, 2017).

303

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman

References Acock, A. C., and Demo, D. H. (1994). Family diversity and well-being. New York: Sage. Afifi, T. O., Cox, B. J., and Enns, M. W. (2006). Mental health profiles among married, never married, and separated/divorced mothers in a nationally representative sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(2), 122–129. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of marriage and family, 62(4), 1269–1287. Amato, P. R. (1988). Parental divorce and attitudes toward marriage and family life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 453–461. Amato, P. R., and Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43–58. Astone, N. M., and McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 309–320. Bachu, A. (1998). Trends in marital status of US women at first birth: 1930 to 1994. Population Division, U.S Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Baker, D., North, K., and ALSPAC Study Team. (1999). Does employment improve the health of lone mothers? Social Science and Medicine, 49(1), 121–131. Baftijari, Y. (2016). Television shows that gave single moms proper cred. Retreived from: http://www.vivala.com/ entertainment/single-moms-shows-rita-moreno/2276. Beck, A. N., Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Partnership transitions and maternal parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2), 219–233. Benzeval, M. (1998). The self-reported health status of lone parents. Social Science and Medicine, 46(10), 1337–1353. Bock, J. D. (2000). Doing the right thing? Single mothers by choice and the struggle for legitimacy. Gender and Society, 14, 62–86. Bolton, F. G., and MacEachron, A. (1986). Assessing child maltreatment risk in the recently divorced parentchild relationship. journal of Family Violence, 1(3), 259–275. Boyd-Franklin, N., and Franklin, A. J. (1998). African American couples in therapy. Revisioning Family Therapy: Race, Culture, and Gender in Clinical Practice, 268–281. Branham, E. (1970). One-parent adoptions. Children, 17(3), 103–107. Burden, D. S. (1986). Single parents and the work setting: The impact of multiple job and homelife responsibilities. Family Relations, 37–43. Burns, A. (1992). Mother-headed families: An international perspective and the case of Australia. Social Policy Report, 4, 1–24. Burns, A., and Scott, C. (1994). Mother-headed families and why they have increased. London: Routledge. Bumpass, L., and Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children s family contexts in the United States. Population studies, 54(1), 29–41. Cairney, J., Boyle, M., Offord, D. R., and Racine, Y. (2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(8), 442–449. Camara, K. A., and Resnick, G. (1988). Interparental conflict and cooperation: Factors moderating children’s post-divorce adjustment. In E. M. Hetherington and J. D. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 169–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Carlson, M. J., and Furstenberg, F. F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban US parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 718–732. Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., and England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41(2), 237–261. Cashion, B. G. (1982). Female-headed families: Effects on children and clinical implications. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8(2), 77–85. Chafe, W. H., (2015, March). The Moynihan Report, then and now. Briefing paper prepared as part of an online symposium. Monhihan + 50: Family structure still not the problem for the council on contemporary Families, and jointly published by CCF and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https:// contemporaryfamilies.org/moynihan-then-and-now-brief-report/ Cherlin, A. J. (2014). Labor’s love lost: The rise and fall of the working-class family in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 403–419. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861.

304

Single Parenthood Cherlin, A. J. (1998). Marriage and marital dissolution among African American. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 147–158. Child Trends. (2016). Births to unmarried women. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Child Trends. (2015). Births to unmarried women: Indicators on children and youth. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Child Trends. (2011). Facts at a glance: A fact sheet reporting national, state, and city trends in teen childbearing. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Clayton, O., and Moore, J. (2003). The effects of crime and imprisonment on family formation. African American Fathers in Contemporary American Society: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Strategies for Change, 81–102. Clinton, B. (2005). My life: Bill Clinton. New York: First Vintage Books Edition. Coates, T. N. (2015). The African American family in the age of mass incarceration. The Atlantic, 316(3), 82. Coles, R. L. (2015). Single-Father Families: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jftr.12069 Compas, B. E., and Williams, R. A. (1990). Stress, coping, and adjustment in mothers and young adolescents in single- and two-parent families. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(4), 525–545. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., and Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685–704. Conger, R. D., and Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199. Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., and Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child development, 65(2), 541–561. Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S. S., Meadows, S. O., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 558 574. Cooper, C. E., Osborne, C. A., Beck, A. N., and McLanahan, S. S. (2011). Partnership instability, school readiness, and gender disparities. Sociology of Education, 84(3), 246–259. Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., and Mosher, W. D. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the united states: 2006–2010 national survey of family growth (No. 64). US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Curtin, S. C., Ventura, S. J., and Martinez, G. M. (2014). Recent declines in nonmarital childbearing in the United States (No. 2014). US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 573–584. Dallaire, D. (2019). Incarcerated parents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (3rd ed., pp. 590–617). New York, NY: Routledge. DeFrain, J., and Eirick, R. (1981). Coping as divorced single parents: A comparative study of fathers and mothers. Family Relations, 30, 265–273. Dixon, P. (2009). Marriage among African Americans: What does the research reveal?. Journal of African American Studies, 13(1), 29–46. Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child development, 65(2), 296–318. East, P. L., Chien, N. C., and Barber, J. S. (2012). Adolescents’ pregnancy intentions, wantedness, and regret: Cross-lagged relations with mental health and harsh parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 167–185. Edin, K., and Kefalas, M. (2006). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Edin, K., Kefalas, M. J., and Reed, J. M. (2004). A peek inside the black box: What marriage means for poor unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 1007–1014. Eiduson, B. T. (1983). Conflict And Stress In Nontraditional Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(3), 426–435. Eiduson, B. T., and Weisner, T. S. (1978). Alternative family styles: Effects on young children. Mother/Child Father/Child Relationships, 197–221. Elder Jr, G. H., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M., and Lord, S. (1995). Inner-city parents under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 771–784. Erdmans, M. P., and Black, T. (2015). On becoming a teen mom: Life before pregnancy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Eurostat. (2015). Household composition statistics. Retrieved from ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics explained/ index.php/Household_composition_statistic Feigelman, W., and Silverman, A. R. (1977). Single-parent adoptions. Social casework, 58, 418–425.

305

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman Ford, D. Y. (Ed.) (2017). Telling our Stories: Culturally different adults reflect on growing up in single-parent families. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and McCalle, G. (2012). Gatekeeping after separation and divorce. Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court, 369–398. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and Sanner, C. (2019). Divorced and remarried parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 311–344). New York: Routledge. Garcia-Coll, C. T., Meyer, E. C., and Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 189–209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Garrison, M. (2007). Reviving marriage: Could we-should we. Journal of Families Studies, 10, 279. Garrison, M. (2004). Is consent necessary—an evaluation of the emerging law of cohabitant obligation. UCLA Law Review, 52, 815. Gates, G. J. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. The Future of Children, 25(2), 67–87. Geller, A., Jaeger, K., and Pace, G. (2018). Using the fragile families and child wellbeing study (FFCWS) in life course health development research. In Handbook of life course health development (pp. 601–620). Cham: Springer. Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., and Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239. Grall, T. S. (2016). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2013. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Greif, G. L. (1985). Single fathers. Lexington, MA: Health. Gringlas, M. B., and Weinraub, M. (1995). Single parenthood. Handbook of parenting, 3, 65–87. Groze, V. (1991). Adoption and single parents: A review. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 70, 321–332. Groza, V. (1996). Successful adoptive families: A longitudinal study of special needs adoption. New York: Praeger. Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., and Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and development: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Washington, DC: Child Trends. Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Osterman, M. J. K., Curtin, S. C., and Mathews, T. J. (2015). Births: Final data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(12). Harknett, K. S., and Hartnett, C. S. (2011). Who lacks support and why? An examination of mothers’ personal safety nets. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(4), 861–875. Harknett, K., and McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in marriage after the birth of a child. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 790–811. Haskins, R. (2015). The family is here to stay—or not. The Future of Children, 25(2), 129–153. Hastings-Storer, J. (1991). Parenting stress in rural, low-income African American mothers of young children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 557–587. Hertz, R. (2006). Single by chance, mothers by choice: How women are choosing parenthood without marriage and creating the new American family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herzog, E., and Sudia, C. E. (1973). Children in fatherless families. Review of Child Development Research, 3, 141–232. Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of divorce and remarriage: A focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39–56. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., and Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In Michael E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hetherington, E. M., and Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1995). Parenting in divorced and remarried families. Handbook of Parenting, 3, 287–316. Heuveline, P., and Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1214–1230. Hill, L. C., and Hilton, J. M. (2000). Changes in roles following divorce: Comparison of factors contributing to depression in custodial single mothers and custodial single fathers. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 31, 91–114. Hobbs, F., and Lippman, L. (1990). Children’s well-being: An international comparison (No. 80). US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Hope, S., Power, C., and Rodgers, B. (1999). Does financial hardship account for elevated psychological distress in lone mothers?. Social Science and Medicine, 49(12), 1637–1649.

306

Single Parenthood Hurt, T. R., McElroy, S. E., Sheats, K. J., Landor, A. M., and Bryant, C. M. (2014). Married African American men’s opinions as to why African American women are disproportionately single: A qualitative study. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 88–109. Hymowitz, K. S., Carroll, J. S., Wilcox, W. B., and Kaye, K. (2013). Knot yet: The benefits and costs of delayed marriage in America. National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. Irving, S. K., and Loveless, T. A. (2015). Dynamics of economic well-being: Participation in government programs, 2009–2012: Who gets assistance. Household Economic Studies, 1, 29. Jones, S. C. (1984). Going to Work: A challenging time for single mothers. Journal of Employment Counseling, 21, 7–12. Jordan, V., and Little, W. (1966). Early comments on single-parent adoptive homes. Child Welfare, 45, 536–538. Kalil, A., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mothers’ economic conditions and sources of support in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 39–61. Kamerman, S., and Kahn, A. (1988). Mothers alone: Strategies for a time of change. Dover, MA: Auburn House. Kellam, S. G., Ensminger, M. E., and Turner, R. J. (1977). Family structure and the mental health of children: Concurrent and longitudinal community-wide studies. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34(9), 1012–1022. Kennedy, S., and Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic research, 19, 1663. Kissman, K., and Allen, J. A. (1993). Single-parent families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., and Heller, L. (2005). Predictors of parenting among African American single mothers: Personal and contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 448–460. Lahey, B. B., Hartdagen, S. E., Frick, P. J., McBurnett, K., Connor, R., and Hynd, G. W. (1988). Conduct disorder: Parsing the confounded relation to parental divorce and antisocial personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 334. Lane, S. D. (2004). Marriage promotion and missing men: African American women in a demographic double bind. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 18(4), 405–428. Larson, R. W., and Gillman, S. (1999). Transmission of emotions in the daily interactions of single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 21–37. Lee, D., and McLanahan, S. (2015). Family structure transitions and child development: Instability, selection, and population heterogeneity. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 738–763. Levine, J. (2013). Ain’t no trust. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Lichter, D. T., Graefe, D. R., and Brown, J. B. (2003). Is marriage a panacea? Union formation among economically disadvantaged unwed mothers. Social Problems, 50(1), 60–86. Lipman, E. L., MacMillan, H. L., and Boyle, M. H. (2001). Childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders among single and married mothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(1), 73–77. Livingston, G. (2013a) The rise of single: A ninefold increase since 1960. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/ Livingston, G. (2013b). At grandmother’s house we stay. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/09/04/ at-grandmothers-house-we-stay/3/ Macran, S., Clarke, L., and Joshi, H. (1996). Women’s health: Dimensions and differentials. Social Science and Medicine, 42(9), 1203–1216. Magnuson, K., and Duncan, G. J. (2016). Can early childhood interventions decrease inequality of economic opportunity?. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(2), 123–141. Manning, W. D., and Brown, S. L. (2013). Cohabiting fathers. Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 281–294. Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., and Stykes, J. B. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple relationship stability. Demography, 53(4), 937–953. Mannis, V. S. (1999). Single mothers by choice. Family Reactions: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Families Studies, 48, 121–128. Martin, A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Has adolescent childbearing been eclipsed by nonmarital childbearing?. Societies, 5(4), 734–743. Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., Riina, E. M., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2017). Coresidential father transitions and biological parents’ coparenting quality in early and middle childhood. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 677–699. Mather, M. (2010). US children in single-mother families. (Population Reference Bureau, Data Brief ). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Mattes, J. (1994). Single mothers by choice: A guidebook for single women who are considering or have chosen motherhood. New York: Times Books. McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41(4), 607–627.

307

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman McLanahan, S. S. (1983). Family structure and stress: A longitudinal comparison of two-parent and femaleheaded families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 347–357. McLanahan, S., and Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 130–152. McLanahan, S., and Carlson, M. S. (2004). Fathers in fragile families. The Role of the Father in Child Development, 4, 368–396. McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N., and Teitler, J. (2001). Unwed parents or fragile families? Implications for welfare and child support policy. Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, 202–228. McLanahan, S., and Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 257–276. McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McLanahan, S., and Sawhill, I. (2015). Marriage and child wellbeing revisited: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 25(2), 3–9. McLanahan, S., Tach, L., and Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399–427. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on African American families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346. McLoyd, V. C., Jayaratne, T. E., Ceballo, R., and Borquez, J. (1994). Unemployment and work interruption among African American single mothers: Effects on parenting and adolescent socioemotional functioning. Child Development, 65(2), 562–589. Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and change in family structure and maternal health trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 314–334. Mincy, R., and Nepomnyaschy, L. (2005). Child support and minority fathers in Fragile Families. Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper. Mitchell, C., McLanahan, S., Notterman, D., Hobcraft, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Garfinkel, I. (2015). Family structure instability, genetic sensitivity, and child well-being. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4), 1195–1225. Mitchell, C., McLanahan, S., Schneper, L., Garfinkel, I., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Notterman, D. (2017). Father loss and child telomere length. Pediatrics, e20163245. Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Office of Policy Planning and Research United States Department of Labor. Morrison, D. R., and Cherlin, A. J. (1995). The divorce process and young children’s well-being: A prospective analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 800–812. Mosher, W. D., Jones, J., and Abma, J. C. (2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982– 2010, 1–28. Murray, J., and Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633–642. Musick, K., and Meier, A. (2010). Are both parents always better than one? Parental conflict and young adult well-being. Social Science Research, 39(5), 814–830. Muzik, M., Rosenblum, K. L., Schuster, M. M., Kohler, E. S., Alfafara, E. A., and Miller, N. M. (2016). A mental health and parenting intervention for adolescent and young adult mothers and their infants. Journal of Depress Anxiety, 5(233), 2167–1044. National Center for Health Statistics (2017). Marriage and Divorces. National marriage and divorce rate trends for 2000–2016 [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage-divorce.htm. National Survey of Family Growth: Public Use Data Files, Codebooks, and Documentation. (2015). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2013_2015_puf.htm Noah, T. (2016). Born a crime: Stories from a South African childhood. Penguin Random House. Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press. OECD. (2016). The future of families to 2030: Projections policy challenges and policy options a synthesis report. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/futures/49093502.pdf Parke, R. D., and Cookston, J. T. (2019). Fathers and Families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 64–136). New York, NY: Routledge. Parker, K., and Stepler, R. (2017). As U.S. marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital status widens. Pew Research Center: FactTank. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriagerate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status widens/ Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child development, 63(5), 1025–1042.

308

Single Parenthood Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the baby boom: Parents’ division of labor and children’s adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 115.Pinderhughes, E. B. (2002). African American marriage in the 20th century. Family Process, 41(2), 269–282. Raley, R. K., Sweeney, M. M., and Wondra, D. (2015). The growing racial and ethnic divide in US marriage patterns. The Future of Children/Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 25(2), 89. Razza, R. A., Martin, A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015, December). Are approaches to learning in kindergarten associated with academic and social competence similarly?. Child and Youth Care Forum, 44(6), 757–776. Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., and McLanahan, S. S. (2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4–5), 303–326. Richard, J. V. (1982). Addressing stress factors in single-parent women-headed households. Women and Therapy, 1, 15–27. Roberts, P. (2007). Out of order? Factors influencing the sequence of marriage and childbirth among disadvantaged Americans, center for law and social policy, couples and marriage series, Brief no. 9. Retrieved from www.healthymarriageandfamilies.org/library resource/out-order-factors-influencing-sequence-mar riage-and-childbirth-among disadvantaged?backtolib=0andbacktolib=0andf%5B0%5D=field_ressource_ keywords%3A 931andpage=32 RWJF Program Results Report—Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. (2014). Retrieved from https:// fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/sites/fragilefamilies/files/rwjf_program_results_rep rt.pdf Ryan, R. M. (2012). Marital birth and early child outcomes: The moderating influence of marriage propensity. Child Development, 83(3), 1085–1101. Ryan, R. M., Claessens, A., and Markowitz, A. J. (2015). Associations between family structure change and child behavior problems: The moderating effect of family income. Child development, 86(1), 112–127. Sandstrom, H., and Huerta, S. (2013). The negative effects of instability on child development: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Santrock, J. W., Warshak, R. A., and Elliott, G. L. (1982). Social development and parent-child interaction in father-custody and stepmother families In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sargent, J. (1992). Family variations. In M. D. Levine, W. B. Carey, and A. C. Crocker (Eds.), Developmentalbehavioral pediatrics. Philadelphia: Saunders. Scannapieco, M., and Connell-Carrick, K. (2016). Correlates of child maltreatment among adolescent mothers with young children. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13(1), 59–75. Schneider, D. (2017). Non-marital and teen fertility and contraception during the great recession. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(3), 126–144. Schneider, D., Harknett, K., and McLanahan, S. (2016). Parents’ relationships. Children of the Great Recession, 118–148. Shattuck, R. M., and Kreider, R. M. (2013). Social and economic characteristics of currently unmarried women with a recent birth: 2011. American Community Survey Reports ACS 21. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Shireman, J. F. (1995). Adoptions by single parents. Marriage and Family Review, 20, 367–388. Shireman, J. F. (1996). Single-parent adoptive homes. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 23–36. Shireman, J. F., and Johnson, P. R. (1976). Single persons as adoptive parents. Social Service Review, 50(1), 103–116. Sigle-Rushton, W., and McLanahan, S. (2002). The living arrangements of new unmarried mothers. Demography, 39(3), 415–433. Solomon-Fears, C. (2014). Nonmarital births: An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Strayhorn, T. L. (2009). Different folks, different hopes: The educational aspirations of African American males in urban, suburban, and rural high schools. Urban Education, 44(6), 710–731. Strayhorn, J. M., and Strayhorn, J. C. (2009). Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States. Reproductive Health, 6(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-6-14 Taylor, Z. E., and Conger, R. D. (2014). Risk and resilience processes in single-mother families: An interactionist perspective. In Defining prevention science (pp. 195–217). New York: Springer. Taylor, Z. E., and Conger, R. D. (2017). Promoting strengths and resilience in single-mother families. Child Development, 88(2), 350–358. Thiriot, T. M., and Buckner, E. T. (1991). Multiple predictors of satisfactory post-divorce adjustment of single custodial parents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17(1–2), 27–48. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2015). America’s families and living arrangements: 2015. Family households (F table series) [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/families/cps-2015.html. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2016). America’s families and living arrangements: 2016. Tables CH-1 and CH-5 [Data file]. Retrieved from www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/demo/families/cps 2015.html.

309

Marsha Weinraub and Rebecca Kaufman U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2017). Historical living arrangements of children. [Data file]. Retrieved from www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html. Vuchinich, S., Hetherington, E. M., Vuchinich, R. A., and Clingempeel, W. G. (1991). Parent child interaction and gender differences in early adolescents’ adaptation to stepfamilies. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 618. Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children/Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 20(2), 87. Wallerstein, J. S., Corbin, S. B., and Lewis, J. M. (1988). Children of divorce: A 10-year study. In E. M. Hetherington and J. D. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 197–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wang, W., Parker, K., and Taylor, P. (2013, May). Breadwinner moms. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends. org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/4/ Weinraub, M. (1978). Fatherhood: The myth of the second-class parent. Mother/Child and Father/Child Relationships, 127. Weinraub, M., and Wolf, B. M. (1983). Effects of stress and social supports on mother-child interactions in single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 1297–1311. Weinraub, M., and Wolf, B. M. (1987). Stressful life events, social supports, and parent-child interactions: Similarities and differences in single-parent and two-parent families. In I. Boukydis and C. F. Zachariah (Eds.), Research on Support for Parents and Infants in the Postnatal Period (pp. 114–135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Weisner, T., and Garnier, H. (1992). Stability of family structure and student learning in elementary school. American Journal of Educational Research, 29, 605–632. Weiss, R. S. (1979). Growing up a little faster: The experience of growing up in a single parent household. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 97–111. Western, B., and McLanahan, S. (2000). Fragile families: Young fathers with incarceration experiences. Families, Crime, and Criminal Justice, 309–324. Whitehead, M., Burström, B., and Diderichsen, F. (2000). Social policies and the pathways to inequalities in health: A comparative analysis of lone mothers in Britain and Sweden. Social Science and Medicine, 50(2), 255–270. Wildsmith, E., Steward-Streng, N. R., and Manlove, J. (2011). Childbearing outside of marriage: Estimates and trends in the United States. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Wilcox, W. B., Wolfinger, N. H., and Stokes, C. E. (2015). One nation, divided: Culture, civic institutions, and the marriage divide. The Future of Children, 25(2), 111–127. Wolf, B. H. (1987). Low-income mothers at risk: Psychological effects of poverty-related stress (Doctoral dissertation), Harvard Graduate School of Education. Zimiles, H., and Lee, V. E. (1991). Adolescent family structure and educational progress. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 314.

310

9 DIVORCED AND REMARRIED PARENTING Lawrence H. Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, and Caroline Sanner

Introduction Every year in the United States, there are approximately 800,000 divorces (CDC, 2015). Although not all divorcing individuals are parents, an estimated 36% of all divorcees in 2014 reported having at least one minor child living in their household (Eickmeyer, 2016). Divorce is an international phenomenon, with rates of many European nations being comparable to the United States; divorce rates in Asia and Latin America are slightly lower, but increasing rapidly (divorcescience.org, 2016). Divorced parenthood is widespread. Remarriage is also common. In 2013, 4 in 10 marriages in the United States included at least one partner who had been previously married; 8% of newly married adults are in at least their third marriage (Livingston, 2014). Although having children slightly reduces the likelihood of remarrying, an estimated 26% of all U.S. marriages include stepchildren (14% of first marriages and 63% of remarriages; Stykes and Guzzo, 2015). In nearly half of remarriages (46%), one or both partners have at least one child from a previous union living with them (Manning, 2013). In the United States, about 13% of children reside in a household with a remarried parent and a stepparent (Kennedy and Fitch, 2012). An unknown number of children live periodically on a part-time basis with a remarried parent and stepparent. Remarriage rates in other nations often are difficult to calculate, but remarriage appears to be less frequent than in the United States (Beier, Hofacker, Marchese, and Rupp, 2010; Navarro, 2013). Perhaps this is because couples cohabit rather than remarry, an increasingly common phenomenon in the United States as well. Demographic data, however, indicate that remarriage is a relatively common worldwide experience that affects many parents and their children. Divorce and remarriage are marital statuses. As adjectives, the terms “divorced” and “remarried” describe a person’s “social address” conveying to others whether they have a spouse, and if they do, that the spouse is not their first. These terms convey nothing about an individual’s parental status, nor do they communicate information about the quality of parent-child relationships, about the experience of parenting, or really, much of anything regarding parenting. The experiences of divorce and remarriage, however, have enormous implications for parents and their children. As interpersonal processes and family transitions, divorce, and remarriage affect parenting and parent-child relationships in multiple ways. The term “stepparent,” however, does not describe marital status but rather identifies that the individual is neither a biological nor adoptive parent to children. Instead, “a stepparent is an adult whose partner has at least one child from a previous relationship” (Ganong and Coleman, 2017, p. 2). Stepparents are not related genetically or legally to stepchildren, and they may be either married to a parent or cohabiting with them. The

311

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

phenomenon of stepparenting is usually quite distinct from parenting, and although their experiences vary substantively, they also are similar in many ways. In this chapter, we explore how the interpersonal processes of divorce and remarriage affect parenting and stepparenting and how these roles have been examined by social and behavioral scientists. We first discuss historical considerations that have shaped the cultural context of divorced parenting and remarried and stepparenting over time. Next, we outline central issues faced by divorced and remarried parents and stepparents, followed by a discussion of the theoretical frameworks that have been used to investigate these challenges, including stress-related theories, coparenting theories, and selection models. Subsequently, in a summary of classical and modern research in divorced and remarried parenting, we identify four general eras in the development of scholarly research on postdivorce families and stepfamilies: (1) the social problem/social address phase, (2) the growing recognition phase, (3) a decade of progress, and (4) the New Millennium. We then highlight efforts at state and local levels to implement intervention programs for divorced and remarried parents, drawing particular attention to divorce mediation efforts and stepfamily education programs. Finally, we propose key areas for future direction in the study of divorced and remarried parenting, including qualitative approaches and theory development, research on process and structure, and greater attention to underexamined parents. To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the key issues surrounding divorced and remarried parenting, it is necessary to first turn our attention toward understanding how the context of divorced and parenting has changed over time.

Historical Considerations in Divorce and Remarriage Parenting does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, parents’ experiences are shaped by ever-changing cultural conditions. In this section, we outline historical contexts that have shaped divorced and remarried parenting over time, including reasons behind fluctuating rates of divorce and remarriage, changing divorce legislation and policy, and new precursors to remarriage and stepfamily formation.

Divorced Parenting Over Time According to family historian Coontz (2005, p. 247), “It took more than 150 years to establish the love-based, male breadwinner marriage as the dominant model in North America and Western Europe. It took less than 25 years to dismantle it.” In 1900, only about 10% of marriages ended in divorce. By 2000, it had risen to 40–50% (Amato, 2010). For most of human history, marriage dissolution occurred because of the death of a partner, and it was not until 1974 that divorce surpassed death as the main cause of marital dissolution. In the United States, divorce rates have gradually increased since records were kept, reaching a peak in 1981 (Coontz, 2005) and then stabilizing at slightly lower—but still relatively high—rates since then (divorcescience.org, 2016). Because the reasons for marriage have changed over time, so too have the reasons for divorce. For instance, whereas marriage was once seen as essential for matters like economic production and procreation, people now expect marriage to fulfill needs of personal happiness and fulfillment (Cherlin, 2010; Coontz, 2005). Today people marry for love—a fragile basis on which to build a “lifelong” union. Although divorce is still somewhat stigmatized, particularly for parents (Amato, 2004), people increasingly feel that staying in a loveless marriage out of commitment to the institution should not come at the expense of personal happiness. After World War II, unsatisfied spouses increasingly sought to end their marriages, leading to changes in legal grounds for divorce in the early 1970s. Since the Colonial period, the spouse filing for divorce had to charge the other spouse with a violation of marital duties (e.g., desertion, cruelty, adultery); starting in California in 1969, states gradually created so-called no-fault divorce grounds, whereby individuals could claim that marriages were irretrievably broken without blaming one 312

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

spouse or the other (Amato, 2004). Although some social critics have asserted that “no fault” divorce laws stimulated an increase in divorce (Amato, 2004), there is ample evidence to suggest that legal changes reflected ongoing social trends and changes in attitudes about divorce and were not causal in encouraging divorce. Public policies, particularly as embodied by laws regarding divorce, child custody, and child support, have had large effects on parenting after divorce. For many years in the United States, beginning in the Colonial period, women initiated divorce more than men, but fathers usually received physical custody of children after divorce. Children were generally seen as assets to fathers in the agrarian society that existed prior to the twentieth century. It was not until the early part of the twentieth century, when childrearing advocates began promoting mothers as the natural experts in nurturing children, that changes in custody shifted so that sole custody of children went predominately to mothers after divorce (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006). This shift in physical custody to mothers was facilitated by the so-called Tender Years Doctrine that asserted that mothers were better parents for children in their tender years (basically birth through age 8; Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006). Judges consequently awarded custody to mothers, and fathers were generally expected to do little parenting after divorce. For much of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, divorced parenting was mostly divorced mothering, and there is little scientific research about postdivorce father involvement with children much before the last decade of the century. In a large national study, Furstenberg and Nord (1985) reported that fewer than half of all children between the ages of 11 and 17 had seen their divorced fathers in the previous year, and almost 40% had had no contact with their fathers in the previous 5 years. Not surprisingly, postdivorce fathering was seldom studied because as a society, the United States did not expect fathers to be involved. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, however, fathers’ rights groups and feminists, in parallel movements, advocated for the idea that divorced children needed contact with both of their parents. Fathers’ rights groups complained that men were discriminated against by the legal system in their preference for mothers as custodial parents (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006), and feminists advocated for the principle of egalitarian rights and responsibilities for parents of both genders. Social and behavioral scientists also began to assert, sometimes with evidence and sometimes without, that children benefited from having contact with both parents after divorce (Amato and Sobowlewski, 2004). Courts in the 1970s and 1980s began to move away from the Tender Years Doctrine presumption that mothers were the better parents for young children to a concern for the “best interests of the child.” This ambiguous concept left it to judges, attorneys and, yes, even parents, to decide which custody arrangement was in a child’s best interests after parents divorced. Usually, judges accepted what parents had agreed on, but when they could not agree, the “best interests” principle was often applied. The quality of parent-child relationships, special needs of children and parents, parents’ abilities to provide for children’s needs, continuity of care, parental conduct and lifestyle, and even children’s wishes all were factors considered by judges when determining the child’s best interests (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006). Consequently, courts began to give preference to joint legal custody (i.e., both parents are empowered to make decisions about children) and, increasingly, to shared physical custody. Although physical custody was seldom defined as a 50–50 division of time between parental households, fathers generally benefited by having their children reside with them more often than when mothers had sole custody and fathers had “visitation” (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 2006). Sharing legal and physical custody meant that divorced parents were legally mandated to continue to work together in childrearing, which came to be known as coparenting. An unintended consequence of mandated coparenting was that parents either had to negotiate at least a minimal level of cooperation or they continued engaging in conflict about children and childrearing decisions (Emery, 2012). 313

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

The increases in shared custody awards coincided with increased scholarly interest in postdivorce parenting and coparenting. As fathers became more involved in childrearing after divorce, researchers began studying them along with mothers. Variations in physical custody became a focus of research interest, as parents and policy makers raised questions about “best practices” for childrearing after divorce.

Remarried Parenting and Stepparenting Over Time Remarried parenting is not a new phenomenon. For most of human history, life spans were relatively short. Until well into the twentieth century, making a living often entailed many dangers that contributed to short lives, and childbirth was a frequent cause of maternal deaths well into the twentieth century (Albanesi and Olivetti, 2016). When a parent died, the remaining spouse usually quickly repartnered to enhance the odds that he or she, and the children, would survive (Coontz, 2005). Remarried parenting has always been relatively widespread but has been largely ignored by researchers and practitioners. Presumably, remarried parenting was perceived to be similar to parenting in a first union, and stepparents were often thought to be substitutes for deceased parents. Despite the ubiquity of post-remarriage parenting and stepparenting, researchers showed little interest in them until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when for the first time most remarriages followed divorce rather than death (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). The change in precursors to remarriage meant that stepfamilies became much more complicated; parents were less often childrearing alone when they remarried after widowhood and more frequently coparenting with a former spouse. Coparenting with a former spouse also meant that stepparents could not automatically presume to replace an absent (deceased) parent but were additional parent-figures. Adding one or more stepparents to stepfamily systems frequently changed the coparenting relationships (Ganong, Coleman, Jamison, and Feistman, 2015), and parent-child relationships were often affected by the addition of a stepparent (King, 2006, 2007, 2009). Postdivorce remarried parents and their new partners had to define and negotiate new roles, with few social norms to guide them (Cherlin, 1978), which contributed to stress for family members, conflicts and, sometimes, to additional divorces. Researchers initially focused on the stepparent-stepchild relationship and stepchildren’s well-being, and only in recent years have remarried parents received much scholarly attention (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Taken together, cultural and historical shifts have altered the context in which divorced and remarried parenting occurs. Greater acceptance for leaving unsatisfying marriages, the implement of no-fault divorce legislation, changing norms and policies pertaining to child support and custody arrangements, and shifting precursors to stepfamily formation have shaped the experience of divorced and remarried parenting. We now turn to central issues commonly faced by parents who divorce and remarry.

Central Issues in Divorced and Remarried Parenting Researchers have devoted considerable attention toward understanding the unique challenges of divorced and remarried parenting. Because divorce and remarriage generally involve periods of reorganization and change, they tend to come with sets of unique challenges. We first outline the central issues faced by divorced parents, and then we turn to issues face by remarried parents and stepparents.

Divorced Parents In response to the rise of the divorce rate in the twentieth century, scholars became increasingly interested in the impact of divorce on families. The majority of research in this area focused on 314

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

the effects of divorce on children. Researchers have consistently shown that children with divorced parents are more at risk than children with continuously married parents on social, emotional, behavioral, academic, and health outcomes (Amato, 2010). Similar results have been found for the effects of divorce on adults: Compared with married individuals, divorced men and women report lower levels of physical and mental health, exhibit more symptoms of depression and anxiety, and are even at greater risk of overall mortality (Amato, 2010). Children’s adjustment to divorce and parents’ adjustment to divorce are inextricably linked; when parents fare well after marital dissolution, children are more likely to fare well also (Kelly, 2012). Consequently, researchers have sought to identify the unique challenges that divorced parents face that may undermine parents’ and children’s well-being. Parents face many central issues after divorce, but we categorize them broadly into four groups: adjusting to custodial arrangements, establishing coparenting relationships, maintaining appropriate parent-child boundaries, and renegotiating personal identities. We introduce these issues here and then discuss theoretical frameworks that have been used to investigate some of these challenges.

Adjusting to Custodial Arrangements When parents divorce, a major task involves establishing and then adjusting to new custody arrangements. Parents range from having sole parenting responsibility to losing contact with children, and the central issues faced by divorced parents depend largely on the extent to which children reside with them after divorce. Generally, there has been a shift from the assumption that children fare best with their mothers after divorce to the belief that children benefit from continued contact with both parents (Kelly, 2012). As a result, shared custody has become increasingly common. Even when shared custody is awarded, however, parents vary in the frequency with which they see their children after divorce. For example, children might live with one parent during the week and another parent on the weekends. Divorced parents face the task of adjusting to a net loss of time spent with children, and although having reduced time with children is usually true for both parents, less time with children is particularly salient for nonresidential parents. To compensate for lost time spent with children, nonresidential parents tend to be more likely to use their time with children on leisure activities and less likely to be involved in the more mundane tasks of daily life, such as homework or chores (Stewart, 1999). The lack of consistency and routine can sometimes produce feelings of awkwardness or discomfort during visits to nonresidential parents (Feistman, Jamison, Coleman, and Ganong, 2016). Children also have described logistic concerns such as sleeping arrangements (e.g., having to sleep on couches or blow-up mattress at the noncustodial parent’s house) as difficult adjustments that had the potential to produce feelings of displacement (Feistman et al., 2016). Children generally have reported feeling more “at home” at the house of the parent with primary custody; however, those parents have other unique challenges in parenting after divorce. When parents have sole or primary responsibility for the care of children, they are more likely to experience economic decline than nonresidential parents. Because mothers are generally more likely to be the primary custodians than fathers, women tend to experience greater economic decline after divorce than men (Barber and Demo, 2006). To compensate for the loss of household income, residential parents may find themselves working longer hours, pursuing a second (or third) job, or reentering the workforce to provide for their families. At the same time, residential parents must fulfill childrearing duties, such as cooking, cleaning, providing transportation, assisting with homework, managing sibling conflict, and other childrearing responsibilities. In a two-parent household, these responsibilities can be delegated between adults, but in a one-parent household, divorced parents find themselves bearing sole responsibility for these tasks, and this transition is often stressful. For some, role overload may result if managing various roles and responsibilities produces intense feelings of burden and stress (Perry-Jenkins, Goldberg, Pierce, and Sayer, 2007). Out of necessity, parents 315

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

may rely on children to help manage familial tasks. Furthermore, low-income custodial parents are vulnerable to geographic relocation; due to financial constraints, parents and children may need to change residences, which could result in relocating to lower quality neighborhoods and uprooting children from their schools, communities, and friends (Barber and Demo, 2006). Given that experiencing multiple transitions increases maternal stress and undermines parenting quality (Osborne and McLanahan, 2007), parental divorce followed by subsequent transitions such as relocation tends to be challenging for parents and children.

Establishing Coparenting Relationships The growing belief that joint custody is in the best interests of the child due to continued relationships with both parents led the courts to increasingly grant joint custody arrangements to divorcing parents (Kelly, 2012). As a result, there is a greater number of postdivorce coparenting relationships now than ever before (Kelly, 2012). Researchers, therefore, are interested in documenting how former spouses navigate postdivorce relationships, with an emphasis on how coparenting relationship quality affects child well-being (Afifi and Schrodt, 2003; Bonach, 2005; McHale and Sirotkin, 2019; Riggio, 2004). Coparenting relationships between former spouses can range from cooperative to highly conflicted. Ahrons (1994) studied interactions between divorced parents and developed a typology of postdivorce coparenting styles. A small but significant minority of divorced parents (12%) were “perfect pals” who coparented while remaining close friends, interacting frequently with high-quality communication. Their postdivorce parenting was similar to their pre-divorce parenting. Another group of amicable couples (38%) was defined as “cooperative colleagues.” These divorced parents had business-like relationships with boundaries, but they interacted positively for the sake of their children and managed conflict productively to ensure that children were not caught in the middle. Unfortunately, not all divorced parents coparent so effectively. Half of Ahrons’s (1994) sample fell into the “angry associates” or “fiery foes” categories. Angry associates struggled to confine their anger and keep conflict separate from children, and fiery foes held such disdain for each other that they actively used children as pawns in fights. Given that such coparenting conflict is particularly detrimental to children’s adjustment outcomes (Amato, 2010; Buchanan, Maccoby, and Dornbusch, 1991; Davies and Cummings, 1994), postdivorce coparenting conflict is of particular interest to researchers. Further, given that courts increasingly use joint physical custody as a compromise solution among highconflict couples (Fehlberg, Smyth, Maclean, and Roberts, 2011), researchers’ interest in coparenting conflict is relevant. Specifically, the literature has aimed to understand predictors of conflict between former spouses as well as the effects of conflict on children and parent-child relationships. Researchers have identified multiple influences that contribute to high levels of postdivorce conflict between parents, including high levels of conflict during the marriage, attributing the cause of divorce to the other partner, having younger children and a larger family, and perceiving the other parent to be lacking parenting skills, too lenient in discipline, or unreliable in parenting (Bonach and Sales, 2002; Maccoby, Buchanan, Mnookin, and Dornbusch, 1993; McBroom, 2011). Another strong predictor of coparenting quality is the degree to which one or both parents feel satisfied with their access to the children and child financial support (Madden-Derdich and Leonard, 2002). In one study, when one parent overestimated the satisfaction of the other parent regarding the custody arrangement, interparental conflict was especially prevalent (Madden-Derdich and Leonard, 2002). Fathers who perceived mothers to be unaccommodating and unwilling to compromise about visitation reported more coparental conflict, particularly when mothers did not perceive themselves to be this way (Baum and Shnit, 2003; Madden-Derdich and Leonard, 2002). Interparental conflict is one of the strongest predictors of how well children adjust to the separation or divorce of their parents (Amato, 2010). Researchers have identified several ways that this 316

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

conflict impacts children in divorced families. For instance, in a decade review of research on the consequences of divorce on children, Amato (2010) noted that conflict between parents has been linked to an increased risk of behavioral, psychological, and academic problems among children. Other researchers have found that repeated exposure to conflict between parents increases children’s emotional and behavioral reactivity and reduces their ability to regulate emotional arousal (Davies and Cummings, 1994). Some of the most consistent findings on conflict between divorced parents have involved relations between coparental conflict, parenting, and parent-child relationship quality. For instance, high levels of interparental conflict have been linked to low levels of positive parenting and reduced parental responsiveness (Kelly, 1993). Witnessing parents engage in high levels of conflict may jeopardize children’s secure attachment to primary caregivers and violate children’s sense of emotional security (Davies and Cummings, 1994). In fact, exposure to postdivorce parental conflict has been found to have long-term consequences for parent-child relationships. For instance, conflict between divorced parents in childhood has been linked to perceptions of having fewer available social supports as young adults, greater anxiety in personal relationships, increased conflict-prone relationship behaviors, and poorer parent-child relationship quality (Riggio, 2004). Even beyond the time that a child may be residing with a parent and, therefore, having the most exposure to interparental conflict, the longterm consequences of coparenting conflict indicate that parent-child relationship quality suffers.

Renegotiating Parent-Child Boundaries Many of divorce’s negative effects on children occur when appropriate parent-child boundaries are violated, such as when parents take on children as confidantes and reveal negative information about the other parent (Afifi, Afifi, and Coho, 2009) or about the divorce process and divorce-related stressors in general. Nonetheless, parents often discuss divorce-related stress with their children, including negative thoughts and feelings about the other parent (McManus and Donovan, 2012). The likelihood of revealing inappropriate information to children, however, has not been found to be related to a lack of social support and the severity of the stressors (Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, and Baker, 2007). Having confidantes besides children, therefore, did not reduce the likelihood of sharing inappropriate information, and having more extreme stressors did not increase this likelihood. The only factor that influenced the risk of disclosing inappropriate information was a parents’ lack of control over the divorce stressors, regardless of their severity (Afifi et al., 2007). A common motivation for sharing negative information about an ex-spouse is to shape the child’s impression of their other parent (Koerner, Jacobs, and Raymond, 2000). For instance, mothers have reported that they hoped that sharing certain information with their daughters would get their child to let go of an idealized view of their father and help them understand that the mother was not solely to blame for the divorce (Koerner et al., 2000). However, disclosure over topics such as negativity toward ex-husbands and financial and personal concerns is significantly associated with daughters’ greater psychological distress but not with greater feelings of mother-daughter closeness (Afifi et al., 2007; Koerner et al., 2000). Because children often lack the emotional capacity to fulfill a peer-like role for their parents, the violation of appropriate parent-child boundaries can produce great psychological stress and anxiety. Breaching parent-child boundaries is particularly problematic when it involves triangulation. When parents form alliances with children against the other parent, a triangulation occurs that further obscures boundaries between parents and children (Buchanan et al., 1991). Intergenerational triangulation can be problematic as well because it violates the appropriate hierarchy of family roles. Even when parents do not succeed in forming alliances with children, their attempts to do so can be harmful. In fact, children have cited the badmouthing of one parent by another, and attempts to triangulate them into loyalty conflicts, as the most stressful component of parents’ divorce (Moné, MacPhee, Anderson, and Banning, 2011). Children whose parents talked badly about each other, 317

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

asked children to relay information, or inquired about information regarding the other parent’s activities described feeling “trapped” in the middle of parental conflict and forced to choose sides, which has been associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and deviant behavior in adolescents (Afifi and Schrodt, 2003; Buchanan et al., 1991; Fabricius and Luecken, 2007). Conversely, children have described being drawn to the parent who does not pull them into a loyalty dilemma—when one parent speaks negatively about the other, children can mistrust the integrity of the that parent, and thus facilitate closeness with the other parent (Arditti and Prouty, 1999; Feistman et al., 2016). When parents did not attempt to triangulate their children or retaliate against the parent speaking negatively, children respected them for it (Feistman et al., 2016). Other than being too honest, not lying to children is also an important factor. Children who feel deceived by their parents about the divorce process report lower levels of communication satisfaction with their parents and lower levels of self-esteem (Thomas and Booth-Butterfield, 1995). Children generally feel that they want their divorce-related questions answered, but they want an emphasis to be placed on continuous love and security (Westberg, Nelson, and Piercy, 2002).

Renegotiating Personal Identities Underlying the issues outlined previously is the task of renegotiating one’s identity. This intrapersonal process is one of the more ambiguous tasks that divorced parents face. To be sure, identity renegotiation occurs throughout the life span as individuals move in and out of various roles and work toward defining a sense of self. However, despite the relative visibility and prevalence of divorce today, few people plan on it happening to them, and incorporating the label “divorced” into one’s definition of self is a difficult task (Emery, 2012). Significant life roles such as “wife” or “husband” tend to be deeply rooted in one’s identity and losing those roles forces people to face the question “Who am I . . . now?” (Emery, 2012, p. 59). It is critical to recognize that at the same time as parents are adjusting to new custodial arrangements, establishing coparenting relationships, and maintaining parent-child boundaries, many are simultaneously experiencing a painful time of grief and loss. Losing one’s role as spouse, along with a host of other losses that divorce carries, is not easy. However, those who are able to process their grief in healthy ways accept the occurrence of an unplanned and challenging life event, and make meaning of the “life” and “death” of the marriage in a way that stimulates self-growth and discovery are those who are best equipped for avoiding the parenting pitfalls that place children at risk.

Remarried Parents When divorced parents remarry, new parenting challenges may arise. Although a growing body of literature has explored stepparents’ parenting practices, limited research exists on the practices of remarried biological parents. The research that does exist in this area suggests that when one or both coparents repartner, parents face the task of maintaining boundaries around coparenting relationships and making decisions about the extent to which new partners will or will not be involved (Ganong et al., 2015). In one study, mothers described seeing themselves as “captains” of the coparenting team when either they or their ex-spouses repartnered, and they wished to maintain control over parenting and disciplinary decisions when a stepparent entered the family (Ganong et al., 2015; Schoppe-Sullivan and Altenburger, 2019). The specific strategies that they used to retain power over the coparenting system depended on which parent repartnered. When biological fathers repartnered, mothers initially set limits with the intention of excluding stepmothers from the coparenting system by communicating with the fathers only. Over time, mothers generally recognized their inability to exert control over the father’s household and gradually accepted stepmothers as secondary coparents. When biological mothers repartnered, they continued to play an active role in regulating how much 318

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

parenting stepfathers did. Mothers were the gatekeepers of children’s interactions with stepfathers, controlling things like the stepfathers’ initial introductions to their children as well as time spent with children and what they did together (Ganong et al., 2015). Remarried parents are unique in that the biological parent-child dyad has more shared history than the marital dyad, which presents interesting challenges for parents, because when children have greater “institutional” memory than stepparents, potential insider-outsider dynamics may make stepparents feel uncomfortable (Papernow, 2013). These dynamics may ensue particularly when remarriages occur after biological parent-child boundaries become enmeshed from residing in a ­single-parent household (Cartwright and Seymour, 2002). Stepparents entering the family system may feel like “outsiders” to the biological dyad (Dupuis, 2007), and parents who are trying to maintain ties to their children may experience guilt from having to divide time and attention between children and their new spouse (Visher and Visher, 1996). In other words, remarried couples experience loyalty binds between different people in stepfamilies. For instance, in one qualitative investigation, remarried parents often described that they had a difficult time simultaneously meeting the needs of their spouses and those of their children (Martin-Uzzi and Duval-Tsioles, 2013). Biological parents described feeling caught in the middle of children and spouses, forced to choose one over the other, and more than half of stepparents interviewed described feeling like their needs came last in the family, and many resented consistently making sacrifices that prioritized their stepchildren above their marriage (Martin-Uzzi and Duval-Tsioles, 2013). Such findings suggest that enmeshed parentchild relationships disrupt the development of close spousal relationships in stepfamilies, as they may create loyalty binds that put the couple secondary to the parent-child bond.

Stepparents Generally, the parenting practices of stepparents are more complex than those of biological parents, in part because stepfamily roles are characterized by a lack of social norms and clear expectations for “appropriate” stepparenting behaviors (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Indeed, research from the perspectives of stepparents generally reflects their frustrations with role confusion (Martin-Uzzi and Duval-Tsioles, 2013). Because role construction and enactment is heavily influenced by gender, stepfathers and stepmothers typically experience their parenting roles differently. For stepfathers, cultural expectations of men as emotionally reserved disciplinarians may lead them to see little value in establishing friendships with stepchildren, instead choosing to employ parenting practices that are low in warmth and high in control. Generally, however, stepfathers who seek to assume a friend role and allow stepchildren to take the lead in how quickly the relationship develops are more successful at establishing closer ties (Ganong, Coleman, Fine, and Martin, 1999). Higher levels of stepfather involvement (e.g., doing chores together, watching shows, playing sports, everyday talk) have been associated with higher-quality stepfather-stepchild relationships ( Jensen and Pace, 2016) as well as the quality of the mother-child relationship and adolescents’ adjustment prior the stepfather’s entry to the family system (King, Amato, and Lindstrom, 2015). Because children tend to live with their mothers following parental divorce, the majority of stepfamily research has focused on the mother-stepfather household; less is known about the parenting practices of stepmothers (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). When stepmother-stepchild relationships are examined, research tends to support that stepmothers are less successful than stepfathers in developing positive relationships with their stepchildren (Ahrons, 1994; Ganong, Coleman, and Jamison, 2011; MacDonald and DeMaris, 1996; Schmeeckle, 2007). Although stepfathers also face role ambiguity, stepmothers’ roles are particularly ambiguous because they include contradictory expectations of being involved as women in the family yet distant as stepparents, thus creating confusing messages about how to be a “good” stepmother (Weaver and Coleman, 2005). Nonresidential stepmothers have described fulfilling “mothering but not mother roles” (Weaver and Coleman, 2005, p. 477). 319

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

Although they made efforts to engage in mothering behaviors and embody certain mother-like qualities, they were careful not to infringe on the role of the biological mother. Studies from the perspective of adult stepchildren likewise suggest that stepmothers’ careful negotiation of these roles is important for positive stepparent-stepchild relationships. For instance, one researcher found that young adult stepdaughters who described positive stepmothering behaviors—although they identified five unique styles of positive stepmothering roles—all reported that their stepmothers did not attempt to replace their mothers (Crohn, 2006). Furthermore, cultural images and stereotypes of the wicked stepmother affect stepmothers’ parenting practices. For instance, stepmothers have described actively avoiding disciplining stepchildren out of fear of reinforcing the “wicked stepmother” label (Weaver and Coleman, 2005). In fact, fear of associating themselves with negative stepmother stereotypes has even prevented stepmothers from seeking social support about their stepparenting frustrations (Craig and Johnson, 2010). For stepmothers and stepfathers alike, entering the family when stepchildren are young tends to result in less parenting friction than entering the family when stepchildren are adolescents (Ganong et al., 2011). Despite the potential for stepparents to experience parenting challenges, stepchildren have described appreciating stepparents’ efforts to develop relationships and valuing stepparents’ contributions to the family (Ganong et al., 1999). Clearly, divorced parents, remarried parents, and stepparents each face unique challenges to parenting. Divorced parents experience issues surrounding adjusting to custodial arrangements, establishing functional coparenting relationships, maintaining appropriate parent-child boundaries, and renegotiating personal identities. Remarried parents often face issues pertaining to gatekeeping behaviors and loyalty binds, and stepparents may face challenges in developing relationships with stepchildren or understanding their roles in the stepfamily. Researchers have sought to explain some of these findings with various theories about divorced and remarried parenting with a number of theoretical perspectives.

Theories About Divorced and Remarried Parents, Stepparents, and Step(Parenting) Theories about divorced and remarried parents are essentially attempts to understand or predict how parent-child relationships and interactions are affected by marital transitions. They are, at some level, theories about continuity and maintenance of relationships. Theories about stepparenting, in contrast, are about developing relationships. Stepparents and stepchildren are usually individuals of different generations and age cohorts who are brought together because each is connected to one specific person, the stepparent’s romantic partner and the stepchild’s parent. How these step-relationships develop is the issue at the core of theories about stepparents and stepparenting. In this section, we summarize the theories that have been used to study divorced and remarried parents, stepparents, and (step)parenting, which fall broadly into three categories: stress-related theories, coparenting theories, and selection models. Although parenting and stepparenting are experienced in different contexts and are distinctly different role sets, researchers have generally used similar theories to frame their studies. Because children are more likely to be living with mothers than fathers after divorce, and with mothers and stepfathers more often than fathers and stepmothers after remarriage (Stykes and Guzzo, 2015), much of the theorizing has been about residential divorced mothers and residential stepfathers after remarriage (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Consequently, nonresidential parents after divorce, nonresidential and residential stepmothers, and remarried mothers and fathers have been relatively neglected by researchers. By far the largest body of research has been on children’s well-being after parental divorce or remarriage, and it is this scholarly work that serves as the context within which theories about postdivorce parents and stepparents have been proposed (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). 320

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

Researchers generally have used a narrow array of theories to study divorced and remarried parents, stepparents, and (step)parenting. Although a few scholars have used attachment, identity, bioecological, evolutionary, and other theoretical perspectives, most have focused on family system theories (Kerig, 2019), often not to generate specific hypotheses, but to frame studies or to interpret results (Demo and Buehler, 2013). For instance, stress-related theories have been widely used.

Stress-Related Theories The processes of divorce and remarriage are stressful for family members, involving multiple changes (e.g., relocations, losses of friends, changes in resources, alterations in family roles and relationships), interpersonal conflicts, and transformations in personal and familial identities—so it is not surprising that most studies about divorced and remarried parents, stepparents, and (step)parenting are based on stress-related theories. Divorce is a process that extends often over months or years and may begin even before parents physically separate (Emery, 2012). There are multiple stressors associated with divorce and parental remarriages as family structure transitions. Parents and children who have experienced parental remarriage usually have been exposed to earlier structural transitions (e.g., divorce, bereavement). Increasingly, they have likely undergone multiple family transitions prior to remarriage, such as re-divorces or separations of cohabiting unions (Kennedy and Fitch, 2012). Because structural transitions are stressful, researchers have theorized about the negative effects of divorce and remarriage on parents, parent-child bonds, and parenting behaviors as consequences of this stress. In stepfamilies, multiple transitions increase family and relational complexity, which affects stepparents, parents, and stepchildren.

Change and Instability The simplest theoretical perspective is that relational and structural changes due to divorce and remarriage increase stress, which negatively affects parents, parenting, parent-child relationships, and children’s development (Cavanagh and Huston, 2006; Delongis and Preece, 2002; Sweeney, 2007). A variant of this perspective, the cumulative effects hypothesis, proposes that multiple transitions accumulate additional stressors, which, in turn, has greater negative impacts on parents and their children (Dunn et al., 1998; Osborne and McLanahan, 2007). Support for both change and instability and cumulative effects hypotheses has been found, which has led to specific speculations about how transitional stressors affect children and their parents—a common view is the diminished parenting hypothesis.

Diminished Parenting Hypothesis Some scholars have proposed that poor parental adjustment to separation and divorce stressors and the additional demands on divorced parents reduce parenting capacity. Three reasons for diminished parenting are given: (1) reduces parental monitoring of children, (2) lowers their involvement in childrearing, and (3) decreases the effectiveness of parenting behaviors (Amato, 2000; Sandler, Miles, Cookston, and Braver, 2008). In terms of reduced parental monitoring, work demands and living apart from children are the primary time drains for parents, although some parents also engage in dating and other social activities that draw them away from childrearing duties (Kalmijn, 2015). The economic burdens of separation and divorce mean that parents often must work additional hours or take extra jobs to meet financial obligations, so they have less time to monitor their children (Manning and Brown, 2006; Pong, 1997). Although remarriage often adds another income-producing adult to the family, there are additional resource demands after remarriage (e.g., stepparents with child support obligations). Both 321

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

adults in stepfamilies also are more likely to be employed outside of the home than in first marriage families, so parental work demands are hypothesized to affect monitoring of children after remarriage (Manning and Brown, 2006). Nurturing the newly formed spousal bond also demands time and attention that may also reduce monitoring of children from prior unions. It is not clear, however, if remarried parental monitoring differs from that of first-marriage parents’ monitoring (Bulcroft, Carmody, and Bulcroft, 1998; Fisher, Leve, O’Leary, and Leve, 2003). In terms of parental engagement, although it is possible for children to spend more time after separation with a parent than before, work and relational demands on divorced parents have been hypothesized to reduce parents’ time and involvement with children and, subsequently, to lower p­ arent-child relationship quality and children’s well-being (Amato and Sobolewski, 2004). Most of this research has focused on nonresidential fathers (Goldberg, Tan, Davis, and Easterbrooks, 2013; Troilo and Coleman, 2013). Findings are not uniform, but when divorced nonresidential fathers actively engage with children there are increased positive outcomes and less negative internalizing and externalizing behaviors for children (Amato and Gilbreth, 1999; Amato, Kane, and James, 2011; Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, and Bremberg, 2008). There also is evidence that how fathers are engaged matters more than time spent together; authoritative fathering is better for children than authoritarian parenting (Amato and Gilbreth, 1999: Coley and Medeiros, 2007; Troilo and Coleman, 2013). Parental engagement may change after remarriage. Engagement is important, because children who maintain close emotional ties with remarried parents have better developmental outcomes than children whose bonds are less close (Carlson, 2006; Kim, Hetherington, and Reiss, 1999; Planitz, Feeney, and Peterson, 2009; Schenck et al., 2009; Thomson, Hanson, and McLanahan, 1994). Close ties with mothers appear to mitigate poor stepfamily adjustment for adolescents—it is easier for mothers and their children to communicate and assist each other to cope with stepfamily living when they are emotionally connected. Nonresidential fathers interact with children less often following the remarriage of either parent (Amato, Meyers, and Emery, 2009; Baxter, 2012; Juby, Billette, Laplante, and LeBourdais, 2007; Tach, Mincy, and Edin, 2010), although mothers’ new romantic partnerships may reduce father involvement more than fathers’ own new partnerships (Tach et al., 2010). This disengagement is related to the number of children fathers have in subsequent unions and to the number of stepchildren in their households (Manning and Smock, 2000; Manning, Stewart, and Smock, 2003). Fathers appear to trade or swap children when they become stepfathers—they spend time and resources on children they live with (either biological children or stepchildren), rather than on children from prior unions living elsewhere. This has been labeled the “package deal hypothesis” (Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1991). The “new responsibilities hypothesis” suggests that how nonresidential fathers feel about maintaining their parental roles may change after they remarry or repartner (McGene and King, 2012). When a father acquires a new partner, relationships with his children may still be enjoyable and involvement in important activities continued, but the combination of old responsibilities with new responsibilities from the remarriage may create stress for fathers. According to this hypothesis, added constraints on time and resources reduce nonresidential fathers’ engagement with their children. Although father involvement with children has not been found in every study (e.g., McKenry, McKelvey, Leigh, and Wark, 1996; Seltzer and Bianchi, 1988; Veum, 1993), Guzzo (2009) found that lowincome fathers’ contact with children decreased when they entered new romantic partnerships and increased after those partnerships ended, which provides evidence for the hypothesis. The processes by which fathers maintain nonresidential parent-child relationships remain largely unclear. There are few norms for relationships between nonresidential parents and children (Greif and Kristall, 1993), and this ambiguity may be one reason why nonresidential father involvement varies greatly and contact is erratic (Amato et al., 2009). Furthermore, although we know that contact between nonresidential fathers and children is affected by fathers’ coparenting relationships with mothers, repartnering of either parent, children’s ages, physical distance, and work demands (Berger, 322

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

Carlso, Bzostek, and Osborne, 2008; King, 2009; King, Amato, and Lindstrom, 2015; Klaus, Nauck, and Steinbach, 2012; Schwartz and Finley, 2006; Yuan and Hamilton, 2006), research and theory about how nonresidential fathers maintain relationships with children after remarriage or repartnering of one or both parents is limited. There is evidence that, “package deals” and “child swapping” aside, in some stepfamilies, a new stepfather does not reduce nonresidential father involvement (Dunn, Cheng, O’Connor, and Bridges, 2004; King, 2009), especially if nonresidential fathers and children have developed routines of contact with each other ( Juby et al., 2007). There have been few studies of nonresidential mothers’ engagement with children. However, nonresidential mothers maintain contact with their children more frequently and more regularly than nonresidential fathers (Gunnoe and Hetherington, 2004; Stewart, 1999). Maternal engagement is important—adolescents’ adjustments were more strongly associated with perceived social support from nonresidential mothers than nonresidential fathers (Gunnoe and Hetherington, 2004). In terms of stepparent involvement, as newcomers to the stepfamily, stepparents’ tasks have been perceived to be quite different from those of parents. Stepchildren almost never are as close to their stepparents as they are to their parents (Heard, Gorman, and Kapinus, 2008; Schnettler and Steinbach, 2011), especially at first. As relative strangers to stepchildren when relationships begin, researchers have proposed that stepparents should focus on bonding and relationship-building with stepchildren (Ganong et al., 1999). In general, researchers have found that stepparents spend less time with and are less involved with stepchildren than are parents (e.g., Hofferth and Anderson, 2003). The main theoretical explanations for this finding come from economic models and evolutionary psychology. The social capital model states that stepparents invest their time and energy on the repartnered couple’s shared relationship or on children from prior unions rather than on their stepchildren (e.g., Gorman and Braverman, 2008). From evolutionary scholars, the parental investment/parental discrimination proposition states that stepparents invest little in stepchildren because they are not genetically related, discriminating in favor of their genetic offspring, has received some research support (Case, Lin, and McLanahan, 2001; Schnettler and Steinbach, 2011). Evolutionary theory and parental discrimination also have been employed to explain stepchild abuse. Children in households with non-related adults, particularly stepfathers, mothers’ boyfriends, and other men, have been found to be at greater risk for sexual abuse (Margolin, 1992) and physical abuse (Daly and Wilson, 1996) than children living with parents only. Other potential explanations for why stepparent involvement in childrearing has been more limited than residential parents’ involvement include the following: (1) stepfathers may find it hard to break into tightly knit mother-child systems because both mothers and children work to keep them at a distance (Bray and Kelly, 1998), (2) some mothers want romantic partners but not coparents and may discourage childrearing involvement by stepfathers (Ganong et al., 2012; Weaver and Coleman, 2010), and (3) nonresidential parents may discourage active involvement by stepparents, out of jealousy and fear that they might be supplanted by the stepparent in their children’s lives. Stepchildren’s reactions to stepparents’ efforts to engage also have been found to be relevant for stepparent involvement; stepchildren reject stepparents who engage in discipline and control early in the relationship (Bray and Kelly, 1998; Ganong et al., 1999). Not all researchers, however, have found reduced investment in stepchildren by stepfathers (Bulcroft et al., 1998). There is growing evidence that fathers, mothers, and stepfathers are figuring out how to allow parents and stepparents to participate in the lives of children (Ganong et al., 2015) in ways that benefit everyone (Carlson, 2006; King, 2006; 2009; Schenck et al., 2009; White and Gilbreth, 2001; Yuan and Hamilton, 2006). For instance, stepparents who intentionally engaged in affinityseeking behaviors, who try to develop positive relationships by engaging in friendship-developing actions, and who maintained those behaviors over time have warmer, closer bonds with stepchildren than do other stepparents (Ganong et al., 1999). A key to the success of affinity-seeking efforts may be 323

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

stepchildren recognizing and reciprocating stepparents’ affinity-seeking efforts (Ganong et al., 1999; Ganong et al., 2011; O’Connor, Hetherington, and Clingempeel, 1997). Another key to affinityseeking success is that parents allow that process to develop without their interference (Ganong et al., 2011). Children seem to be able to compartmentalize relationships with nonresidential fathers and stepfathers. In fact, the added adult hypothesis—that stepchildren benefit when stepparents are engaged with stepchildren in positive ways—also has received some support from researchers (e.g., Bulcroft et al., 1998; Sweeney, 2007). When stepfathers demonstrate to stepchildren that they matter to them, internalizing and externalizing behavior problems are reduced (Schnettler and Steinbach, 2011); when stepparents spend more time with stepchildren, step-relationships are closer and children benefit emotionally (Schenck et al., 2009; Schrodt, Soliz, and Braithwaite, 2008). Marsiglio (1992) found that residential fathers who are also stepfathers display more father-like role identities toward stepchildren than do men who are stepfathers only. Living with their biological children appears to help fathers be better stepfathers to their stepchildren than they would be otherwise (Marsiglio, 1992; Palisi, Orleans, Caddell, and Korn, 1991). Stepfathers who are also biological fathers may be drawn closer to their stepchildren and may have fewer negative attitudes toward them because of the strategies they adopt in striving to treat both sets of children equitably. The presence of their own children in the household may force men to employ more parenting behaviors than if they had merely been absorbed into a preexisting family. It is also possible that fathers who have joint or sole physical custody of their children are more committed to the parental role. Men who seek joint custody may be psychologically predisposed toward a positive perception of fatherhood (Palisi et al., 1991). There also is evidence that fathers and stepfathers can work together and even serve as allies in coparenting (Marsiglio, 1992). For example, Crosbie-Burnett (1989) found little competition between fathers and stepfathers in complex stepfamilies, and she speculated that men who actively participate in rearing their own children as well as stepchildren work at co-fathering better than stepfathers who do not have children of their own. King (2007) proposed four hypotheses to explain differential patterns of children’s closeness to mothers and stepmothers—(1) the primacy of biology hypothesis is that children are closer to mothers because of shared genetic bonds, (2) the primacy of residence hypothesis is that affective bonds will be greater for children and adults who share a residence (more opportunities for bonding experiences), (3) the accumulation hypothesis is that children will be close to both mothers and stepmothers if the adults are nurturing and positively connected to the children, and (4) the irrelevance hypothesis is that as children get older, they developmentally pull away from both women and are close to neither. For stepfathers and fathers, King (2006) added a fifth possibility, the substitution hypothesis, in which residential stepfathers emotionally and functionally replace nonresidential fathers. King (2007) speculated about factors that may influence closeness to parents and stepparents (e.g., marital quality, father involvement, age when step-relationship began). She found evidence for both the primacy of residence hypothesis (children were closer to residential stepmothers than to nonresidential mothers) and for the biology hypothesis (close ties to nonresidential mothers were related to fewer internalizing problems for adolescents, close ties to residential stepmothers were not related to the number of adolescents’ problems). In this stepfamily study, children were closer to residential fathers than to mothers or stepmothers (King, 2007). Stepchildren may sometimes be actively resistant to stepparent engagement (Klaus et al., 2012). Step-relationships are characterized by more disagreements than are parent-child relationships, particularly when stepchildren are adolescents (Barber and Lyons, 1994). Even when positive stepparentstepchild relationships are established when children are preadolescents, conflicts may arise when children get older (Hetherington, 1993). Stepchildren’s reactions are key to predicting the amount of stepparent involvement in childrearing—stepchildren may accept a stepparent as a parental figure,

324

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

see the stepparent as a friend, or they may rebel against stepparents, creating distance and conflicts (see Ganong and Coleman, 2017, for a review).

Parental Effectiveness Stressed parents are ineffective parents. Marital transitions are hypothesized to increase parental stress and reduce parental effectiveness. For instance, the Disneyland dad hypothesis proposes that nonresidential fathers, concerned about losing the affection of their children (Emery, 2012), restrict their parenting to having good times with children when they are together. Mothers have been hypothesized to make children their emotional confidantes and best friends to cope with transitional stressors (Emery, 2012). It is likely that fathers engage in these behaviors as well if they have full custody of their children. Caring for children alone leaves little time for finding an adult confidante. Sharing inappropriate disclosures with children (parental inappropriate disclosures; Koerner, Rankin, Kenyon, and Korn, 2004) is one type of ineffective parenting in response to stress. Research on PID is based on privacy management theory (Petronio, 2010) and family systems theory. Parentchild communication helps children understand family events and processes; reduces children’s fears and uncertainty (Afifi and Schrodt, 2003; McManus and Nussbaum, 2011); redefines and reestablishes family roles, expectations, and boundaries (Golish, 2003); and facilitates positive family relationships (Afifi, 2003; Golish, 2003). Parental communications, however, also may add to children’s distress if disclosures are developmentally inappropriate or hurtful to children and to family relationships (Afifi, et al., 2007). Divorced coparents engage in PID to prevent their children from being emotionally close to the other parent (Afifi, 2003) and to defend themselves against the other parent’s disclosures (Koerner et al., 2000). Moreover, divorced mothers share their concerns with their children to seek comfort and emotional support (Afifi, Schrodt, and McManus, 2009) and are likely to engage in PID when feeling a lack of control (Afifi, Schrodt, et al., 2009). Although PID is more intentional in high-conflict situations (Afifi, Schrodt, et al., 2009), parents are not always aware of what is appropriate or inappropriate to disclose to children (Anderson et al., 2004; Cohen, Leichtentritt, and Volpin, 2014).

Family Complexity and the Incomplete Institutionalization Hypothesis In a paper on remarriage as an incomplete institution, Cherlin (1978) argued that stepfamilies created after divorce were stressful environments because stepfamily members lacked cultural norms to guide their behaviors. In the absence of guidelines for how to stepparent, or how to coparent after divorce, distressed stepparents and parents struggled to define roles and relationships, which create stress for children as well. Pointing to a lacuna of customs, language, and laws to assist remarried parents and stepparents, Cherlin (1978) made a convincing case that the complexity of postdivorce stepfamilies led to higher rates of remarital dissolution. The incomplete institutionalization hypothesis has received some research support (e.g., Barrett and Turner, 2005).

Resilience Processes Albeit stressful, divorce potentially has positive effects on parents’ well-being, if parents leave mentally and physically abusive relationships, reduce daily stress and conflicts, and gain autonomy that allows them to be more comfortable with themselves and their lives (Coleman, Ganong, and Russell, 2013). Remarriage is usually seen by parents as a positive source of stress, although children often do not agree with this perspective (Coleman et al., 2013). Resilience views have not been prevalent in the

325

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

study of postdivorce and remarried parenting (Ganong and Coleman, 2017), but this perspective proposes that parents who experience benefits from leaving their marriages will be more effective parents and will create more satisfying bonds with children.

Coparenting In addition to stress-related models of divorced and remarried parenting and stepparenting, researchers also have hypothesized about coparental functioning after divorce and the effects of coparental relationships on children’s adjustment (Ahrons, 2006; Amato et al., 2011). Although parents may assume that coparenting after separation will resemble responsibilities and interactions that occurred during the marriage, gradually parents are confronted with new realities (Ganong et al., 2015). A major task for divorced parents is to negotiate new ways of interacting as nonromantic coparents while concurrently dissolving their marital partnerships, often under duress (Coleman, Ganong, and Mitchell, 2018; Sandler et al., 2008). Most theory and research on postdivorce coparenting have focused on cooperation and conflict between parents. Coparental relationships for remarried parents include research on the biological parents’ ongoing relationships as coparents of their children and their coparenting with new partners, the stepparents of their children. These two coparental relationships (note, there may be more than two if parents have reproduced with multiple partners) often exist concurrently, adding complexity to parents’ lives and more relationships to manage. Children are affected by all coparental dyads, of course. As with the research on postdivorce coparenting, cooperation and conflict have been the emphases on remarital coparenting.

Coparental Cooperation Theories suggest that parents who either cooperate or coparent in a business-like fashion are more likely to see better outcomes for children than divorced coparents who are disengaged or hostile (Ahrons, 2006; Emery, 2012). There is some support for this hypothesis (Ahrons, 2006), but not all researchers agree; Amato et al (2011) reported little evidence that cooperative coparenting buffered children from the negative effects of divorce on well-being or academic achievement, and another study found that parallel parenting, in which both divorced parents were actively engaged with their children but not with each other, was as effective as cooperative coparenting (Beckmeyer, Coleman, and Ganong, 2014). Study design differences may account for some of the discrepancy, and more research is needed on the effects of postdivorce coparenting cooperation on children (and on parents).

Coparenting With Former Spouses/Partners Conflicts between children’s biological parents and conflicts between bio-parents and stepparents negatively affect behavioral and psychological outcomes for stepchildren (Feinberg, Kan, and Hetherington, 2007), and coparental conflicts affect children more in stepfamilies than in nuclear families (e.g., Hanson, McLanahan, and Thomson, 1996). This may be because coparental conflicts in stepfamilies are prone to include children (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Bryant, 2006; Weaver and Coleman, 2010). Loyalty conflicts, which are disputes involving coparents and a child or a parent-stepparentchild triad, have been found to affect stepchildren’s sense of well-being (Baxter et al., 2006). These conflicts place stepchildren “in the middle” of emotionally tinged struggles between adults, which is not only stressful, but also harmful to stepchildren’s emotional and psychological development (DeLongis and Preece, 2002).

326

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

Coparenting With Remarried Spouses Most research on coparenting between parents and stepparents has sampled mother-stepfather pairs. Mothers are generally the primary parents, assigning responsibilities and tasks to stepfathers (Ganong et al., 2015; Weaver and Coleman, 2010). When stepfathers assume they will serve as replacements for absent fathers, this may lead to conflicts with both mothers and stepchildren (Coleman et al., 2001). Stepfathers who are uncertain about how to relate to their stepchildren are less satisfied with their stepfamilies (Erera-Weatherly, 1996). Stepfathers’ uncertainty may be a consequence of mothers and stepfathers not clearly communicating about desired childrearing roles—stepfathers may be asked to do some parenting duties (e.g., pay for school lunches, enforce curfews), but defended against when they overstep the mothers’ preferences (Papernow, 2013). Mothers and stepfathers often do not discuss these issues prior to remarriage (Cartwright, 2010).

Coparental Conflicts Coparental conflict increases negative outcomes for children (Emery, 2012; Fabricius and Luecken, 2007). Children in joint-custody arrangements whose parents report high interparental conflict experience more psychological problems than do children in sole-custody arrangements (Lee, 2002). It has been proposed, with some empirical support, that coparental conflicts may mediate the relation between parental divorce and childhood internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, and interpersonal problems (Amato, 2004). Coparental conflicts with remarried spouses may occur when stepparents want more involvement as disciplinarians. Most children want mothers to be the primary disciplinarian and rule-maker in stepfamilies (Moore and Cartwright, 2005), and they want stepfathers to take a secondary role in discipline (Koerner et al., 2004). Coparenting conflicts erupt when stepfathers think mothers are not doing well in parenting or when they perceive that parents are too lenient and expect too little of their children (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Coparenting conflicts also occur when the biological parent thinks the stepparent is too hard on the children or does not understand them (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Ongoing conflicts between remarried mothers and their partners regarding childrearing are a major source of marital conflicts and dissatisfaction with remarriage (Stanley, Markman, and Whitton, 2002).

Gatekeeping Given the challenges of coparenting after marital dissolution, and the theoretical importance of coparenting to children’s well-being after divorce, the concept of gatekeeping has become the focus of a small but growing body of scholarship and theorizing (Schoppe-Sullivan and Altenburger, 2019). Gatekeeping has been defined as the “facilitative and inhibitory functions exercised by one or both parents that determine who will have access to their children and the nature of that access” (Pruett, Williams, Insabella, and Little, 2003, p. 171). Originally, gatekeeping was conceptualized as mothers restricting nonresidential fathers’ access to children, usually because of concerns about paternal competence, child safety, or anger associated with relational issues (Fagan and Barnett, 2003; Herzog, Umaña-Taylor, Madden-Derdich, and Leonard, 2007). Gatekeeping is now seen as a more complex phenomenon, with facilitative actions by either parent, or gate opening (Trinder, 2008), and protective actions (Austin, Pruett, Kirkpatrick, Flens, and Gould, 2013) being added to the initial conceptualization of this phenomenon. Despite the changes in definition, gatekeeping is primarily studied as if it were a process done mainly by mothers against fathers (Ganong, Coleman, and Chapman, 2016; Puhlman and Pasley, 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan and Altenburger, 2019).

327

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

When mothers repartner, they may intensify restrictive gatekeeping with nonresidential fathers because they want their new partners to assume paternal functions. They perceive that it simplifies their lives to have their new families operate as if they were first marriage nuclear families (Ganong et al., 2015). This is facilitated if stepfathers are willing to assume paternal roles with stepchildren (Ganong et al., 2011; Manning and Smock, 2000; Marsiglio, 2004) and if stepchildren accept them as additional parents (Ganong at al., 2011; King, 2006; White and Gilbreth, 2001). This gatekeeping phenomenon is also found in lesbian-headed stepfamilies (Moore, 2008). Maternal gatekeeping begins before remarriage (Anderson and Greene, 2011; Weaver and Coleman, 2010) as mothers regulate the amount of stepparent involvement allowed in childrearing. Although mothers’ restrictive gatekeeping generally lessens over time in stepfamilies, there is no reason to expect that mothers stop doing this completely, and in some cases, mothers’ gatekeeping may persist. In general, stepfathers have less involvement with stepchildren than fathers do in first marriage families (Bray and Berger, 1993; Henderson and Taylor, 1999), which may be partly due to mothers’ gatekeeping. Whether this is harmful to stepfamily functioning may depend on the stepfathers’ expectations for his roles in the family (Bray and Kelly, 1998). Some mothers also engage in facilitative gatekeeping, or gate opening (Ganong et al., 1999; Ganong et al., 2015; Ganong et al., 2016). Mothers who encourage stepfather involvement, however, do so only under their implicit supervision or direction, at least until the stepfamily has been together for years (Ganong et al., 2015).

Selection People with certain personality characteristics or who have mental health issues or behavioral problems (e.g., substance abuse or physical abuse) may be predisposed to divorce (selected into divorce) because they are difficult to live with and not prone to maintaining romantic relationships. Selection models reverse causality compared to other theories; with selection, parents’ preexisting characteristics increase interpersonal stress, which leads to divorce, rather than divorce leading to certain negative parenting outcomes. It is often assumed that the same personality, temperament, or behavioral characteristics that lead to divorce also may affect the quality of parenting or parent-child relationships (Cavanagh and Huston, 2006; Liu and Heiland, 2012). This theory has not been widely applied to postdivorce parenting, however, but rather on children’s outcomes when parents separate, divorce, or remarry. Theories most commonly applied to the study of divorced and remarried parenting, or to explanations of children’s outcomes when parents divorce or remarry, include stress-related theories (e.g., change and instability, diminished parenting hypothesis, family complexity and the institutionalization hypothesis, resilience processes), coparenting theories (e.g., coparental cooperation, coparental conflicts, gatekeeping), and selection models. Looking at the evolution of research on divorced and remarried parenting over time, we turn to a discussion of the general eras that have been key in the development of this body of knowledge.

Classical and Modern Research in Divorced and Remarried Parenting It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify one or even a handful of studies that could be considered classical in the sense that they were methodologically or conceptually groundbreaking, setting the standard for later research and theorizing. Instead, as with many other social and behavioral science content areas, the scholarship on postdivorce parenting and stepparenting developed incrementally. We identified four general eras or phases of development of scholarly research on stepfamilies: (1) the social problem/social address phase, (2) the growing recognition phase, (3) a decade of progress, and (4) the New Millennium (Ganong and Coleman, 2018). This trajectory also applies to 328

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

research on postdivorce families. These overlapping eras are characterized by (1) increasing complexity of research design, analysis, and interpretation, (2) greater understanding of postdivorce and stepfamily dynamics and relationships, and (3) enhanced awareness of relational processes that were still unknown.

The Social Problem/Social Address Phase Researchers’ interest in postdivorce families and stepfamilies began in the United States when divorce rates peaked and postdivorce stepfamilies began to outnumber post-bereavement stepfamilies for the first time. Divorce and, by extension, remarriage and the creation of stepfamilies were perceived to be major social problems that particularly affected children (Amato, 2004; Ganong and Coleman, 1994). Family structures, usually simply defined as nuclear, single-parent, and (remarried) stepfamilies, were seen as social addresses that explained individual and family well-being. In this first phase, researchers seldom measured family processes or used them as explanatory mechanisms. Parenting behaviors after divorce were rarely examined. A common research design was a cross-sectional approach that compared children, and less often adults, from first-marriage families, postdivorce single-parent households, and remarried households, and any differences were attributed to family structure effects. Four studies from this era are relevant. Oddly, they were not methodologically representative of the era—two were qualitative studies (Ahrons, 1981; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980) and the third was a mixed-methods study (Hetherington, 1988). All became longitudinal investigations. The fourth study (Crosbie-Burnett, 1984) was an investigation of triads of stepfathers, mothers, and their residential (step)children. Crosbie-Burnett found that the stepparent-stepchild relationship was more predictive of stepfamily satisfaction than was the marital bond; she argued, in contrast to the prevailing family systems perspective that married couples were the architects of families’ foundations, in stepfamilies, the step-relationships were key. Another study described paradigmatic constraints on stepfamily researchers and research designs (Clingempeel, Flescher, and Brand, 1987). These constraints included both epistemic beliefs and values (norms about how research should be conducted) and nonepistemic beliefs (cultural values and attitudes). Epistemic constraints included a bias for between-group comparisons of family structures; a disciplinary bias in which methods, perspectives, and theories of other disciplines are ignored; and what Clingempeel and colleagues called the rational objectivity bias, beliefs that scientists can and should be objective about the subject matter. Instead, Clingempeel and colleagues (1987) advocated for more within-group designs that examine changes over time and the inclusion of family process variables (e.g., parenting dynamics, family conflict) to explain outcomes. Researchers were encouraged to move outside of disciplinary silos to learn new approaches and designs, new theories, and new ideas in general, and to employ qualitative as well as quantitative research methods. Clingempeel and his colleagues (1987) also argued that non-epistemic beliefs rooted in nuclear family ideology were responsible for many research limitations of the social problem/social address phase. These limitations included (1) minimal attention to the structural complexity and heterogeneity of nonnuclear families, (2) emphasis on problems rather than on potential strengths, and (3) disregard for how postdivorce and stepfamily relationships and dynamics might differ in basic ways from those of first marriage nuclear families. These non-epistemic beliefs reflected the predominant societal views of the 1970s and 1980s that family structure changes represented a decline in the American family (Popenoe, 1994). Another article from this era was Cherlin’s (1978) theoretical piece on how remarriage, and the families formed by remarriage, were incompletely institutionalized. Over the past 40 years, this incomplete institutionalization hypothesis often has been applied to step-relationships, including stepparents. Years later, Cherlin (2004) claimed that other family forms, including marriage, were or were becoming incompletely institutionalized as well. 329

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

The Growing Recognition Phase The second era of the research trajectory on postdivorce families and stepfamilies began in the midto late-1980s and ended in the mid-1990s. In this phase, a growing recognition of the complexity of family structures led researchers to larger, more representative data sets and more sophisticated study designs (Ganong and Coleman, 1994). More effort was made to account for differences across family types either by controlling for variables such as income or by more carefully limiting samples to specific types of family structures to control for extraneous effects. Researchers also began to examine the intersections of family processes like relationship closeness and parental monitoring with family structures. Longitudinal research began to appear, as did within-group designs (Bray and Berger, 1990; Hetherington and Clingempeel, 1992). Classic work in this era was a second longitudinal study by Hetherington of remarried mother-­ stepfather households (Hetherington and Clingempeel, 1992; Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich, and Clingempeel, 1991). Comparison groups of nuclear family households and divorced singlemother households were included, matched on target children’s ages and, for divorced and remarried mothers, years since their divorces. Concurrently, Bray conducted a multi-method, multi-measure longitudinal study of stepfather households and nuclear family households (Bray and Berger, 1992). In both studies, multiple family members provided data; the samples were local and drawn from convenience, and consisted predominately of White and middle-class families. Although the restrictive samples were not representative of all postdivorce stepfamilies, these studies pulled the field away from cross-sectional between-groups comparisons and toward more complex conceptualizations of parents, stepparents, and family dynamics.

The Decade of Progress: The 1990s In this era, researchers from Australia, New Zealand, and Europe, and from diverse fields of study helped reduce the disciplinary bias found in earlier eras (Clingempeel et al., 1987). Cross-cultural comparisons were made for the first time. Scholars from the fields of communication studies (Braithwaite, Baxter), anthropology (Flinn, Martin and Daly), and gerontology (Vinick) joined family scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and social workers who had been the field’s main research contributors. This expansion of disciplines contributed to increasingly diverse research designs, ranging from examinations of large national data sets to small-scale, in-depth qualitative investigations. Several large, national data sets became available during this period, allowing researchers to investigate more variables and to control for inherent differences between family structures in ways that had not previously been possible (Bulcroft et al., 1998; Menaghan, Kowaleski-Jones, and Mott, 1997). Although sometimes hampered by the intrinsic limitations of these large secondary data sets, researchers began giving greater attention to key contextual variables, such as the number and timing of family transitions (O’Connor, Pickering, Dunn, Golding, and the ALSPAC Study Team, 1999). Between-group comparisons to other family forms still predominated, but more researchers explored within-group differences. In this era, researchers also began to make more use of grand and mid-range theories to explain phenomena and to test propositions. Inductive theories emerged from qualitative inquiry, such as Braithwaite and colleagues’ study of stepfamily rituals (Braithwaite, Baxter, and Harper, 1998). In addition, reports from longitudinal studies were published, framed from the perspective of multiple family members with data collected from children, parents, and sometimes teachers or others (Bray and Kelly, 1998; Dunn et al., 1998; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington and Clingempeel, 1992; O’Connor et al., 1997). Reports from a longitudinal study of adolescents whose parents had divorced also were published (Buchanan et al., 1991, 1992). Researchers’ conceptualizations became more complex and more closely connected to the realities of postdivorce families and stepfamilies. A few researchers began to expand their lens beyond the 330

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

household (e.g., nonresidential parents were included in a few studies; Hanson et al., 1996). A study in England took an ecological framework to study stepfamilies (Dunn et al., 1998), and Braver began a longitudinal study of nonresidential fathers (Braver and O’Connell, 1998). In the last decade of the twentieth century, more than 200 studies focused on the effects on children of living with a stepparent. Focusing on the effects on children reflected the importance of the topic as well as continuing societal concerns about the effects of divorce and remarriage on children (Coleman and Ganong, 1995). It also reflected the availability of those large data sets and the increasing ease with which family structure and a variety of child outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, grades) could be measured. Many challenges remained. “Deficit comparisons” continued to predominate, operating on the assumption that nuclear families should be the standard by which all other family forms should be compared. Between-group designs remained common, comparing children living in different family structures (e.g., stepfamilies, first-married families, and single mothers) on a selected outcome variable while statistically controlling for various demographic characteristics. Too often, causal relations were inferred from these correlational, between-group data (see Amato, 2000; Coleman et al., 2000, for reviews). Data were obtained mostly from only one family member, usually a parent or stepparent; the vantage points of children were rarely represented. Stepfamilies of color were seldom included or their numbers in samples were too small to draw conclusions. Mothers in postdivorce families and stepfathers in stepfather households dominated the research. Few researchers focused attention on biological parents, nonresidential parents, or extended kin networks. In addition, factors related to the larger social environments, such as how parents interacted with schools and other institutions, remained largely unexplored. Finally, although theoretical complexity increased in the 1990s, researchers continued to focus on negative findings, and statistically significant but small effects often were treated as if they were large effects generalizable to all (see critiques by Amato, 1994 and Cherlin, 1999).

The New Millennium Phase: Increasing Conceptual and Methodological Sophistication In the New Millennium Era, beginning roughly at the start of the twenty first century until the present, most of the promising trends evidenced during the final decade of the twentieth century continued at an even faster pace. These include more international scholars, greater methodological and theoretical sophistication, and much more emphasis on stepfamily processes, such as parenting. From a problem-focused emphasis that simply linked outcomes to different family structures during the 1980s, to a mix of structural or process studies in the 1990s, quantitative researchers in this latest era are examining the interactions of family structure and family processes, using theoretically informed and analytically sophisticated designs. One ongoing challenge for researchers has been the lack of fit between their study designs and their aspirations to draw causal inferences. This is partly because researchers are unable to control for all variables that may affect the phenomena being examined. For instance, differences in outcomes between family structures may be selection effects that co-occur with family structure (e.g., income, household relocations, changes in household membership). Some selection effects can be controlled via sampling strategies (e.g., sampling only divorced mothers or sampling only stepfather households), but these methods cannot entirely rule out other selection effects. Establishing cause and effect requires ruling out selection effects. Assessing all potentially relevant variables is likely impossible and disentangling potential causes is difficult. In the New Millennium Era, researchers have had access to a variety of sophisticated analytic procedures to examine selection effects, including “fixed effects analytic designs” (Gibson-Davis, 2008; Kowaleski-Jones and Dunifon, 2006) and “differenceswithin-differences approaches” (Meyer and Cancian, 2012). When used in longitudinal designs, these techniques have great potential for exploring critical cause-effect relations. 331

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

Many gaps in research on divorce and remarried parenting have been addressed since the turn of the century. For instance, new work examining biogenetic and genomic effects on children has begun (Ulbricht et al., 2013) as well as investigations of stepchildren’s effects on parents and stepparents (Hawkins, Amato, and King, 2007). In addition, a small body of research on stepfamilies headed by gay and lesbian couples began to grow, such as work on the development of stepparent-stepchild relationships (Moore, 2008; Patterson, 2019). Research on postdivorce and remarried parenting across racial and ethnic groups also began to appear with greater frequency in the New Millennium Era, yielding a clearer picture about parenting processes among people of color. For example, African Americans are more likely to share parenting responsibilities with stepparents than are White parents of European descent, in part because of cultural and historical factors such as beliefs about fictive kinship (e.g., othermothers, social fathers). African Americans more often hold pedi-focal beliefs (emphasizing children’s well-being) rather than patric-focal beliefs (greater concern about adults); the cultural values of fictive kinship and pedi-focal emphasis may facilitate cooperative coparenting among African Americans’ divorced and remarried coparenting subsystems (Sanner, Coleman, and Ganong, in review). Latinos/as, on the other hand, hold strong cultural values about patriarchy and familism, which appears to mitigate against flexible coparenting boundaries that include three or more parents (Skogrand, Barrios-Bell, and Higginbotham, 2009). Research about race, ethnicity, and postdivorce coparenting, however, has only begun to scratch the surface of parenting dynamics. Similarly, with a few exceptions (e.g., Burton and Hardaway, 2012), parents in low-income divorced and remarried families have not often been studied. Socioeconomic status (SES) is frequently included in large-scale studies of secondary data sets, so we know that SES often predicts parenting dynamics and parent-child relationship quality. SES is related to parental financial stress and to a host of relevant contextual variables such as communities, neighborhoods, and schools (Kowaleski-Jones, and Dunifon, 2006; Lee, 2002). Finally, although there has been an increase in international studies about postdivorce and remarried parents (e.g., Cartwright, 2010; Dunn et al., 2005; Juby et al., 2007; Navarro, 2013), cross-cultural comparisons of parents and parenting are rare. The expansion of research on family transitions holds great promise for our understanding of similarities and differences in postdivorce and remarried parenting between cultures. Qualitative studies in the New Millennium Era have focused on illuminating interpersonal processes, leading to grounded theories about key aspects of family dynamics, testable quantitative hypotheses, and more understanding of how social contexts affect families experiencing structural transitions (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Mixed-methods designs have also increased, combining qualitative and quantitative data. The sophistication of analytic models, the availability of large, representative longitudinal data sets from multiple nations, and refinements in qualitative research approaches signal that the study of stepfamilies is experiencing significant growth in quality as well as quantity. However, significant challenges remain. A major demographic trend over the last 25 years, the rise in cohabiting stepfamilies, has required that researchers think more complexly about stepfamily issues. Unlike when divorce surpassed death as the precursor to remarriage, the trend in cohabiting stepfamilies lacks a discernable demographic turning point. Gradually and increasingly, single parents have chosen to cohabit with romantic partners rather than to re/marry. European societies long ago moved from marriage as a predominant social institution toward domestic partnerships (cohabiting unions; Allan, Crow, and Hawker, 2011); North American societies are now following this trend (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). Serial romantic partnerships and multiple partner fertility are creating ever more complex families. As families become more structurally intricate, family research necessarily becomes both more difficult and more complicated. The demographic turning points of relatively high divorce rates and subsequent robust rates of remarriage (and more recently, cohabiting and multiple partner fertility) have contributed to a stable 332

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

of scholars who have long-running programs of research on postdivorce families and stepfamilies, not limited to parents and stepparents but certainly including them. Among these scholars are Amato and colleagues (Amato; 2001; Amato and Afifi, 2006; Amato and Booth, 1991; Amato and Fowler, 2002; Amato and Keith, 1991; Amato and Sobolewski, 2004), Dunn and colleagues (Dunn et al., 1998; Dunn et al., 2004; Dunn et al., 2005), King (King, 2006; 2007; 2009; King et al., 2015), Emery (2012), Braithwaite (Braithwaite, Toller, Daas, Durham, and Jones, 2008), Ganong and Coleman (Coleman et al., 2001; Ganong et al., 1999; Ganong et al., 2015; Troilo and Coleman, 2013), and Cartwright (Cartwright, 2005, 2006, 2010). In sum, the development of scholarly research on postdivorce families and stepfamilies maps onto four key phases: (1) the social problem/social address phase, (2) the growing recognition phase, (3) a decade of progress, and (4) the New Millennium. Although progress has been made in conducting more methodologically and theoretically sophisticated research on divorced and remarried parenting, many challenges remain. Importantly, developing research questions and designs that capture the realities of postdivorce families and stepfamilies is critical for informing the content of interventions designed to support divorced parents.

Interventions to Support Divorced Parents Here we highlight intervention programs for divorced and remarried parents, drawing particularly attention to divorce mediation efforts and stepfamily education programs. In the United States, state and local legal systems have facilitated the creation of most intervention programs for divorced parents and their children. These legal systems are interested primarily in reducing burdens on judges and courts by promoting cooperative coparenting, which presumably keeps parents from filing motions to modify divorce decrees and parenting plans. Consequently, programs initiated by legal systems have centered on (1) educational programs for divorced parents and (2) divorce mediation. The common goals of educational programs are to facilitate cooperative coparenting and reduce coparental conflicts, teach parents how to keep children out of parental disputes, and help parents learn ways to communicate with their children about divorce-related issues (Wolchik et al., 2002). Unfortunately, most educational programs have not been evaluated carefully, although a few studies have shown promise in maintaining and strengthening children’s relationships with mothers and fathers and reducing children’s adjustment problems (Pruett et al., 2016; Wolchik et al., 2002) and enhancing cooperative coparenting skills (Pruett et al., 2016; Sandler et al., 2008; Sullivan, Ward, and Deutsch, 2010).

Divorce Mediation Efforts Divorce mediation has become an increasingly popular form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which originated out of parents’ dissatisfaction with traditional adversary methods (e.g., attorney negotiations or litigation) for settling custodial or financial disputes. Mediation involves the intervention of a neutral third party into the negotiation process, whose goal it is to help both parties reach a resolution as cooperatively as possible. Divorce mediator and researcher Emery (2012) described, “Legally, the goal of mediation is to negotiate a settlement that forms the basis of a binding, legal agreement. Psychologically and emotionally, the goal is to help partners to preserve their parental relationship even as their marriage is coming apart” (p. 3). Divorce mediators are trained to identify, clarify, and explore the issues, and each party’s underlying interests around those issues, in a way that prepares clients emotionally and practically for the negotiations to come. Rather than attorneys assuming responsibility for negotiating, the parents themselves are primarily responsibility for negotiating, and the mediator’s role is to facilitate the discussion and manage the expression of strong emotions in a way that is productive rather than destructive (Emery, 2012). Research evaluating the 333

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

effectiveness of divorce mediation has been positive. One study that randomly assigned parents to either mediate or litigate their custody disputes found that 12 years later, an average of only 6 hours of mediation caused nonresidential parents to remain significantly more involved in their children’s lives, to be better parents, and to be better coparents (Emery, 2012; Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, and Dillon, 2001). Parents have also reported being more satisfied with their settlements and with the negotiation process itself after using mediation over litigation (Emery, 2012). Professionals increasingly support the use of mediation and its potential to reduce the negative efforts of divorce on parents and children alike.

Interventions for Remarried Parents and Stepparents Clinical scholars have long written about ways in which parents and stepparents can effectively rear children in stepfamilies (Browning and Artelt, 2012; Papernow, 2013; Visher and Visher, 1980; 1996). Most challenges facing parents and stepparents in stepfamilies may be resolved with educational efforts rather than psychotherapy. The Vishers created a U.S. national self-help association, the Stepfamily Association of America (SAA), which stimulated the birth of the British Stepfamily Association and the Japan Stepfamily Association. The SAA dissolved after the death of the Vishers, but the other organizations remain functional. The SAA essentially reinvented itself as the National Stepfamily Resource Center (NRSC). The NRSC maintains a web site with materials for stepfamily members, helping professionals, and researchers (www.stepfamilies.info/). Self-help groups and educational programs for remarried parents and stepparents in the United States have struggled to recruit program participants (Skogrand, Reck, Higginbotham, Adler-Baeder, and Dansie, 2010). This may be due to a lack of awareness of the existence of such programs, reluctance to identify as a member of a step-couple/stepfamily, or unwillingness to see the need. The content of stepfamily education does not seem to vary if programs are billed as pre-remarriage or post-remarriage educational programs (Higginbotham and Skogrand, 2010). Unfortunately, evidence on their effectiveness is limited because rarely have adequate evaluations with randomized control groups and sound measurement tools been conducted. Lucier-Greer and Adler-Baeder (2011) identified 28 programs that had any evaluation, but only four programs had randomized control groups as comparisons and used established measures (DeGarmo and Forgatch, 2007; Gelatt, Adler-Baeder, and Seeley, 2010; Henderson, 2001; Nicholson and Sanders, 1999). Adler-Baeder and Higginbotham have had success delivering the Smart Steps program to low-income, ethnic minority families, but likely because participants and programs were heavily incentivized by the U.S. government. Nonetheless, intervention services (e.g., divorce mediation and stepfamily education programs) designed to help divorced and remarried parents through family transitions can be supportive resources for parents and children alike.

Future Directions of Theory and Research in Divorced and Remarried Parenting Much remains to be explored in the field of divorced and remarried parenting. Considering future directions of theory and research, we identify three key areas ripe for future investigation: (1) qualitative approaches and theory development, (2) research on process and structure, and (3) greater attention to underexamined parents.

Qualitative Approaches and Theory Development The complexity of postdivorce families, particularly stepfamilies and families where there have been multiple transitions due to parental separations and repartnering, creates many challenges for 334

Divorced and Remarried Parenting

quantitative researchers. Large data sets help researchers deal with complexity because more variables can be controlled and included in models as moderators or mediators, but there are limits to using these data sets as well—complexity can be managed only when the data sets contain items that allow the assessment of family structural complexity and diversity. An alternative approach is to collect rich, in-depth data using grounded theory methods, ethnography, phenomenology, and other qualitative research approaches. These inductive data collection methods, which are increasingly found in the postdivorce parenting literature, are well suited to creating theory about relationships and family dynamics (Ganong and Coleman, 2017). These approaches, along with mixed-methods designs, should be fruitful sources of new knowledge and new theories in divorced and remarried parenting.

Research on Process and Structure The best current quantitative scholarship on divorced and remarried parents uses sophisticated conceptual and statistical models that include family structural variables, parenting process variables, measures of relationship quality, stress associated with family dynamics and sociocultural conditions (e.g., economics, ethnicity), mental health measures, community variables, family transitions, and physiological variables (Ganong and Coleman, 2017; Ganong, Coleman, and Russell, 2015). Multiple definitions of family structure are employed, as are multiple reporters/data providers (parents, children, stepparents, others); researchers will be increasingly including nonresidential parents in their studies, as they think “outside of the box.” Greater attention will be given to selection effects in between-group designs, and new analytic methods to test for selection effects will likely become more common.

Greater Attention to Underexamined Parents Researchers have often focused their attention on divorced mothers who live with their children, remarried mothers, and residential stepfathers. Nonresidential divorced fathers have received some attention, but nonresidential mothers and nonresidential stepparents largely have escaped the attention of researchers, as have gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender parents after divorce and remarriage. Ethnic minorities also have been underrepresented in research on divorced and remarried parenting, and that should change. In terms of phenomena to be investigated, how parents, their relationships with children, and their parenting behaviors are affected by family transitions continues to be a rich area for research. In addition, coparenting scholarship has begun to scratch the surface of what needs to be known—the effects of technology on parenting by divorced and remarried parents, coparenting among three or more parents and stepparents, how children manage relationships with more than two parental figures, what happens to stepparent-stepchild relationships after re-divorce. These phenomena have begun to be studied, but much more research is needed to understand how phenomena such as technology, legal issues, multiple parents, and ex-stepparent involvement are associated with family transitions. Indeed, in the New Millennium Era, continuing to devote efforts toward furthering the conceptual and methodological sophistication of our research will aid in achieving a more diverse and comprehensive understanding of divorced and remarried parenting.

Conclusion There are many postdivorce and remarried parents and stepparents. As their numbers have grown, so too has the information, programs to assist, and clinicians to help them. Despite these increases in parents and programs, the argument can still be made that these parents and their families are 335

Lawrence H. Ganong et al.

incompletely institutionalized, and even still somewhat stigmatized. Postdivorce and remarried parents and stepparents still feel often as if they are alone as they experience family structure transitions. Research and theory about postdivorce and remarried parents have become more conceptually and methodologically sophisticated, and, consequently, there is greater understanding of the experiences of these parents and their children than ever before. Greater diversity of research designs, theories, and locations of research (i.e., races, ethnicities, countries, communities) should be encouraging to educators, researchers, practitioners, and parents. Families and the cultural contexts in which they live are not static, however, and multiple family transitions, unmarried parenting, and cohabitation, and changes in legal policies about custody, child support, and parental rights contribute to making postdivorce and remarried parents moving targets for practice and research. Continuing to focus on the problems and challenges to parents in families in transition should be augmented with resilience perspectives that focus on positive outcomes and parental problem-solving and problem avoidance. Although divorced and remarried parents face unique parenting challenges, it is important not to equate these challenges with dysfunction; parent-child and stepparent-stepchild relationships in divorced and remarried families have the potential to be healthy, satisfying, and associated with positive benefits for those who adjust successfully. Indeed, because family transitions are likely to continue to be a common phenomenon, efforts to move toward a new era of research productivity will be important for contributing to the well-being of parents (and their children) who divorce and remarry.

References Afifi, T. D. (2003). ‘Feeling caught’ in stepfamilies: Managing boundary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 729–755. Afifi, T. D., Afifi, W. A., and Coho, A. (2009). Adolescents’ physiological reactions to their parents’ negative disclosures about the other parent in divorced and nondivorced families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50(8), 517–540. Afifi, T. D., McManus, T., Hutchinson, S., and Baker, B. (2007). Inappropriate parental divorce disclosures, the factors that prompt them, and their impact on parents’ and adolescents’ well-being. Communication Monographs, 74, 78–102. doi:10.1080/03637750701196870 Afifi, T. D., and Schrodt, P. (2003). “Feeling caught” as a mediator of adolescents’ and young adults’ avoidance and satisfaction with their parents in divorced and non-divorced households. Communication Monographs, 70, 142–173. Afifi, T. D., Schrodt, P., and McManus, T. (2009). The divorce disclosure model (DDM): Why parents disclose negative information about the divorce to their children and its effects. Uncertainty, Information Management, and Disclosure Decisions: Theories and Applications, 403–425. Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 415. Ahrons, C. R. (1994). The good divorce. New York: HarperCollins. Ahrons, C. R. (2006). Family ties after divorce: Long-term implications for children. Family Process, 46, 53–65. Allan, G., Crow, G., and Hawker, S. (2011). Stepfamilies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Albanesi, S., and Olivetti, C. (2016). Gender roles and medical progress. Journal of Political Economy, 124(3), 650–695. Amato, P. R. (1994). The implications of research findings on children in stepfamilies. In A. Booth and J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 81–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1269–1287. Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355 Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. Amato, P. R., and Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 222–235.

336

Divorced and Remarried Parenting Amato, P. R., and Booth, A. (1991). Consequences of parental divorce and marital unhappiness for adult wellbeing. Social Forces, 69, 895–914. Amato, P. R., and Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703–716. Amato, P. R., and Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 557–573. Amato, P. R., and Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A met-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43–58. Amato, P. R., and Sobolewski, J. M. (2004). The effects of divorce on fathers and children. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of father in child development (pp. 341–367). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Amato, P. R., Kane, J. B., and James, S. (2011). Reconsidering the “good divorce.” Family Relations, 60, 511–524. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00666.x Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., and Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father-child contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58, 41–53. Amato, P. R. (2004). To have and have not: Marriage and divorce in the United States. In M. Coleman and L. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families (pp. 265–281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, E. R., and Greene, S. M. (2011). “My child and I are a package deal”: Balancing adult and child concerns in repartnering after divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 741–750. Anderson, E. R., Greene, S. M., Walker, L., Malerba, C. A., Forgatch, M. S., and DeGarmo, D. S. (2004). Ready to take a chance again: Transitions into dating among divorced parents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 40, 61–75. Arditti, J. A., and Prouty, A. M. (1999). Change, disengagement, and renewal: Relationship dynamics between young adults and their fathers after divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 61–81. Austin, W. G., Pruett, M. K., Kirkpatrick, H. D., Flens, J. R., and Gould, J. W. (2013). Parental gatekeeping and child custody/child access evaluation: Part I: Conceptual framework, research, and application. Family Court Review, 51(3), 485–501. Barber, B. L., and Demo, D. H. (2006). The kids are alright (at least, most of them): Links between divorce and dissolution and child well-being. Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution, 289–311. Barber, B. L., and Lyons, J. M. (1994). Family processes and adolescent adjustment in intact and remarried families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 421–436. Barrett, A. E., and Turner, R. (2005). Family structure and mental health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process, and social stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 156–169. Baum, N., and Shnit, D. (2003). Divorced parents’ conflict management styles: Self-differentiation and narcissism. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39, 37–58. Baxter, J. A. (2012). Fathering across families: How father involvement varies for children when their father has children living elsewhere. Journal of Family Studies, 18, 187–201. Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., and Bryant, L. E. (2006). Types of communication triads perceived by youngadult stepchildren in established stepfamilies. Communication Studies, 57, 381–400. Beckmeyer, J., Coleman, M., and Ganong, L. (2014). Post-divorce coparenting typologies and children’s adjustment. Family Relations, 63, 526–537. doi:10.1111/fare.12086 Beier, L., Hofacker, D., Marchese, E., and Rupp, M. (2010). Family structures and family forms—An overview of major trends and developments working report. European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme. Berger, L. M., Carlson, M. J., Bzostek, S. H., and Osborne, C. (2008). Parenting practices of resident fathers: The role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 625–639. Bonach, K. (2005). Factors contributing to quality coparenting: Implications for family policy. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43, 79–103. Bonach, K., and Sales, E. (2002). Forgiveness as a mediator between post divorce cognitive processes and coparenting quality. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 38(1–2), 17–38. Braithwaite, D., Baxter, L., and Harper, A. (1998). The role of rituals in the management of the dialectical tension of “old” and “new” in blended families. Communication Studies, 49, 101–120. Braithwaite, D., Toller, P. W., Daas, K. L., Durham, W. T., Jones, A. C. (2008). Centered but not caught in the middle: Stepchildren’s perceptions of dialectical contradictions in the communication of co-parents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 33–55. Braver, S. L., and O’Connell, D. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering the myths. The surprising truth about fathers, children and divorce. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam. Bray, J. H., and Berger, S. H. (1992). Stepfamilies. In M. E. Procidano and C. B. Fisher (Eds.), Contemporary families (pp. 57–80). New York: Teachers College Press.

337

Lawrence H. Ganong et al. Bray, J., and Berger, S. (1990). Noncustodial father and paternal grandparent relationships in stepfamilies. Family Relations, 39, 414–419. Bray, J., and Berger, S. (1993). Developmental issues in stepfamilies research project: Family relationships and parent-child interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 76–90. Bray, J., and Kelly, J. (1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage, and parenting in the first decade. New York: Broadway. Browning, S., and Artelt, E. (2012). Stepfamily therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008–1029. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1992). Adolescents and their families after divorce: Three residential arrangements compared. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 261–291. Bulcroft, R., Carmody, D., and Bulcroft, K. (1998). Family structure and patterns of independence giving to adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 404–435. Burton, L. M., and Hardaway, C. R. (2012). Low-income mothers as “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51, 343–359. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01401.x Carlson, M. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137–154. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00239.x Cartwright, C. (2005). Stepfamily living and parent-child relationships: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Family Studies, 11, 267–283. Cartwright, C. (2006). You want to know how it affected me? Young adults’ perceptions of the impact of parental divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44, 125–143. Cartwright, C. (2010). Preparing to repartner and live in a stepfamily: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Family Studies, 16, 237–250. Cartwright, C., and Seymour, F. (2002). Young adults’ perceptions of parents’ responses in stepfamilies: What hurts? What helps? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37(3–4), 123–141. Case, A., Lin, I-F., and McLanahan, S. (2001). Educational attainment of siblings in stepfamilies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 269–289. Cavanagh, S. E., and Huston, A. C. (2006). Family instability and children’s early problem behavior. Social Forces, 85, 551–581. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0120 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). National marriage and divorce rate trends. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634–650. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861. Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family structure, children’s well-being, and social science. Demography, 36, 421–428. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x Clarke-Stewart, A., and Brentano, C. (2006). Divorce. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Clingempeel, W. G., Flescher, M., and Brand, E. (1987). Research on stepfamilies: Paradigmatic constraints and alternative proposals. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention: Assessment and theory. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cohen, O., Leichtentritt, R. D., and Volpin, N. (2014). Divorced mothers’ self-perception of their divorcerelated communication with their children. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 34–43. Coleman, M. Ganong, L., and Russell, L. (2013). Resilience in stepfamilies. In D. Beckvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 85–103). New York: Springer. Coleman, M., and Ganong, L. (1995). Insiders’ and outsiders’ beliefs about stepfamilies: Assessment and implications for practice. In D. Huntley (Ed.), Understanding stepfamilies (pp. 101–112). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association Press. Coleman, M., Fine, M. A., Ganong, L. H., Downs, K. J., and Pauk, N. (2001). When you’re not the Brady Bunch: Identifying perceived conflicts and resolution strategies in stepfamilies. Personal Relationships, 8, 55–73. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., and Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288–1307. Coleman, M., Ganong, L., and Mitchell, S. (2018). Divorce and postdivorce relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 106–116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Coley, R. L., and Medeiros, B. L. (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 Coontz, S. (2005). A history of marriage: From obedience to intimacy, or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking.

338

Divorced and Remarried Parenting Craig, E. A., and Johnson, A. J. (2010). Role strain and online social support for childless stepmothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 868–887. Crohn, H. M. (2006). Five styles of positive stepmothering from the perspective of young adult stepdaughters. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46(1/2), 119–134. Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1984). The centrality of the step relationship: A challenge to family theory and practice. Family Relations, 33, 459–464. Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1989). Impact of custody arrangement and family structure on remarriage. Journal of Divorce, 13, 1–16. Daly, M., and Wilson, M. (1996). Violence against stepchildren. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 77–80. Davies, P. T., and Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387. DeGarmo, D. S., and Forgatch, M. S. (2007). Efficacy of parent training for stepfathers: From playful spectator and polite stranger to effective stepfathering. Parenting: Science and Practice, 7, 331–355. DeLongis, A., and Preece, M. (2002). Emotional and relational consequences of coping in stepfamilies. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 115–138. Demo, D. H., and Buehler, C. (2013). Theoretical approaches to studying divorce. In M. A. Fine and F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories (pp. 263–279). New York: Routledge. Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T. G., and Bridges, L. (2004). Children’s perspectives of their relationships with their nonresident fathers: Influences, outcomes and implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 553–566. Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, KI., O’Connor, T., Golding, J., and the ALSPAC Study Team. (1998). Children’s adjustment and pro-social behaviour in step-single and non-step family settings: Findings from a community study, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 1083–1095. Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., and Cheng, H. (2005). Children’s responses to conflict between their different parents: Mothers, stepfathers, nonresident fathers, and nonresident stepmothers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 223–234. Dupuis, S. B. (2007). Examining remarriage: A look at issues affecting remarried couples and the implications towards therapeutic techniques. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 48, 91–104. Eickmeyer, K. J. (2016). Recently divorced adults with minor resident children. Family Profiles, FP-16-11. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research. www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/ family-profiles/eickmeyer-recently-divorced adults-resident-child-fp-16-11.html Emery, R. E. (2012). Renegotiating family relationships (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, M. C., Sbarra, D. A., and Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 323–332. Erera-Weatherly, P. I. (1996). On becoming a stepparent: Factors associated with the adoption of alternative stepparenting styles. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 25, 155–174. Fabricius, W. V., and Luecken, L. J. (2007). Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 195–205. doi:10.1037/08933200.21.2.195 Fagan, J., and Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020–1043. Fehlberg, B., Smyth, B., Maclean, M., and Roberts, C. (2011). Legislating for shared time parenting after separation: A research review. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 25, 318–337. Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., and Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. Feistman, R., Jamison, T., Coleman, M., and Ganong, L. (2016). Renegotiating nonresidential father-child relationships during emerging adulthood. Family Relations, 65, 673–687. Fisher, P. A., Leve, L. D., O’Leary, C. C., and Leve, C. (2003). Parental monitoring of children’s behavior: Variation across stepmother, stepfather, and two-parent biological families. Family Relations, 52, 45–52. Furstenberg Jr, F. F., and Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of childrearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893–904. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., and Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., and Jamison, T. (2011). Patterns of stepchild-stepparent relationship development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 396–413. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00814.x Ganong, L., and Coleman, M. (1988). Do mutual children cement bonds in stepfamilies? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 687–698. Ganong, L., and Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

339

Lawrence H. Ganong et al. Ganong, L., and Coleman, M. (2017). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Ganong, L., and Coleman, M. (2018). Studying stepfamilies: Four eras of family scholarship. Family Process., 57, 7–24. doi:10.1111/famp.12307 Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and Chapman, A. (2016). Gatekeeping after separation and divorce. In L. Drozd and M. Saini (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., and Russell, L. (2015). Children in diverse families. In M. H. Bornstein and T. Leventhal (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science volume 4: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems (pp. 133–174). New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118963418 Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Feistman, R., Jamison, T., and Markham, M. (2012). Communication technology and post-divorce coparenting. Family Relations, 61, 397–409. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Fine, M., and Martin, P. (1999). Stepparents’ affinity-seeking and affinity-maintaining strategies with stepchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 299–327. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Jamison, T., and Feistman, R. (2015). Divorced mothers’ coparental boundary maintenance after parents re-partner. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 221–231. doi:/10.1037.fam0000064 Gelatt, V. A., Adler-Baeder, F., and Seeley, J. R. (2010). An interactive web-based program for stepfamilies: Development and evaluation of efficacy. Family Relations, 59, 572–586. Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2008). Family structure effects on maternal and paternal parenting in low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 452–465. Goldberg, W. A., Tan, E. T., Davis, C. R., and Easterbrooks, M. A. (2013). What predicts parental involvement by young fathers at psychosocial risk? Fathering, 11, 280. Golish, T. D. (2003). Stepfamily communication strengths: Understanding the ties that bind. Human Communication Research, 29, 41–80. Gorman, B. K., and Braverman, J. (2008). Family structure differences in health care utilization among U.S. children. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1766–1775. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.034 Greif, G. L., and Kristall, J. (1993). Common themes in a group for noncustodial parents. Families in Society, 74, 240–245. Gunnoe, M. L., and Hetherington, E. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of noncustodial mothers and noncustodial fathers: Differences in socioemotional involvement and associations with adolescent adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 555–563. Guzzo, K. (2009). Maternal relationships and nonresidential father visitation of children born outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 632–649. Hanson, T. L., McLanahan, S. S., and Thomson, E. (1996). Double jeopardy; Parental conflict and stepfamily outcomes for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 141–154. Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., and King, V. (2007). Nonresident father involvement and adolescent well-being: Father effects or child effects? American Sociology Review, 72, 990–1010. Heard, H. E., Gorman, B. K., and Kapinus, C. A. (2008). Family structure and self-rated health in adolescence and young adulthood. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 773–797. Henderson, H. J. (2001). Impact of a court-ordered psychoeducational course on stepfamily adaptability and cohesion. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 472. Henderson, S. H., and Taylor, L. C. (1999). Parent-adolescent relationships in nonstep-, simple step-, and complex stepfamilies. In Hetherington, E. M., Henderson, S. H., and Reiss, D., in collaboration with Anderson, E. R., Bridges, M., Chan, R. W., Insabella, G. M., Jodl, K. M., Kim, J. E., Mitchell, A. S., O’Connor, T. G., Skaggs, M. J., and Taylor, L. C. (1999). Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and adolescent adjustment (pp. 79–101). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(4, Serial No. 259). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Herzog, M. J., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Madden-Derdich, D. A., and Leonard, S. A. (2007). Adolescent mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ parental involvement: Satisfaction and desire for involvement. Family Relations, 56, 244–257. Hetherington, E. M. (1988). Parents, children, and siblings six years after divorce. In R. Hinde and J. StevensonHinde (Eds.), Relationships within families. New York: Oxford University. Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39. Hetherington, E. M., and Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2–3, Serial No. 227). Higginbotham, B. J., and Skogrand, L. (2010). Relationship education with both married and unmarried stepcouples: An exploratory study. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 9, 133–148.

340

Divorced and Remarried Parenting Hofferth, S., and Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213–232. Jensen, T. M., and Pace, G. T. (2016). Stepfather involvement and stepfather–child relationship quality: Race and parental marital status as moderators. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42, 659–672. Juby, H., Billette, J-M., Laplante, B., and LeBourdais, C. (2007). Nonresident fathers and children: Parents’ new unions and frequency of contact. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1220–1245. Kalmijn, M. (2015). Relationships between fathers and adult children: The cumulative effects of divorce and repartnering. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 737–759. Kerig, P. K. (2019). Parenting and family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 3–35). New York: Routledge. Kelly, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with child and adolescent adjustment following separation and divorce: Social science application. In K. E. Kuehnle and L. M. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 49–84). New York: Oxford University Press. Kelly, J. B. (1993). Current research on children’s postdivorce adjustment. Family Court Review, 31, 29–49. Kennedy, S., and Fitch, C. A. (2012). Measuring cohabitation and family structure in the United States: Assessing the impact of new data from the current population survey. Demography, 49, 1479–1498. doi:10.1007/ s13524-012-0126-8 Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., and Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70, 1209–1230. King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910–928. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00304.x King, V. (2007). When children have two mothers: Relationships with nonresident mothers, stepmothers, and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1178–1193. King, V. (2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and stepfathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954–968. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00646.x King, V., Amato, P., and Lindstrom, R. (2015). Stepfather-adolescent relationship quality during the first year of transitioning to a stepfamily. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1179–1189. doi:10.1111/jomf.12214 Klaus, D., Nauck, B., and Steinbach, A. (2012). Relationships to stepfathers and biological fathers in adulthood: Complementary, substitutional, or neglected? Advances in Life Course Research, 17, 156–167. doi:10.106/j. alcr.2012.01.006 Koerner, S. S., Jacobs, S. L., and Raymond, M. (2000). When mothers turn to their adolescent daughters: Predicting daughters’ vulnerability to negative adjustment outcomes. Family Relations, 49, 301–309. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00301.x Koerner, S. S., Rankin, L. A., Kenyon, D. B., and Korn, M. (2004). Mothers re-partnering after divorce: Diverging perceptions of mothers and adolescents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(1/2), 25–38. Kowaleski-Jones, L., and Dunifon, R. (2006). Family structure and community context: Evaluating influences on adolescent outcomes. Youth & Society, 38, 110–130. Lee, M. Y. (2002). A model of children’s postdivorce behavioral adjustment in maternal-and dual-residence arrangements. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 672–697. Liu, S. H., and Heiland, F. (2012). Should we get married? The effect of parents’ marriage on out-of-wedlock children. Economic Inquiry, 50, 17–38. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00248.x Livingston, G. (2014, November). Four-in-ten couples are saying “I do,” again. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Lucier-Greer, M., and Adler-Baeder, F. (2011). An examination of gender role attitude change patterns among continuously married, divorced, and remarried individuals. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 52, 225–243. Maccoby, E. E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Postdivorce roles of mothers and fathers in lives of their children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 24–38. MacDonald, W. L., and DeMaris, A. (1996). Parenting stepchildren and biological children: The effects of stepparent’s gender and new biological children. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 5–25. Madden-Derdich, D. A., and Leonard, S. A. (2002). Shared experiences, unique realities: Formerly married mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parenting and custody after divorce. Family Relations, 51, 37–45. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00037.x Manning, W. D., and Brown, S. (2006). Children’s economic well-being in married and cohabiting parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 345–362. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00257.x Manning, W. D., and Smock, P. J. (2000). “Swapping” families: Serial parenting and economic support for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 111–122. Manning, W. D., Stewart, S. D., and Smock, P. J. (2003). The complexity of fathers’ parenting responsibilities and involvement with nonresident children. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 645–667.

341

Lawrence H. Ganong et al. Manning, W. D. (2013). Trends in cohabitation: Over twenty years of change, 1987–2010. (FP-13–12). National Center for Family and Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://ncfmr.bgsu/pdf/family_profiles/file130944.pdf Margolin, L. (1992). Child abuse by mothers’ boyfriends: Why the overrepresentation?. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 541–551. Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home: Parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. Marsiglio, W. (2004). When stepfathers claim stepchildren: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 22–39. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00002.x Matin-Uzzi, M., and Duval-Tsioles, D. (2013). The experience of remarried couples in blended families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 54, 43–57. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.743828 McBroom, L. A. (2011). Understanding postdivorce coparenting families: Integrative literature review. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23, 382–388. McGene, J., and King, V. (2012). Implications of new marriages and children for coparenting in nonresident father families. Journal of Family Issues, 33(12), 1619–1641. McHale, J. P., and Sirotkin,Y. (2019). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 137–167). New York: Routledge. McKenry, P. C., McKelvey, M. W., Leigh, D., and Wark, L. (1996). Nonresidential father involvement: A comparison of divorced, separated, never married, and remarried fathers. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 25, 1–13. McManus, T. G., and Donovan, S. (2012). Communication competence and feeling caught: Explaining perceived ambiguity in divorce-related communication. Communication Quarterly, 60, 255–277. McManus, T. G., and Nussbaum, J. (2011). Ambiguous divorce-related communication, relational closeness, relational satisfaction, and communication satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 500–522. Menaghan, E. G., Kowalski-Jones, L., and Mott, F. L. (1997). The intergenerational costs of parental social stressors: Academic and social difficulties in early adolescence for children of young mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 72–86. Meyer, D. R., and Cancian, M. (2012). “I’m not supporting his kids”: Nonresident fathers’ contributions given mothers’ new fertility. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 132–151. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00880.x Moné, J. G., MacPhee, D., Anderson, S. K., and Banning, J. H. (2011). Family members’ narratives of divorce and interparental conflict: Implications for parental alienation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 642–667. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2011.619940 Moore, S., and Cartwright, C. (2005). Adolescents’ and young adults’ expectations of parental responsibilities in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43(1/2), 109–128. Moore, M. R. (2008). Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in black, lesbian stepfamilies. Sociological Review, 73, 335–356. doi:10.1177/000312240807300208 Navarro, S. N. (2013). Child’s life, step-family and decision-making process—European overview. Beijing Law Review, 4(2), 61–60. doi:10.423/blr.2013.42008 Nicholson, J., and Sanders, M. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 30, 1–23. O’Connor, T. G., Hetherington, E. M., and Clingempeel, W. G. (1997). Systems and bidirectional influences in families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 491–504. O’Connor, T. G., Pickering, K., Dunn, J., Golding, J., and ALSPAC Study Team, U. Bristol. (1999). Frequency and predictors of relationship dissolution in a community sample in England. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 436–449. Osborne, C., and Mclanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065–1083. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x Palisi, B. J., Orleans, M., Caddell, D., and Korn, B. (1991). Adjustment to stepfatherhood: The effects of marital history and relations with children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 14, 89–106. Papernow, P. (2013). Surviving and thriving in stepfamily relationships. New York: Routledge. Patterson, C. J. (2019). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 345–371). New York: Routledge. Perry-Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., and Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload, and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 123–138. Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation?. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 175–196. Planitz, J. M., Feeney, J. A., and Peterson, C. C. (2009). Attachment patterns of young adults in stepfamilies and biological families. Journal of Family Studies, 15, 67–81. doi:10.5172/jfs.327.15.1.67 Pong, S. L. (1997). Family structure, school context, and eighth grade math and reading achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 734–746.

342

Divorced and Remarried Parenting Popenoe, D. (1994). The evolution of marriage and the problem of stepfamilies. In A. Booth and J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 3–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pruett, M. K., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., and Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169. Pruett, M. K., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Pradhan, L., Robins, S., and Pruett, K. D. (2016). Supporting father involvement in the context of separation and divorce. In L. Drozd, M. Saini, and N. Olesen (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations (pp. 85–117). New York: Oxford University Press. Puhlman, D. J., and Pasley, K. (2013). Rethinking maternal gatekeeping. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 176–193. Riggio, H. (2004). Parental divorce and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99–114. Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J. T., and Braver, S. L. (2008). Effects of father and mother parenting on children’s mental health in high- and low-conflict divorces. Family Court Review, 46, 282–296. doi:10.1111/j.17441617.2008.00201.x Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., and Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153–158. Schenck, C. E., Braver, S. L., Wolchik, S. A. Saenz, D., Cookston, J. T., and Fabricius, W. V. (2009). Relations between mattering to step- and non-residential fathers and adolescent mental health. Fathering, 7, 70–90. doi:10.3149/fth.0701.70 Schmeeckle, M. (2007). Gender dynamics in stepfamilies: Adult stepchildren’s views. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 174–189. Schnettler, S., and Steinbach, A. (2011). How do biological and social kinship play out within families in the U.S.? An evolutionary perspective on perceived parental care and closeness in adolescents. Journal of Family Research, 23, 173–195. Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., and Altenburger, L. E. (2019). Parental gatekeeping. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 167–198). New York: Routledge. Schrodt, P., Soliz, J., and Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). A social relations model of everyday talk and relational satisfaction in stepfamilies. Communication Monographs, 75, 190–217. doi:10.1080/03637750802023163 Schwartz, S. J., and Finely, G. E. (2006). Father involvement, nurturant fathering, and young adult psychosocial functioning: Differences among adoptive, adoptive stepfather, and nonadoptive stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 712–731. Seltzer, J. A., and Bianchi, S. M. (1988). Children’s contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 663–677. Skogrand, L., Barrios-Bell, A., and Higginbotham, B. (2009). Stepfamily education for Latino families: Implication for practice. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 8, 113–128. doi:10.1080/15332690902813802 Skogrand, L., Reck, K. H., Higginbotham, B., Adler-Baeder, F., and Dansie, L. (2010). Recruitment and retention for stepfamily education. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 9, 48–65. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., and Whitton, S. M. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Stewart, S. (1999). Disneyland dads, Disneyland moms? How nonresident parents spend time with absent children. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 539–556. Stykes, B., and Guzzo, K. B. (2015). Remarriage and stepfamilies (FP-15–10). National Center for Family and Marriage Research. Retrieved from www.bgsu.edu/ncfrm/resources/data/family-profiles/stykes-guzzoremarriage-stepfamilies-fp-15-10.html Sullivan, M. J., Ward, P. A., and Deutsch, R. M. (2010). Overcoming Barriers Family Camp: A program for highconflict divorced families where a child is resisting contact with a parent. Family Court Review, 48, 116–135. Sweeney, M. M. (2007). Stepfather families and the emotional well-being of adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 33–49. Tach, L., Mincy, R., and Edin, K. (2010). Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among unmarried parents. Demography, 47, 181–204. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0096 Thomas, C. E., Booth-Butterfield, M. (1995). Perceptions of deception, divorce disclosures, and communication satisfaction with parents. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 228–245. doi:10.1080/10570319509374519 Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., and McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221–242. Trinder, L. (2008). Maternal gate closing and gate opening in postdivorce families. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1298–1324. Troilo, J., and Coleman, M. (2013). “I don’t know how much more I can take”: How divorced nonresidential fathers manage barriers and involvement. Fathering, 11, 159–178.

343

Lawrence H. Ganong et al. Ulbricht, J. A., Ganiban, J. M., Button, T. M., Feinberg, M., Reiss, D., and Neiderhiser, J. M. (2013). Marital adjustment as a moderator for genetic and environmental influences on parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 42–52. Veum, J. R. (1993). The relationship between child support and visitation: Evidence from longitudinal data. Social Science Research, 22, 229–244. Visher, E. B., and Visher, J. S. (1980). Stepfamilies: Myths and realities. Secus, NC: Citadel Press. Visher, E. B., and Visher, J. S. (1996). Therapy with stepfamilies. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Vuchinich, S., Hetherington, E. M., Vuchinich, R. A., and Clingempeel, W. G. (1991). Parent-child interaction and gender differences in early adolescents’ adaptation to stepfamilies. Developmental Psychology, 27, 618–626. Wallerstein, J. S., and Kelly, J. B. (1980). Effects of divorce on the visiting father–child relationship. The American Journal of Psychiatry. Weaver, S. E., and Coleman, M. (2005). A mothering but not a mother role: A grounded theory study of the nonresidential stepmother role. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 477–497. Weaver, S. E., and Coleman, M. (2010). Caught in the middle: Mothers in stepfamilies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 305–326. Westberg, H., Nelson, T. S., and Piercy, K. W. (2002). Disclosure of divorce plans to children: What the children have to say. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24, 525–541. doi:10.1023/A:1021271411917 White, L. K., and Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children have two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers and noncustodial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155–167. Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., and Fisher, J. (2002). The children of divorce parenting intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. In A quarter century of community psychology (pp. 409–444). New York: Springer. Yuan, A. S. V., and Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213. doi:10.1177/0192513X06289214

344

10 LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTHOOD Charlotte J. Patterson

Introduction The central heteronormative assumption that everyone is or ought to be heterosexual has influenced research on parents and children for many years (Patterson, 2016). Under this assumption, children and their parents are generally expected to exemplify heterosexuality in their attitudes, values, and behaviors. In this way, lesbian and gay parents and their children become less visible, and may seem not to exist. In contrast to such beliefs, however, many lesbian women and gay men are parents, and many children are being reared in their homes. Increasingly evident in literary works, television shows, movies, media news, legal cases, and policy debates, lesbian and gay parents and their children are more visible today than ever before (Capsuto, 2000; Mennel, 2012; Schoonover and Galt, 2016). In this chapter, I first sketch the historical context in which lesbian and gay parenting has emerged. I then provide an overview of lesbian and gay parenthood today, including information about the prevalence and diversity of lesbian and gay parenting, and about the legal contexts in which lesbian and gay families live, both in the United States and abroad. I then describe the results of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, and discuss some resources for lesbian and gay parents and their children. The chapter concludes with a discussion of directions for research and theory relevant to the needs of lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children.

Historical Context of Lesbian and Gay Parenting The emergence of large numbers of openly self-identified lesbian women and gay men is a historical phenomenon of relatively recent vintage (Bronski, 2011; Faderman, 1991). Although the origins of homophile organizations date to the 1950s and even earlier (D’Emilio, 1983), the origins of contemporary gay liberation movements are often traced to police raids on the Stonewall Inn bar in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City in 1969, and to resistance shown by gay men and lesbian women to these attacks (D’Emilio, 1983). In the years since that time, more and more gay men and lesbian women have abandoned secrecy, declared their identities, and begun to work actively for lesbian and gay rights (Bronski, 2011). With greater openness among lesbian and gay adults, a number of family forms in which one or more of a child’s parents identify as lesbian or gay are becoming more and more visible. Many of these families involve children from previous heterosexual marriages. Others involve children born or adopted after parents have identified themselves as lesbian or gay. In the last 30 years, such families

345

Charlotte J. Patterson

have been the subject of increasing attention in the media and in the popular press (Capsuto, 2000; Mennel, 2012). To the extent that parental influences are seen as critical in psychosocial development, and to the extent that lesbians and/or gay men may provide different kinds of influences than heterosexual parents, then the children of lesbians and gay men should be expected to develop in ways that are different from children of heterosexual parents. Whether any such differences are expected to be beneficial, detrimental, or nonexistent depends, of course, on the viewpoint from which the phenomena are observed. Many people have held negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men, especially those who are parents. Lesbian and gay families with children thus present an unusual opportunity to test basic assumptions about gender and sexual orientation in parenting that many scientists have long taken for granted (Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Patterson and D’Augelli, 2013).

Role of Theory in Research on Lesbian and Gay Parenting In part because of the historical context in which research on lesbian and gay parenting emerged, a considerable amount of research has been guided by questions posed by negative stereotypes rather than by full-blown theories. In other instances, interest has focused more on description than on explanation, more on questions about what is the case rather than on questions about why any particular findings may have emerged. As Farr and her colleagues have pointed out, specific theory testing has been less prominent in this area than in other areas of family research (Farr, Tasker, and Goldberg, 2017). Although specific theoretical formulations may not be prominent in the research on lesbian and gay parents, two general meta-theoretical orientations have prevailed in this area—the assimilationist and the separatist perspectives. From one standpoint, lesbian and gay people are best regarded as being just like other people around them. If sexual orientation is not an important difference among people, then researchers might expect mainstream theories to be more than adequate to guide understanding of lesbian and gay family lives. This might be called an assimilationist view. If, however, lesbian and gay people are seen as fundamentally different from heterosexual people, then different theoretical structures are required to comprehend their experiences. This might be called a separatist view. As the poles of a long-standing discussion, variations of these two views have guided much research and debate of recent years in this area. The assimilationist perspective has guided some research that has challenged heteronormative ideas, and it has had some notable successes. For instance, development among children of lesbian and gay parents has been shown to be similar to that among children of heterosexual parents in many ways (e.g., their trajectory of cognitive growth). Likewise, predictors of positive adjustment among children and adolescents with lesbian and gay parents have proven to be similar to those among the offspring of heterosexual parents (Golombok, 2015; Patterson, 2016). In these and other ways, lesbian and gay people are just like other people, and predictors of their behavior are also similar. Lesbian and gay family lives are, however, in many respects, different from those of others. For instance, in many parts of the world, lesbian and gay parents live without legal recognition of their relationships with one another and with their children, and hence must survive without many of the legal rights and benefits that other couples rely on (Patterson, Riskind, and Tornello, 2014). Even when gay and lesbian people must accomplish the very same tasks as others, there is evidence that they may do so in varied ways. For example, lesbian and gay parenting couples are more likely than heterosexual parents to share the work involved in childcare (Patterson, Sutfin, and Fulcher, 2004). Thus, theories that explain the behavior heterosexual parents may not fit the behavior of lesbian or gay parents nearly as well. One of the conceptual challenges of contemporary research in this area, then, is to know when to think in terms of assimilation, and when it is more effective to think in terms of separatism. When, 346

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

and for what purposes, are lesbian and gay parents just like other parents? When, and for what purposes, should lesbian and gay parenting be seen as fundamentally different from parenting by others? When sexual orientation does not affect parenting, research will reveal additional dimensions of generality for existing theories. When sexual orientation is an important determinant of behavior, however, the field’s theoretical toolboxes may need expansion. Thus, in lesbian and gay parenting, the value of research may, in some cases, be to demonstrate generalizability of existing theoretical insights. In other cases, it may be to reveal the need to enlarge theoretical edifices. Either way, research findings should stimulate a more inclusive understanding of families.

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood How many lesbian and gay families with children are there in the United States today? What are the important sources of diversity among them? And what is the nature of the legal context within which lesbian and gay families are living? In this section, I briefly discuss each of these questions in turn.

Prevalence of Lesbian and Gay Parenthood The exact numbers of lesbian and gay parents in the United States today are not known (Gates, 2013, 2015; Patterson and Friel, 2000). Because the numbers of lesbian and gay adults in the United States today are not counted by federal agencies such as the Census Bureau, their size must be estimated from other available sources of information. Due to fear of discrimination, some nonheterosexual people conceal their sexual orientation. Whether to protect themselves or their children, lesbian and gay parents may be especially likely to conceal information about their sexual orientation. Despite acknowledged difficulties, estimates of the numbers of lesbian and gay families with children in the United States have been offered. One approach to making estimates of this kind is to extrapolate from what is known or believed about base rates in the population. For example, in 2017, there were about 325 million people in the United States, and about 250 million of those were 18 years of age or older (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2018). If one assumes that about 4% of the adult population is lesbian or gay (see Gates, 2017), that would place the numbers of lesbian and gay adults in the United States today at about 10 million. Analyses of data from the General Social Survey suggest that about 37% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults have had a child or children (Gates, 2013). Calculations using these figures suggest that there may be 3–4 million lesbian, gay, or bisexual parents in the United States today. Assuming that about half of these adults are bisexual suggests that anywhere from 1 to 2 million are lesbian or gay parents. If, on average, each lesbian and gay parent has two children, that would mean that in 2017, there were more than 2 million people with lesbian and gay parents in the United States (see Gates, 2013, 2015). The accuracy of such estimates is, of course, only as good as that of the figures on which they are based (Gates, 2013). Estimates that include bisexual as well as lesbian and gay adults are, of course, larger in size, but many bisexual parents have had children with opposite-sex partners. Even after estimates are adjusted so they include only lesbian and gay adults, however, they still involve large numbers of people. In addition, larger proportions of the population are identifying as lesbian or gay every year (Gates, 2017), so the numbers seem likely to grow. Overall, it is clear that sizeable numbers of lesbian and gay parents live in the United States.

Diversity Among Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers, and Their Children There are many sources of diversity among families headed by lesbian and gay parents. Areas of diversity include all the variables that differentiate among other families, such as age, ethnicity, education, 347

Charlotte J. Patterson

and income. They also include some variations that are more clearly linked with sexual minority issues. Some of these latter types of difference among lesbian- and gay-parent families are examined next. One important distinction among lesbian and gay families with children involves the situations of parents at the time of a child’s birth or adoption. Probably the largest group of lesbian and gay parents today are those who had children in the context of heterosexual relationships between biological parents, and who subsequently acknowledged nonheterosexual identities (i.e., “came out”). These include families in which the parents divorced when the husband came out as gay, families in which the parents divorced when the wife came out as lesbian, families in which the parents divorced when both parents came out, and families in which one or both of the parents came out and the parents decided not to divorce. Unmarried lesbian or gay parents may be single, or they may have samesex partners. A lesbian or gay parent’s new same-sex partner may or may not assume stepparenting relationships with the children. In other words, lesbian and gay families with children born in the context of heterosexual relationships are themselves a relatively diverse group (Tasker, 2013). In addition to children born in the context of heterosexual relationships, lesbians and gay men are believed increasingly to be choosing parenthood after having come out (Bos, 2013; Patterson, 2013). Many such children are conceived by means of donor insemination (DI; Golombok, 2015, 2019). Lesbians who wish to bear children may choose a friend, relative, or acquaintance to be the sperm donor, or may choose instead to use sperm from an unknown donor. When sperm donors are known, they may take parental or avuncular roles relative to children conceived via DI, or they may not (Bos, 2013; Patterson, 1994a, 1994b, 2013). Gay men may also become biological parents of children whom they intend to parent, whether with a single woman (who may be lesbian or heterosexual), with a lesbian couple, or with a gay male partner; these plans may or may not involve use of surrogacy arrangements (Berkowitz, 2013). Many adoption agencies are open to working with lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents (Brodzinsky, 2012; Pinderhughes and Brodzinsky, 2019), and options pursued by lesbians and gay men include both adoption and foster care (Farr and Patterson, 2013). Thus, children today are being brought up in a diverse array of lesbian and gay families. Another set of distinctions concerns the extent to which family members are related biologically to one another (Golombok, 2015). Although biological relatedness of family members to one another is less and less common among heterosexual-parent families, as heterosexual stepfamilies proliferate, it is often even more prominent as an issue in lesbian- and gay-parent families than in heterosexual-parent families (Golombok, 2015). When children are born via DI into lesbian families, they are generally linked biologically only to the birthmother, not to her partner. Similarly, when children are born via surrogacy to a gay couple, only the father who served as a sperm donor is likely to have biological links with the child. In adoption and foster care, of course, children will generally have no biological relation to any adoptive or foster parent. Another issue of particular importance for lesbian and gay families concerns custodial arrangements for minor children. As in heterosexual-parent families, children may live with one or both biological parents, or they may spend part of their time in one parent’s household, and part of their time in another parent’s home. Although less common now than in earlier years, some lesbian mothers and gay fathers have lost custody of their children to heterosexual spouses following divorce, and the threat of custody litigation almost certainly looms larger in the lives of most divorced lesbian mothers and gay fathers than it does in the lives of divorced heterosexual parents (Ball, 2012). No authoritative figures are available, but it seems likely that a greater proportion of lesbian and gay than of heterosexual parents has lost custody of children. Probably for this reason, more lesbians and gay men may be noncustodial parents (i.e., do not have legal custody of their children) and nonresidential parents (i.e., do not live in the same household with their children) than might otherwise be expected. Beyond these basic distinctions, many others can also be considered. Identities and behavioral patterns may change over time, making categorizations of sexual minorities difficult (Diamond, 2013). Ambiguities in the definition of sexual and gender identities should also be acknowledged 348

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

(Diamond, 2013; Dworkin, 2013; Parsons and Grov, 2013). Moreover, lesbian and gay parents may be involved in various parenting arrangements (such as a lesbian and a gay couple parenting together) that do not appear among heterosexual parents. Although such variability undoubtedly contributes to differences in the qualities of life, little research has yet been directed to understanding such differences among lesbian and gay families.

Legal and Public Policy Issues The legal and policy environments within which lesbian and gay people conceive and rear children have undergone tremendous change in recent years, both in the United States and in many other nations (Ball, 2012; Patterson et al., 2014). In other parts of the world, however, particularly in most parts of Asia and Africa, the legal climate remains hostile to lesbian or gay people, and particularly to those who are parents (Patterson et al., 2014). Although the legal climate for lesbian and gay parents and their children around the world is undeniably more positive today than in earlier years, dramatic variations from one nation to another, and sometimes from one state or locality to another, still exist. In the United States, an important change occurred with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which introduced marriage equality across the country (Cavanagh and Cauffman, 2019). Married spouses have many legal rights in parenting any child born to their marriage, and Obergefell made these rights available for the first time to married lesbian and gay couples as well as to married heterosexual couples in the United States. As an example, Obergefell made it possible for both married same-sex spouses to be recognized as legal parents of a child born to their marriage, whereas in earlier years, in many cases, only one (i.e., the one who was biologically linked with the child) would have received this recognition. This ruling was underlined by the Supreme Court in Pavan v. Smith (2017), which held that, like married opposite-sex couples, married same-sex couples are entitled to list the names of both spouses on their child’s birth certificate. At the same time, a number of discriminatory legal and policy issues continue to affect lesbian and gay parents and prospective parents in the United States. So-called religious freedom laws in some states allow individuals and agencies to refuse service to people who are perceived to be members of sexual minorities, making it more difficult in some cases for lesbian and gay adults to become foster or adoptive parents (Farr and Goldberg, 2018; Kazyak, Scherer, Woodell, and Finken, 2018). Some provisions of family law may also have differential effects on child custody and visitation when married same-sex versus opposite-sex couples separate or divorce (Kim and Stein, 2018). Even in the most welcoming areas of the United States, lesbian and gay couples with children still need to pursue extraordinary legal protections (e.g., second-parent adoptions, which allow a second parent to adopt a child without the “first parent” losing any parental rights) to ensure their families’ rights will be protected in the event of travel to other jurisdictions (Baumle et al., 2018). Overall, then, the legal environment for lesbian and gay parenting in the United States, though undeniably more favorable than in previous years, still presents some challenges. Outside the United States, the legal and policy picture for lesbian and gay individuals and parents is highly variable. Although homosexuality is legally allowed and same-sex marriages are recognized by law in more than 20 nations—including Canada, Mexico, France, and Spain—homosexuality itself is illegal in a number of others—including Afghanistan, Iran, Jamaica, and Tanzania (Martel, 2018). Where same-sex sexual behavior is criminalized and lesbian/gay people fear for their safety, support for their parenting desires is especially difficult to find. Thus, legal and social environments for lesbian and gay parenting vary enormously around the world and the numbers of openly lesbian and gay parents likewise differ across settings (Patterson et al., 2014). Even so, some research with lesbian and gay parents and their families has begun to emerge not only in the United States and Western Europe, where relatively positive legal environments prevail, but also in countries with less favorable legal climates. 349

Charlotte J. Patterson

Research on Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers Many lesbian and gay people are interested in becoming parents. Results of a poll of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults in the United States showed that 51% are either already parents or would like to have children in the future (Pew Research Center, 2013). Indeed, LGBT people become parents in many ways ( Johnson and O’Connor, 2002; Patterson, 1992, 2000). Some children were born or adopted in the context of heterosexual relationships that later dissolved when one or both parents came out as lesbian or gay. In other families, children were born or adopted after parents had affirmed nonheterosexual identities. Most families of the first type have experienced the challenges that accompany parental separation and divorce. Families of the second type, however, have not necessarily experienced parental separation or divorce. Therefore, the experiences of family members are likely to be quite different. For this reason, data on each are presented ahead in separate sections.

Divorced Lesbian Mothers Many women who had children in the context of heterosexual marriages and later came out as lesbian have faced legal challenges in the U.S. courts (Ball, 2012). Lawyers, judges, and others have sometimes voiced derogatory stereotypes and negative assumptions about lesbian and gay people (Haney-Caron and Heilbrun, 2014). For instance, disputes about child custody and visitation rights have included questions about the mental health and parenting abilities of LGBT parents (Falk, 1989). Negative stereotypes have sometimes been used to justify removal of children from the custody of lesbian and gay parents (Richman, 2009). Much early research compared mental health and parenting ability of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Lesbian mothers were at least as likely as heterosexual mothers to enjoy good mental health and to exhibit good parenting abilities (Goldberg, 2010; Patterson, 1992). Divorced lesbian mothers did, however, report more fears about loss of child custody than did divorced heterosexual mothers (Lyons, 1983; Pagelow, 1980). Although lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ in their overall mental health or parenting abilities, lesbian mothers nevertheless voiced some special concerns. It might be tempting to dismiss these findings as outdated. However, many divorced lesbian mothers remain concerned about their legal rights. Shapiro, Peterson, and Stewart (2009) studied mental health among lesbian and heterosexual mothers living in Canada or in the United States, most of whom were divorced. The international contrast was of interest because, despite many similarities between the two countries, Canada provided a more supportive legal climate for lesbian mothers and their children at that time. For example, adoption and marriage rights were available to all lesbian mothers in Canada, but were not available to lesbian mothers in most parts of the United States. Shapiro and her colleagues (2009) found that lesbian mothers in the United States reported more concern about legal problems and about discrimination based on sexual orientation—but not more general family worries—than did lesbian mothers in Canada. Among heterosexual mothers, whose family relationships enjoyed protection of the law in both countries, there were no differences across national boundaries (Shapiro et al., 2009). Thus, contextual factors may influence mental health among lesbian mothers. Case reports about lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children began to appear in the psychiatric literature in the early 1970s and mid-1970s (Weeks, Derdeyn, and Langman, 1975). Systematic research on these families began with studies of children of divorced lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 1992, 2009). In the context of questions that arose in disputes about child custody arrangements following divorce, a number of studies examined adjustment among divorced lesbian mothers and their children, comparing it with adjustment among divorced heterosexual mothers and their 350

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

children. Against the backdrop of widely held assumptions about the inherent superiority of traditional family structures (Baumrind, 1995; Lamb, 2012), many investigators expected that development among children of lesbian or gay parents would be characterized by difficulties. Using methods common to research on socialization, early studies evaluated this idea, and revealed that concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents were without empirical foundation (see Patterson, 1992, 2016). An important example of this early research was reported by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983), who studied children of divorced lesbian mothers, comparing them to same-age children of divorced heterosexual mothers. Using standardized instruments as well as open-ended interview questions, Golombok and her colleagues (1983) studied children’s gender development, behavior problems (e.g., hyperactivity, conduct problems), emotional difficulties, peer relationships, and social development. Their analyses revealed no significant differences in child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation; children’s adjustment was not associated with parental sexual orientation. Many other investigators also reported that parental sexual orientation was unrelated to child adjustment (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Goldberg, 2010; Patterson, 1992; Stacey and Biblarz, 2001). Lesbian mothers themselves were found to be as likely as heterosexual mothers to be healthy and well adjusted. In studies of adolescents and young adults, as well as of children, behavior problems, social competence, peer relationships, and self-esteem were all found to be unrelated to parental sexual orientation. These conclusions, and the data on which they were based, have been summarized by major professional organizations and have informed many legal and policy debates in Europe and Latin America as well as in the United States (Patterson, 2009; 2016; Patterson et al., 2014).

Divorced Gay Fathers Probably because most divorced gay fathers have not been custodial parents, and because most have lived apart from their children after divorce (Golombok and Tasker, 2010), little research has evaluated their mental health or parenting abilities. Gay fathers who were once married to women describe similar reasons for becoming parents and show parenting abilities that are at least as well developed as those of divorced heterosexual fathers (Golombok and Tasker, 2010; Patterson and Chan, 1998). In this way, findings from research on divorced gay fathers have paralleled, to some degree, those from research on divorced lesbian mothers. Research has also addressed changes over time in gay father identity among those who were once married to women. Early work by Miller (1978, 1979) and Bozett (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1987) was designed to conceptualize the processes through which men who considered themselves heterosexual fathers came to view themselves as gay fathers. Both authors emphasized the pivotal nature of identity disclosure and of others’ reactions to this disclosure. Emerging relationships in the gay community were seen as crucial to men’s integration of their parental and sexual identities. As men came out, fell in love, and disclosed gay relationships to others, while remaining connected to their children, they came to integrate their parental and their sexual identities and to call themselves gay fathers (Golombok and Tasker, 2010). Heterosexual relationships were once the main pathway through which gay men became fathers. As gay men come out earlier and consider other pathways, heterosexual marriages may be less common, but divorced gay men still constitute an important group of nonheterosexual parents. In a webbased study of gay fathers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, more than half of the participants under 50 years of age reported that they had become parents through a previous heterosexual relationship; this was also the case for more than one third of gay fathers under 50 who lived in the United States (Patterson and Tornello, 2010; Tornello and Patterson, 2015). Heterosexual marriage may be a less common pathway to parenthood for gay men today than it once was, but there are still many divorced gay fathers (Golombok and Tasker, 2010). 351

Charlotte J. Patterson

Planned Lesbian- and Gay-Parent Families Coming out as a lesbian woman or, particularly, as a gay man once carried the assumption of permanent childlessness, but this is less and less the case today. Increasingly, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults are choosing to become parents after coming out (Hermann-Green and Gehring, 2007; Johnson and O’Connor, 2002; Rabun and Oswald, 2009). This trend has created new types of families that may be called planned lesbian- and gay-parent families. As lesbian and gay people increasingly become parents after coming out, questions about the desire for children, pathways to parenthood, the transition to parenthood, and related issues become increasingly important (Patterson, 2013; Patterson and Riskind, 2010).

Parenting Intentions and Desires To choose to become parents, both lesbians and gay men must overcome popular assumptions that parenting is an exclusively heterosexual prerogative (Berkowitz and Marsiglio, 2007; Gianino, 2008). Results of research suggest that they are doing so with increasing frequency. As a result, some lesbians and gay men around the world are expressing their desire to become parents. Using data from the 2002 U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, Gates and his colleagues (2007) reported that 41% of childless lesbians and 52% of childless gay men expressed a desire to have children. These numbers were somewhat lower than those for heterosexual adults, but they are higher than many had expected. In further analyses of this data set, gay men who reported their desire to become parents were less likely than their heterosexual peers to express an intention to become parents (Riskind and Patterson, 2010). In other words, there was a bigger gap between desire and intention for gay than for heterosexual men. This was not true for women; lesbian women who desired parenthood were just as likely as other women to intend to become parents (Riskind and Patterson, 2010). Similarly, many Israeli gay men express the desire to become parents but report that they did not expect this to happen; these men reported more depressive symptoms than did men who expected to fulfill their dreams of parenthood (Shenkman, 2012). These patterns have also been replicated with samples of Italian lesbian women and gay men (Baiocco and Laghi, 2013), Chinese lesbian women (Lo, Chan, and Chan, 2016), and Portuguese lesbian women and gay men (Costa and Bidell, 2017). Overall, it is clear that many nonheterosexual people wish to become parents. Some may be uncertain about how or if they could actually achieve this aim. Those who do not believe that they can fulfill parenting desires may be at risk for internalizing problems such as depression.

Barriers to and Supports for Parenthood Outside of Heterosexual Relationships Having made a decision to pursue parenthood, a number of issues are likely to emerge for same-sex couples and LGBT individuals (Goldberg, 2010; Patterson, 1994b, 2000). Some of these issues are social in nature. For example, even in cases when they had accepted their loved one’s nonheterosexual identity, family members may disapprove of parenthood outside of heterosexual marriage (Goldberg, 2010). Moreover, it may be difficult for LGBT individuals to find accurate information about routes to parenthood. Lesbian and gay adults’ experiences as they consider parenthood are influenced by many factors (Riskind, Patterson, and Nosek, 2013). Many adoption agencies across the United States work with lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents (Brodzinsky, 2012), but it may be difficult for some individuals to locate or visit these agencies. Many reproductive health services are available to lesbian and gay adults, but some healthcare workers may refuse to provide services on the basis of client sexual orientation or marital status (Gurmankin, Caplan, and Braverman, 2005). Thus, identifying

352

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

agencies and clinics that are open to all may be a challenge. Even after locating appropriate services, the financial costs associated with adoption or reproductive health services may be important barriers (Brodzinsky and Pertman, 2012). These and related issues are likely to emerge for lesbian and gay individuals as they begin to pursue parenthood (Patterson, 1994b). Many lesbian and gay adults in the United States feel confident about overcoming such barriers, but some do not (Riskind et al., 2013). Barriers to the pursuit of parenthood have been found to loom particularly large for lesbian and gay adults who are older, who believe that children with lesbian and gay parents are more likely to experience psychological difficulties as a result of parental sexual orientation, and who live in social climates that are unfavorable to them (Riskind et al., 2013). Little is yet known about attitudes or beliefs of lesbian and gay adults outside the United States in this regard.

Pathways to Parenthood Lesbian women and gay men can become parents through a variety of pathways (Goldberg, 2010; Patterson, 2013). Most of those who become parents in the context of heterosexual marriages before coming out conceive children via heterosexual intercourse. For those who seek parenthood after coming out, pathways are more varied (Patterson and Riskind, 2010). Lesbian women may conceive via donor insemination. Gay men may become fathers via surrogacy. Both lesbian and gay individuals and couples may foster or adopt children. For many lesbian women, use of donor insemination is a preferred pathway to parenthood. Whether using sperm from a known donor (e.g., a male friend or relative) or from an unknown donor (e.g., via the resources of a sperm bank), women who conceive via DI can expect to be genetically linked with their offspring. For some female couples, one partner might serve as the genetic and one as the gestational parent, using in vitro fertilization to fertilize one woman’s egg and then insert it into her partner’s body. Known as partner-assisted reproduction (Golombok, 2019; Riskind, 2011), this procedure is still unusual, even among affluent groups in the United States. Many lesbian women do, however, employ some form of donor insemination to have children. For gay men, surrogacy is an increasingly common pathway to parenthood (Bergman, Rubio, Green, and Padron, 2010; Carone, Baiocco, and Lingiardo, 2017; Greenfeld and Seli, 2011). In this case, a woman serving as a surrogate carries a baby conceived either with her own egg or with a donor egg. The intended father, whose sperm were used to fertilize the egg, will be genetically linked with the child. Surrogacy is, however, very costly, and it is prohibited by law in some jurisdictions. Thus, surrogacy may be a viable pathway to parenthood for some gay men but not for others (Blake et al., 2017). Both lesbian women and gay men may also become parents via foster care or adoption (Brodzinsky and Pertman, 2012; Farr and Patterson, 2013; Pinderhughes and Brodzinsky, 2019). Adoptions may be arranged via public or private agencies, and they may involve children born in the United States or in another country (Brodzinsky and Pertman, 2012). They may involve children to whom the adoptive parent is genetically related (e.g., nieces and nephews), but they more commonly involve genetically unrelated children. Adoptions may also vary in the extent to which there is contact among birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptive children, that is, in their openness (Farr and Patterson, 2013). Thus, many opportunities are now open to lesbian and gay people who want to become parents. Choices among the options may be affected by financial, medical, and legal issues as well as by individual preferences and social networks. Whatever pathway is selected, many lesbian and gay people are becoming parents in the United States and also in many Western nations (e.g., Italy, Portugal, Spain, Israel).

353

Charlotte J. Patterson

Transition to Parenthood Becoming a parent is a major life transition this is often both exciting and stressful (Cowan and Cowan, 2000). As happy as new parents may be, they must also learn new things, cope with new demands, and adjust to new roles. These realities characterize the transition to parenthood for lesbian and gay parents, just as they do for heterosexual parents (Bergman et al., 2010; Bornstein, 2019; Gianino, 2008; Goldberg, 2010). Satisfaction with couple relationships often declines during this transition, and this seems to be as true of same-sex couples as it is of others (Goldberg and Sayer, 2006; Goldberg and Smith, 2008; Goldberg, Smith, and Kashy, 2010). Qualitative research suggests that time and energy for relationship maintenance and sexual satisfaction may decrease over samesex couples’ transitions to parenthood (Huebner, Mackaronis, Mandic, Beougher, and Hoff, 2012). Although there are many similarities, the transition to parenthood may also have some distinctive features among lesbian- and gay-parent families (Goldberg, 2009; Ross, Steele, Goldfinger, and Strike, 2007). Prospective parents who identify as lesbian or gay often report feeling less supported than heterosexual couples by their friends and by members of their families of origin. For instance, Gartrell and her colleagues (1996) reported that at the time of a child’s birth, most lesbian mothers in their sample expected to receive at least some support from relatives, but 15% did not expect any of their family members to recognize the baby as a relative. Some pregnant lesbian women, interviewed in their third trimester, reported a lack of support from their families of origin (Goldberg, 2006). Three months after the baby’s birth, however, these women report that their families had become more supportive (Goldberg, 2006). Goldberg and Smith (2008) also reported that lesbian preadoptive mothers felt less support from family members than did heterosexual preadoptive mothers, but similar amounts of support from friends. Interviews with gay men who became fathers via surrogacy reveal that the men felt closer to families of origin after the birth of their children (Bergman et al., 2010). The experiences of new parents are almost certainly affected by context. Same-sex couples in the United States who had high levels of internalized stigma and who lived in states with laws that were unfavorable to lesbian and gay parents reported the greatest increases in depressive and anxious symptoms over the first year of parenthood (Goldberg and Smith, 2011). Much remains to be learned about the ways in which transitions to parenthood are experienced by lesbian and gay individuals. Certainly, a great deal of variation in such experiences might be expected as a function of differences among social contexts (Patterson and Riskind, 2010).

Family Processes What are the characteristics of families headed by lesbian mothers and gay fathers, and how do these families function? How are they similar to or different from families headed by other parents? Research in this area has focused mainly on describing families headed by lesbian mothers. However, research is increasingly focusing on the experiences of people in families headed by gay fathers as well. Family relationships within lesbian-mother families are generally positive (Biblarz and Stacey, 2010). Both children and adolescents enjoy warm and supportive relationships with their lesbian mothers (Brewaeys, Ponjaert, Van Hall, and Golombok, 1997; Farr and Patterson, 2013; Golombok et al., 1983; Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, 1981; Wainright, Russell, and Patterson, 2004). In a Dutch study, lesbian mothers reported greater parenting stress than did heterosexual mothers (Bos, Knox, van Rijn-van Gelderen and Gartrell, 2016). Social (i.e., nonbiological) lesbian mothers report being more involved in childcare than fathers or stepfathers in heterosexual-parent families (Tasker and Golombok, 1997). This pattern has been reported both in families formed using donor insemination and in families formed via adoption (Farr, Forssell, and Patterson, 2010). Lesbian couples share childcare more evenly, on average, than do heterosexual couples (Farr and Patterson, 2013; Patterson, Sutfin, and Fulcher, 2014). 354

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

Fewer data are available on families headed by gay fathers, but the available findings suggest that their relationships are also generally warm and positive (Erich, Leung, Kindle, and Carter, 2005; Farr et al., 2010). In an early study, divorced gay fathers described themselves as more responsive to their children, more likely to use reasoning during disciplinary encounters, and somewhat stricter in setting standards than did divorced heterosexual fathers (Bigner and Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b). In other work, gay fathers who had partners were more likely to express satisfaction with their lives and described themselves as being more successful at meeting common challenges involved in parenting than did those who were single (Barrett and Tasker, 2001; Crosbie-Burnett and Helmbrecht, 1993). More recent work has focused on family relationships among gay adoptive fathers. In studies of adoptive families headed by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual couples in the United States, the United Kingdom, and in Italy, parents in all family types reported long-term, relatively harmonious relationships as well as high relationship satisfaction (Baiocco et al., 2015; Farr et al., 2010; Golombok et al., 2014). There were no differences in these variables as a function of family type. In the United States, male and female couples who have adopted children together divide childcare tasks in a relatively egalitarian fashion (Farr and Patterson, 2013). Gay fathers who report more positive gay identities report less parenting stress than do those with more negative gay identities (Tornello, Farr, and Patterson, 2011). Much remains to be learned about the family relationships of gay fathers.

Contextual Influences In what kinds of social contexts do LGBT parents rear their children? How might these social contexts be similar to or different from the contexts in which heterosexual parents live? Little research has explored these issues among children with bisexual, transgender, or gay parents; therefore, we describe research on lesbian mothers and their families. Research has focused on children’s contacts with members of their extended family, especially contact with grandparents (Fulcher, Chan, Raboy, and Patterson, 2002; Patterson, Hurt, and Mason, 1998). Patterson and her colleagues (1998) found that most lesbian mothers reported that their children enjoyed regular contact with grandparents. In a study that included children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, there were no differences in frequency of contact with grandparents as a function of parental sexual orientation (Fulcher et al., 2002). Additional research has also suggested that a majority of grandparents acknowledge the children of lesbian daughters as grandchildren (Gartrell, Banks, Hamilton, Reed, Bishop, and Rodas, 1999). Thus, the findings suggest that intergenerational relationships in lesbian-parented families are generally supportive (Sumontha, Farr, and Patterson, 2016). Researchers have also assessed children’s contacts with adult friends of their lesbian mothers (Fulcher et al., 2002; Golombok et al., 1983; Patterson et al., 1998). All of the children in these studies were described as having contact with adult friends of their mothers, and most lesbian mothers report that their friends are diverse in sexual orientation, and include lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Children of lesbian mothers are no less likely than those of heterosexual mothers to have social contact with adult men who are friends of their mothers (Fulcher et al., 2002). Thus, findings to date suggest that children of lesbian mothers have positive contacts with many adults in the context of their family lives. Some lesbian and gay parents struggle with questions about how open to be about their nonheterosexual identities. For instance, some lesbian mothers have reported withholding information about their sexual identities in healthcare settings, particularly if the situation did not seem safe for disclosure (Perlesz et al., 2006; Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan, 2001). Some lesbian and gay parents also report selective disclosure at their children’s schools, based on their evaluations of individual attitudes and school climate (Byard, Kosciw, and Bartkiewicz, 2013; Casper and Schultz, 1999; Perlesz et al., 2006). Most lesbian and gay parents express desire for as much openness as possible in the 355

Charlotte J. Patterson

context of maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for themselves and their children (Tasker and Patterson, 2007). Research has also begun to explore contexts of gay father families, and results are similar to those for lesbian-mother families. For example, Sumontha and his colleagues (2016) studied lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents with young children and found that they did not differ in the amount of social support they received from friends or family members. Similar findings have been reported from the Netherlands (Bos, Kuyper, and Gartrell, 2017). In both samples, amount of social support was associated with positive parenting for all types of couples (Bos et al., 2017; Sumontha et al., 2016).

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents Considerable research over the past decades has focused on development of children reared by lesbian and gay parents. Most of this research has focused on children with lesbian mothers (Patterson, 1992, 1998; Goldberg, 2010). Only a handful of studies has examined the development of children with gay fathers (e.g., Farr et al., 2010; Golombok et al., 2014). A great deal of research has been devoted to gender and sexual identity development of children with lesbian and gay parents. Additional research has addressed social development, exploring topics such as the typicality of peer relationships or experiences of peer victimization. Other aspects of child development, such as overall adjustment and academic performance, have also been studied (Bos, van Gelderen, and Gartrell, 2015; Golombok et al., 2014; Potter, 2012; Potter and Potter, 2016). Research surrounding lesbian and gay parenting has found no negative associations between parental sexual orientation and developmental outcomes, but some variations have been observed (for other reviews, see Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Bos, van Balen, and van den Boom, 2005; Fedewa, Black, and Ahn, 2015; Goldberg, 2010; Golombok and Tasker, 2010; Miller, Kors, and Macfie, 2017; Patterson, 1992, 1998, 2013). Results of one review suggested that, perhaps due to the relatively high socioeconomic status of gay fathers, children of gay fathers had more favorable outcomes than did the offspring of heterosexual parents (Miller et al., 2017).

Gender and Sexual Identity Considerable research has focused on gender development among children of lesbian and gay parents. In response to negative stereotypes, this research has focused, for example, on questions about gender role behavior, and gender and sexual identities among children who grow up with same-sex parents. Children of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents show gender and sexual development, that is, with small variations, generally similar to one another (Bos and Sandfort, 2010; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Farr, Bruun, Doss, and Patterson, 2010, 2018; Golombok et al., 1983, 2014; Golombok and Tasker, 1996; Wainright et al., 2004). Three different aspects of gender and sexual development have been considered. Gender identity is usually defined as an individual’s self-identification as male or female. Gender-role behaviors are the behaviors seen as relevant to gender that determine how closely an individual exemplifies cultural norms about masculine and feminine behavior—for example, in play behavior or occupational aspirations. Sexual identity and sexual orientation refer to an individual’s feelings of being attracted to sexual partners of same and/or different sexes. I review the findings relevant to each of these three areas ahead. The gender identity of children with LGBT parents has been examined with a variety of methodologies, including projective tests (Green Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, and Smith, 1986), interviews with parents (Golombok et al., 1983), and self-report questionnaires completed by children (Bos and Sandfort, 2010). None of these approaches have yielded differences in gender identity among 356

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

children with lesbian mothers as compared to those with heterosexual parents. For instance, Bos and Sandfort (2010) compared the gender identity of children between 8 and 12 years of age among children who were being reared by lesbian mothers and children being reared by heterosexual parents in the Netherlands. In this study, a questionnaire was used to measure different aspects of gender identity, such as feelings about gender typicality and happiness with gender assignment. Children of lesbian mothers reported gender identities much like those of heterosexual parents. A substantial amount of research has focused on parental sexual orientation and children’s genderrole behavior. This research has employed a number of methodologies, such as observations of children’s play behavior (Goldberg, Kashy, and Smith, 2012) and interview measures of occupational aspirations (Kirkpatrick et al., 1981). Most of this research reported that children of lesbian and gay parents exhibit gender role behaviors similar to those of their peers (Brewaeys et al., 1997; Farr et al., 2010; Golombok et al., 1983, 2014); however, there have been variations (Bos and Sandfort, 2010; Goldberg et al., 2012; Sutfin, Fulcher, Bowles, and Patterson, 2008). As an example of the main trends in this research, Brewaeys and colleagues (1997) compared gender role development of 4- to 8-year-old children of lesbian mothers who conceived through donor insemination with that among same-age children of heterosexual parents who conceived using donor insemination and with that among same-age children of heterosexual parents who conceived via natural means. Using a standardized parent-report instrument called the Preschool Activities Inventory (PSAI), Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) found no differences in children’s reported gender-role behavior across the three family types. In another study using the PSAI, Farr and her colleagues (2010) reported no differences in gender development among preschool-age children with lesbian, gay, or heterosexual adoptive parents. In both of these studies, gender role behavior of children with lesbian and gay parents was similar to that of other children. Similar results were also reported by Golombok and her colleagues (2014). In contrast, Goldberg and colleagues (2012) also used the PSAI to assess play behavior of young adopted children (2–4 years of age) with heterosexual, gay, and lesbian parents. These researchers found that children of lesbian and gay parents were described as engaging in less gender-typed play than were children of heterosexual parents (Goldberg et al., 2012). Descriptions of behavior among children of lesbian and gay parents did not, however, differ from those given in a standardization sample of families with heterosexual parents. In a related study, Bos and Sandfort (2010) explored the gender-relevant beliefs and psychological development of children 8–12 years of age who had lesbian or heterosexual parents. Children of lesbian mothers reported less parental pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, were less likely to report their own gender as superior, and were more likely to question whether they would have future heterosexual relationships. Similarly, MacCallum and Golombok (2004) reported that young boys of lesbian mothers and single heterosexual mothers had higher femininity scores compared with their peers with two heterosexual parents, but that there were no differences in boys’ masculinity scores across groups, and no differences on either scale for girls. Small differences in children’s gendered behavior such as these may be of interest, but probably do not affect overall development. With some variations, children with lesbian and gay parents have thus been found to show typical gender role development. Research examining variations in gender role behaviors and activities of children has found that these differences are linked to parental attitudes regarding gender roles, rather than to parental sexual orientation. All researchers have reported that gender role behavior of children with lesbian and gay parents follows normative patterns. Research on sexual orientation and sexual behavior among offspring of lesbian and gay parents has likewise found few differences in sexual development of adolescents and adults. In a study of adult children of gay fathers, Bailey and colleagues (1995) found that the vast majority identified as heterosexual. Huggins (1989) compared the sexual orientation of adolescents, half with divorced lesbian mothers and the other half with divorced heterosexual mothers. In this study, all of the children 357

Charlotte J. Patterson

of lesbian mothers identified themselves as heterosexual, and all but one of the children of heterosexual mothers identified as heterosexual. These are two examples drawn from a larger research literature (Gartrell and Bos, 2010; Golombok and Tasker, 1996; Green, 1978; Wainright et al., 2004). Some research has also explored the dating and sexual behavior of children of same-sex parents. Wainright and colleagues (2004) used data from a national data set to examine the romantic relationships and sexual behavior of adolescents with same-sex parents, compared with those of a matched group of youth with different-sex parents. There were no differences in the rates of same-sex attraction, numbers of romantic relationships, or frequency of engaging in heterosexual sexual intercourse. Similarly, Gartrell and Bos (2010) explored sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk among adolescents who had been born to lesbian mothers versus a representative U.S. sample of adolescents; they reported that family type was unrelated to adolescent sexual identity. Female adolescents with lesbian mothers were, however, more likely to report engaging in same-sex sexual behavior.

Social Development Research has also examined social development as a function of parental sexual orientation. This work has explored children’s friendships and social networks as well as their experiences of bullying and victimization. Some children have reported negative experiences, but most have been found to be experiencing normal growth on important dimensions of social development. Overall, children with lesbian and gay parents have been found to establish and maintain social relationships with peers in much the same ways as do children with heterosexual parents (Golombok et al., 1983, Golombok, Tasker, and Murray, 1997; MacCallum and Golombok, 2004; Wainright and Patterson, 2008). Golombok and colleagues (1983) found no difference in number of friends or in quality of peer relationships among children being reared by divorced lesbian mothers versus divorced heterosexual parents. Wainright and Patterson (2008) explored peer relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents and of adolescents with different-sex parents from a nationally representative U.S. data set. They reported no differences in peer relationships based on family type. Measures included number of friends, presence of a best friend, and amount of support from closest friends, among others. Gartrell and colleagues (2005) reported that among their sample of 10-year-old children of lesbian mothers, 43% of the children reported having experienced homophobic comments. Most of those who heard such comments reported being upset or bothered by them. In a study of Australian youth with lesbian and gay parents, almost half of the children from grades 3 through 10 reported being bullied or teased because of their parents’ sexual orientation (Ray and Gregory, 2001). In the United States, the majority (89%) of lesbian- and gay-parented adolescents in a large survey reported hearing negative comments about lesbian and gay people (Kosciw and Diaz, 2008). In another study, children of lesbian and gay adoptive parents were very unlikely to report teasing of their children due to parental sexual orientation (Farr, Oakley, and Ollen, 2016). One question raised by these findings is whether children of lesbian and gay parents are at elevated risk for difficulties as a result of their exposure to teasing and victimization. Farr and her colleagues (2016) reported that children who were bullied also showed more behavioral problems. Similar findings were reported by Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, and Sandfort (2008) and by Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, and van Balen (2008). Research on the incidence of peer victimization has found similar rates of bullying and victimization among heterosexual-parented and LGBT-parented children (MacCallum and Golombok, 2004; Wainright and Patterson, 2006). Two studies—one of adolescents in the United States (Wainright and Patterson, 2006) and one of adolescents in the United Kingdom (Rivers et al., 2008)—compared adolescents of same-sex parents with those of heterosexual parents and found that both groups had low rates of reported victimization; no differences between the two groups could be identified. Thus, 358

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

although homophobic bullying does occur, the likelihood of victimization does not appear to be elevated among the offspring of lesbian and gay parents.

Other Aspects of Development Many other aspects of development have been studied among the offspring of lesbian and gay parents. Research findings suggest that children of LGBT parents show cognitive (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, and Joseph, 1995; Green et al., 1986; Lavner, Waterman, and Peplau, 2012; Potter, 2012) and behavioral (Bos et al., 2007; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, Raboy, and Patterson, 1998; Farr et al., 2010; Potter and Potter, 2016; Schechner, Slone, Lobel, and Schechter, 2011) development similar to that of children with heterosexual parents. Research has also revealed that development of self-concepts is similar, regardless of parental sexual orientation (Bos and Sandfort, 2010; Schechner et al., 2011; Wainright et al., 2004). Overall, research results have supported the conclusion that important variations in children’s development are not associated with parental sexual orientation.

Services for Lesbian and Gay Parent Families In response to the varied special concerns of lesbian and gay families with children, many services and programs have been created. In this section, examples of programs and services that have arisen in three different contexts are described: parent groups, healthcare centers, and legal advocacy groups.

Parent Groups Lesbian and gay parents have formed many different kinds of support groups in localities in the United States and around the world. These include informal children’s playgroups arranged by friends; regional associations that hold picnics, carnivals, and other community events; and international organizations that publish newsletters and sponsor conferences. In addition to addressing the needs of existing families, many groups also provide services and programs for those who are considering parenthood (Mezey, 2013). The largest such group in North America is the Family Equality Council, which lists more than 100 chapters across the United States, and in other countries. Their website, www.familyequality. org, contains news of national and chapter activities, interviews with lesbian and gay parents, reports about current legal issues, and notices about other matters of interest for lesbian and gay parents and prospective parents. Beginning in 1990, the group also sponsored Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), an organization for children of lesbian and gay parents, which in 1999 became an independently chartered group. The COLAGE website can be found at www.colage.org (Kuvalanka, Teper, and Morrison, 2006). Through its central office and chapters, the Family Equality Council sponsors various activities for parents and prospective parents; collects information regarding the policies of adoption agencies, sperm banks, and fertility programs; researches state laws as they pertain to adoption by openly lesbian families; creates lists of supportive gynecologists and fertility specialists in every state; and disseminates this information. Much of the support that the Family Equality Council provides to prospective parents is made available through the efforts of local chapters that sponsor workshops and support groups for lesbians and gay men who are interested in parenthood. Many chapters sponsor support groups for individuals and couples who are in various stages of considering parenthood through DI, adoption, and/or surrogacy arrangements. Through such activities, prospective lesbian and gay parents can learn more about local parenting opportunities, legal issues, and medical resources as well as meet others in the lesbian and gay community who are interested in becoming parents (Goldberg, 2010; Mezey, 2013). 359

Charlotte J. Patterson

Healthcare Resources A national organization, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA, www.glma.org), is the largest association of LGBT healthcare professionals. GLMA’s membership includes approximately 1,000 physicians, medical students, nurses, physician assistants, researchers, psychotherapists, and other health professionals. The organization works for improvements in healthcare for LGBT people around the world. Some medical clinics that focus on the healthcare needs of lesbian and gay communities also provide services for parents and prospective parents. Such clinics have generally not been formally affiliated with hospitals or medical schools but have been established as free-standing primary care centers for urban lesbian and/or gay communities. A well-known example is the Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services in San Francisco. Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services, founded in 1978, is a primary care community clinic specifically for women, with a primary focus on healthcare for lesbians and bisexual women (www.lyon-martin.org). The clinic provides an array of medical and health-related services, including preventive and primary healthcare, HIV services, support services for mothers, and programs for sexual minority youth. It also provides services for current and prospective lesbian and gay male parents. Support groups are led by professional health educators and range from 8-week groups for lesbians considering parenthood to 6-week childbirth education classes. Many informational meetings and workshops on Considering Parenthood, Legal Issues, Adoption, Choices in Pregnancy and Birth, and Lesbians and Gay Men Parenting Together are also offered. Panel participants include professionals in healthcare, social services, and the law, all speaking from a lesbian- and gay-affirmative perspective. The Whitman-Walker Clinic also makes available services for lesbian and gay male parents and prospective parents. In addition, Whitman-Walker has sponsored “Maybe Baby” groups for lesbians and gay men considering parenthood, and workshops on special topics such as “Options and Issues for Non-Biological Mothers.” Similar programs are available in many other urban areas.

Legal Resources Legal advocacy groups within lesbian and gay communities also provide services to current and prospective lesbian parents. Especially prominent among such groups are the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (LLDEF; www.lambdalegal.org), founded in 1973 and based in New York City, with offices throughout the United States, works to advance the rights of sexual minorities through litigation, policy advocacy, education, and communication. LLDEF attorneys worked on important cases involving same-sex marriage, such as Baehr v. Miike (which sought unsuccessfully to establish the legality of same-sex marriage in Hawaii, decided in 1996) and Baker v. Vermont (which established the rights of lesbian and gay adults to have their relationships treated in equal fashion, resulting in civil unions for same-sex couples in Vermont, decided in 1999). Work by LLDEF in these and related cases has been influential in legal advocacy for causes that are critical to lesbian and gay families with children. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR; www.nclrights.org), founded in 1977 and based in San Francisco, promotes awareness, respect, and recognition of lesbians and their rights. The NCLR offers legal representation, amicus work, and technical assistance to cooperating counsel and other attorneys around the country. For example, NCLR filed amicus briefs in cases involving the rights of nonbiological lesbian parents following the death of a biological parent and the break-up of a relationship between biological and nonbiological parents.

360

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

The NCLR has been a pioneer in second-parent adoptions (Ricketts and Achtenberg, 1990). Second-parent adoptions enable an unmarried parent to adopt a child without another parent of the same sex giving up his or her legal rights or responsibilities as a parent. Because this has been a pathway to secure legal recognition of relationships between nonbiological parents and their children, the availability of second-parent adoptions has been of particular importance to lesbian and gay couples who wish to parent, especially in the days before Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Pavan v. Smith (2017) were decided. NCLR continues to advocate for lesbian mothers and their children on issues involving relationship dissolution, multiple parents, and other areas of family law.

Directions for Research, Service, and Advocacy Many significant programs and services are now available for lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children, as well as for prospective lesbian and gay parents, but much remains to be done. In this section, directions for research, service, and advocacy relevant to lesbian and gay parents and their children are suggested.

Directions for Research One of the important directions for research is to identify and to explore factors that influence lesbian and gay couples’ and individuals’ inclinations to make parenthood a part of their lives (Patterson and Riskind, 2010). Historically, many lesbians and gay men have not considered parenthood to be an option. Today, however, many young lesbian and gay individuals expect to become parents (D’Augelli, Rendina, Sinclair, and Grossman, 2006/2007). What kinds of influences are important in this shift? Does the degree of an individual’s or a couple’s integration with different parts of gay/ lesbian and/or heterosexual communities make a difference? What roles do personal, social, and economic variables play in such decisions? We need to know more about the factors that influence decisions about parenthood among lesbians and gay men. A related direction for research is assessment of the climate for lesbian and gay parenting in various areas. What are the important criteria that should be used in such an assessment, and how do different locales measure up against them? One approach might be to use state-level indicators as rough indices. For example, a statewide gay/lesbian rights law would be a positive indicator with regard to the climate for lesbian and gay parenting, as would the accomplishment of second-parent adoptions in that state. Negative indicators would include a climate of antigay attitudes. Ratings of this sort could be useful for couples and individuals seeking parenthood, parents considering relocation, and for activists and advocacy groups deciding how best to direct their activities. The climates of local communities might also be assessed with the needs of lesbian and gay parents and their children in mind. For instance, one might ask whether there are lesbian and gay parent groups already in existence within this community, whether any second-parent adoptions have been completed, and whether relevant healthcare and medical resources are available to lesbian and gay families. Such assessments should be geared to specific locales; communities that are located in relative geographical proximity to one another may nevertheless vary tremendously in the climates they provide for lesbian and gay families with children. Such efforts to examine and to describe the atmosphere for lesbian and gay family life also raise questions about what aspects of a community make it an attractive place for lesbian and gay parents and their children to live. Such characteristics might in some cases be similar to those for heterosexual families (e.g., safe streets, good schools), whereas in other cases, they might vary even among lesbian and gay families as a function of the family’s other identities, interests, or needs. For instance, multiracial families might value especially the opportunity to live in multiethnic neighborhoods.

361

Charlotte J. Patterson

It would also be valuable to learn more about the effectiveness of existing services for lesbian and gay families. Although many services and programs have emerged for prospective parents as well as for parents and their children, there have been few attempts to evaluate their effectiveness. How effectively do available services fill the needs that they are intended to address? What populations are targeted by existing programs, and with what success do programs and services reach the communities for which they are intended? What are the essential elements of effective programs? All of these are critical questions for community-oriented research on lesbian and gay parenting services. The knowledge base relevant to lesbian and gay parenting is still limited in many areas. Many prospective lesbian and gay parents are concerned about relationships with members of their families of origin as well as with friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Still others focus on family members’ interactions with institutional contexts such as educational, legal, and medical settings. Scientists want to develop better understanding of the important variables in parenting and parent-child interactions, which requires greater knowledge about parenting and about child development in lesbian and gay families. Such topics are open to empirical study, and the work has been well begun, but much remains to be accomplished. Researchers are also beginning also to turn their attention to areas of diversity among lesbian and gay families, and are starting to explore conditions that help lesbian and gay families to flourish. This transition, now well underway, appears to be gathering momentum, and it suggests that research on lesbian and gay families has reached a significant turning point (Patterson, 1992, 1997). Having addressed negative assumptions represented in psychological theory, judicial opinion, and popular prejudice, researchers can now explore a broader range of issues. Many issues relevant to lesbian and gay families are in need of study. First and most obvious is that studies representing the demographic diversity of lesbian and gay families are needed. Much existing research has involved mainly European American, well-educated, middle-class families who live in urban areas of the United States or in Western Europe. More work is needed to understand differences that are based on ethnicity, family economic circumstances, and cultural environments (see, for example, Lubbe, 2013; Moore, 2008). Research of this kind should elucidate differences as well as commonalities among lesbian and gay families with children, and how these may vary across national, cultural, social, and legal/policy environments. Future research should also, insofar as possible, encompass a larger number of levels of analysis. Existing research has most often focused on children or on their parents, considered as individuals. As valuable as this emphasis has been, it will also be important to consider other family members, such as grandparents (Orel and Fruhauf, 2013; Tornello and Patterson, 2016), and the ways in which intergenerational relationships affect individuals and couples (Sumontha et al., 2016). Assessments of family relationships and family climate could enhance understanding of individual-level variables such as self-esteem. When families are considered at different levels of analysis, nested within the neighborhood, regional, and cultural contexts in which they live, a more comprehensive understanding of lesbian and gay families is likely to emerge. In this effort, it will be valuable to devote attention to family process as well as to family structure. How do lesbian and gay families negotiate their interactions with institutional settings such as the school and the workplace (Byard et al., 2013; King, Huffman, and Peddie, 2013; Russell and Horne, 2017)? How are family processes and interactions affected by economic, cultural, religious, and legal aspects of the contexts in which these families live (Ball, 2012)? How do climates of opinion that prevail in their communities affect lesbian and gay families, and how do families cope with prejudice and discrimination when they are encountered? As research in this area becomes more and more international in nature, it will be possible to address these questions in new ways (Lubbe, 2013; Patterson, Riskind, et al., 2014). Gender is a matter deserving of special attention. Inasmuch as lesbian and gay relationships encourage the uncoupling of gender and behavioral roles, one might expect to find considerable variability 362

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

among families in the ways in which they carry out essential family, household, and childcare tasks (Patterson, Sutfin, et al., 2004). In what ways do nontraditional divisions of labor affect children who grow up in lesbian and gay homes? In what ways does the performance of nontraditional tasks affect parents themselves? It will be valuable to learn more about the relative importance of gender and behavioral roles in lesbian and gay families with children. One additional issue that should be given special emphasis involves the conceptualization of parents’ sexual identities. In research on lesbian and gay parenting, scant attention has been devoted to possible changes in sexual identities over time, or to the implications of any such fluidity for children (Diamond, 2013). For instance, many parents are probably bisexual to some degree, rather than exclusively heterosexual, gay, or lesbian, yet this has rarely been noted or studied directly in the existing research literature. Increasing numbers of adults seem to be identifying themselves as bisexual (Dworkin, 2013). Future research might benefit from closer attention to issues in conceptualization and assessment of parental sexual orientation. Finally, most research has focused on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children, but bisexual, transgender, and other queer parents are increasingly in the public eye, and research is needed to understand their family relationships. Bisexual individuals are more numerous in the United States than lesbian or gay people, yet they have often remained all but invisible in research on parenting (Ross and Dobinson, 2013). Although less numerous, transgender parents have also drawn considerable media attention, but research focused on their families has only just begun (Downing, 2013; Stotzer, Herman, and Hasenbush, 2014). Other families in which parents identify as queer, such as parents in other cultural traditions or those in polyamorous relationships, also deserve attention (Kulpa and Mizielinska, 2016; Pallotta-Chiarolli, Haydon, and Hunter, 2013). Learning about these families will enlarge our understanding of human diversity

Directions for Service There are a number of ways in which efforts to provide improved services for lesbian and gay parents might be directed. In part because services for lesbian and gay parents are so new, and in part because of widespread discrimination, many different kinds of services are needed. At the national level, an organization like the Family Pride Coalition can develop lists of healthcare, legal, and other resources on a state-by-state basis as well as provide technical assistance to local groups. At regional and local levels, individual parent groups are mounting educational events and other programs in support of lesbian and gay parenting in local communities. Even in major urban areas, however, most such programs are in a nascent state, depend heavily on the efforts of volunteers, and reach mainly affluent, well-educated segments of lesbian and gay communities. In many smaller towns and rural areas, there are as yet few lesbian or gay parenting services of any kind. One set of needs, then, is for expansion of medical, legal, and social services. Programs and services should be developed by and for low-income and ethnic minority lesbian and gay individuals and couples who are parents or who wish to become parents. Of necessity, such work would involve identification of medical, legal, and other resources that are open to members of sexual minorities as well as to ethnic minorities and low-income communities. Additional services might also be developed for the children of lesbian and gay parents. In seeking to expand services for sexual minority parenting communities, it will be important not to overlook important resources outside lesbian and gay communities themselves. For instance, building public library collections in areas relevant to lesbian and gay parenting can provide an important resource that is available to large numbers of people, regardless of sexual orientation. Educational institutions, such as high schools, colleges, and universities, can also provide important resources for prospective lesbian and gay parents by including accurate information in the curriculum, by providing speakers and other relevant programming, and by making articles, books, and video 363

Charlotte J. Patterson

materials that relate to parenting by individuals with sexual minority identities available to a broad audience (Byard et al., 2013; Casper and Schultz, 1999; Russell and Horne, 2017). Similarly, religious groups can offer meaningful support by providing special activities for lesbian and gay families with children and by educating their congregations about lesbian and gay parenting. Another major aim of service to prospective lesbian and gay parents is to eliminate discrimination against lesbian and gay parents and their children. To the degree that this effort meets with success, many of the special needs of lesbian or gay parents and their children will decrease in significance. Prevention efforts relevant to lesbian and gay parenting should be designed to counter unfavorable stereotypes of lesbians and gay men with accurate information about the realities of life in lesbian and gay families, and to provide an understanding of psychosocial processes underlying prejudice and discrimination.

Directions for Advocacy Among the greatest current needs of lesbian and gay families with children is for activism to promote social and political change. Lesbian and gay parents and their children have issues in common with those of many other families, but they also have unique concerns that arise from prejudice against lesbian and gay families. The basic issues of children and families in the United States are, in many cases, also the issues of lesbian and gay families with children. For instance, many families with children would benefit from enhanced neighborhood safety, better public schools, flexible working hours for parents, and better access to healthcare. A more equal distribution of economic resources would benefit children in economically stressed lesbian and gay families, just as it would benefit children in other economically disadvantaged homes. In other words, a common stake is held by gay, lesbian, and heterosexual families in many issues of public policy relevant to families with children. Even allowing for overlap with the needs of other families, lesbian and gay families with children also have unique needs (Byard et al., 2013). Lesbian and gay families with children are less likely than heterosexual families to enjoy legal recognition for their family relationships, equal access to medical care, or freedom from discrimination, harassment, and hate crimes. The quality of life for lesbian and gay parents would be greatly enhanced if they could be confident that their sexual orientation would not be held against them as they go to work, pursue parenthood, and send their children to school. Like the offspring of heterosexual parents, children of lesbian and gay parents would feel more confident if they were sure that their families would be respected at school, and they might feel more secure if their relationships with parents were adequately protected by law. Accomplishment of such aims is an important goal for advocacy efforts on behalf of lesbian and gay families with children (Ball, 2012; Byard et al., 2013; Patterson and Goldberg, 2016).

Conclusion After more than 30 years, research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children has, to a large degree, come of age. Systematic study of lesbian and gay families with children began in the context of judicial challenges to the fitness of lesbian and gay parents. For this reason, much research has been designed to evaluate negative judicial presumptions about psychological health and well-being of parents and children in lesbian and gay families. Although much remains to be done to understand conditions that foster positive mental health among lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children, results of the research to date are unusually clear. Children of lesbian and gay parents develop in much the same ways that other children do. Research does not support the idea that children of lesbian or gay parents suffer debilitating disadvantages resulting from parental sexual orientation. In short, the results of research provide no justification for denying or curtailing parental rights because of 364

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

variations in parental sexual orientation. The consensus of professional groups around this conclusion is reflected in the official statements of many professional associations, such as the American Psychological Association, the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Although studies of lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children have been fruitful, there is yet much important work to be done. Having addressed heterosexist concerns of jurists, theorists, and others, researchers are now engaged in examining a broader range of issues raised by the emergence of different kinds of lesbian and gay families with children. Results of future work in this area have the potential to increase our knowledge about lesbian and gay parenthood, stimulate innovations in our theoretical understanding of human development, and inform legal rulings and public policies relevant to lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children.

Acknowledgments I want to express my gratitude to the students, former students, and other colleagues who have made so many contributions to this area of research, and also to the many families who have participated in research described in this chapter. I also thank the Roy Scrivner Fund at the American Psychological Foundation, the Lesbian Health Fund at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law for their support.

References Baiocco, R., and Laghi, F. (2013). Sexual orientation and the desires and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies, 19, 90–98. Baiocco, R., Fontanesi, L., Santamaria, F., Ioverno, S., Marasco, B., Baumgartner, E., and Laghi, F. (2015). Negative parental responses to coming out and family functioning in a sample of lesbian and gay young adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1490–1500. Bailey, J. M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., and Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31, 124–129. Ball, Carlos A. (2012). The right to be parents: LGBT families and the transformation of parenthood. New York: New York University Press. Barrett, H., and Tasker, F. (2001). Growing up with a gay parent: Views of 101 gay fathers on their sons’ and daughters’ experiences. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 62–77. Baumle, A. (2018). The practice of law with LGBT-parent families. Family Court Review, 56, 423–433. Baumrind, D. (1995). Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and social policy implications. Developmental Psychology, 31, 130–136. Bergman, K., Rubio, R., Green, R., and Padron, E. (2010). Gay men who become fathers via’ surrogacy: The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 111–141. Berkowitz, D. (2013). Gay men and surrogacy. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-Parent Families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Berkowitz, D., and Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and family identities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 366–381. Biblarz, T. J., and Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 3–22. Bigner, J. J., and Jacobsen, R. B. (1989a). The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 163–172). New York: Harrington Park Press. Bigner, J. J., and Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173–186). New York: Harrington Park Press. Blake, L., Carone, L., Raffanello, E., Slutsky, J., Ehrhardt, A. A., and Golombok, S. (2017). Gay fathers’ motivations for and feelings about surrogacy as a path to parenthood. Human Reproduction, 32, 860–867. Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Parenting infants. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 1: Children and parenting (3rd ed., pp. 3–55). New York: Routledge Publishers. Bos, H. M. W. (2013). Lesbian-mother families formed through donor insemination. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer.

365

Charlotte J. Patterson Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., and van Balen, F. (2008). The USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 455–471. Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H., and Sandfort, T. (2008). Children in planned lesbian families: A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 211–219. Bos, H. M. W., Knox, J. R., van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., and Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex parent households and children’s outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 37, 179–187. Bos, H. M. W., Kuypers, L., and Gartrell, N. K. (2017). A population-based comparison of female and male same-sex parent and different-sex parent households. Family Process, X. Bos, H. M. W., and Sandfort, T. G. M. (2010). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles, 62, 114–126. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., and van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Lesbian families and family functioning: An overview. Patient Education and Counseling, 59, 263–275. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., and van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48. Bos, H. M. W., van Gelderen, L., and Gartrell, N. (2015). Lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families: Adolescent-parent relationship quality and adolescent well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1031–1046. Bozett, F. W. (1980). Gay fathers: How and why they disclose their homosexuality to their children. Family Relations, 29, 173–179. Bozett, F. W. (1981a). Gay fathers: Evolution of the gay-father identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 552–559. Bozett, F. W. (1981b). Gay fathers: Identity conflict resolution through integrative sanctioning. Alternative Lifestyles, 4, 90–107. Bozett, F. W. (1987). Children of gay fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 39–57). New York: Praeger. Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., Van Hall, E. V., and Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12, 1349–1359. Brewaeys, A., and Van Hall, E. V. (1997). Lesbian motherhood: The impact on child development and family functioning. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 18, 1–16. Brodzinsky, D. M. (2012). Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A national survey of adoption agency policies and practices. In D. M. Brodzinsky and A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity (pp. 62–84). New York: Oxford University Press. Brodzinsky, D. M., and Pertman, A. (2012). Adoption by lesbians and gay men. New York: Oxford University Press. Bronski, M. (2011). A queer history of the United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Byard, E., Kosciw, J., and Bartkiewicz, M. (2013). Schools and LGBT-parent families: Creating change through programming and advocacy. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternate channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on radio and television. New York: Ballantine Books. Carone, N., Baiocco, R., and Lingiardo, V. (2017). Single fathers by choice using surrogacy: Why men decide to have a child as a single parent. Human Reproduction, 32, 1871–1879. Casper, V., and Schultz, S. (1999). Gay parents, straight schools: Building communication and trust. New York: Teachers College Press. Cavanagh, C., and Cauffman, E. (2019). Parenting and the law. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 5: The practice of parenting, (3rd ed., pp. 465–490). New York: Routledge Publishers. Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., and Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development, 69, 443–457. Costa, P. A., and Bidell, M. (2017). Modern families: Parenting desire, intention, and experience among Portuguese lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 500–521. Cowan, C. P., and Cowan, P. A. (2000). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. New York: Basic Books. Crosbie-Burnett, M., and Helmbrecht, L. (1993). A descriptive study of gay male stepfamilies. Family Relations, 42, 256–262. D’Augelli, A. R., Rendina, H. J., Sinclair, K. O., and Grossman, A. H. (2006/2007). Lesbian and gay youth’s aspirations for marriage and raising children. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1, 77–98.

366

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual Communities: The makings of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Diamond, L. M. (2013). Concepts of female sexual orientation. In C. J. Patterson and A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press. Downing, J. B. (2013). Transgender-parent families. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Dworkin, S. H. (2013). Bisexual identities. In C. J. Patterson and A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press. Erich, S., Leung, P., Kindle, P., and Carter, S. (2005). Gay and lesbian adoptive families: An exploratory study of family functioning, adoptive child’s behavior, and familial support networks. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, 17–32. Faderman, l. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbian life in twentieth century America. New York: Columbia University Press. Falk, P. J. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941–947. Farr, R. H., Bruun, S. T., Doss, K. M., and Patterson, C. J. (2018). Children’s gender-typed behavior from early to middle childhood in adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 78, 528–541. Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., and Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14, 164–178. Farr, R. H., and Goldberg, A. E. (2018). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and adoption law. Family Court Review, 56, 374–383. Farr, R. H., Oakley, M. K., and Ollen, E. W. (2016). School experiences of young children and their lesbian and gay adoptive parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 442–447. Farr, R. H., and Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84, 1226–1240. Farr, R. H., Tasker, F., and Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Theory in highly cited studies of sexual minority parent families: Variations and implications. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 1143–1179. Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., and Ahn, S. (2015). Children and adolescents with same-gender parents: A metaanalytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 1–34. Flaks, D. K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., and Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105–114. Fulcher, M., Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., and Patterson, C. J. (2002). Contact with grandparents Among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 61–76. Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., and Rodas, C. (1999). The national lesbian family study: II. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 362–369. Gartrell, N., and Bos, H. (2010). US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, 126, 28–36. Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., and Banks, A. (2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524. doi: 10.1037/ 0002-9432.75.4.518c Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., and Bishop, H. (1996). The national lesbian family study: I. Interviews with prospective mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272–281. Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xs6g8xx Gates, G. J. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. Future of Children, 25, 67–87. Gates, G. J. (2017, January 11). In U.S., more adults identifying as LGBT. Gallup Daily Tracking Report. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx?g_source=LGBTandg_medium=topic andg_campaign=tiles Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V. L., Macomber, J. E., and Chambers, K. (2007). Adoption and foster care by gay and lesbian parents in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Gianino, M. (2008). Adaptation and transformation: The transition to adoptive parenthood for gay male couples. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 205–243. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). The transition to parenthood for lesbian couples. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2, 13–42. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples openness to transracial adoption. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 103–117. Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

367

Charlotte J. Patterson Goldberg, A. E., and Allen, K. R. (Eds.) (2013), LGBT-Parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Goldberg, A. E., Kashy, D. A., and Smith, J. Z. (2012). Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 67, 503–515. Goldberg, A. E., and Sayer, A. G. (2006). Lesbian couples’ relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 87–100. Goldberg, A. E., and Smith, J. Z. (2008). Social support and psychological well-being in lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples. Family Relations, 57, 281–294. Goldberg, A. E., and Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150. Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., and Kashy, D. A. (2010). Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 221–232. Golombok, S. (2015). Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golombok, S. (2019). Parenting and contemporary reproductive technologies. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed., pp. 482–512). New York: Routledge Publishers. Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., and Lamb, M. E. (2014). Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Development, 85, 456–468. Golombok, S., Spencer, A., and Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551–572. Golombok, S., and Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 3–11. Golombok, S., and Tasker, F. (2010). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Golombok, S., Tasker, F. L., and Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: Family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 38, 783–791. Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692–697. Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., and Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175–181. Greenfeld, D. A., and Seli, E. (2011). Gay men choosing parenthood through assisted reproduction: Medical and psychosocial considerations. Fertility and Sterility, 95, 225–229. Gurmankin, A. D., Caplan, A. L., and Braverman, A. M. (2005). Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs. Fertility and Sterility, 83, 61–67. Haney-Caron, E., and Heilbrun, K. (2014). Lesbian and gay parents and determination of child custody: The changing legal landscape and implications for policy and practice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 19–29. Hermann-Green, L. K., and Gehring, T. M. (2007). The German Lesbian Family Study: Planning for parenthood via donor insemination. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 351–396. Huebner, D. M., Mackaronis, J. E., Mandic, C. G., Beougher, S. C., and Hoff, C. C. (2012). The impact of parenting on gay male couples’ relationships, sexuality, and HIV risk. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1, 106–119. Huggins, S. L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 123–135). New York: Harrington Park Press. Johnson, S., and O’Connor, E. (2002). The gay baby boom: The psychology of gay parenthood. New York: New York University Press. Kazyak, E., Woodell, B., Scherrer, K., and Finken, E. (2018). Law and family formation among LGBQ-parent families. Family Court Review, 56, 364–373. Kim, S., and Stein, E. (2018). Gender in the context of same-sex divorce and relationship dissolution. Family Court Review, 56, 384–398. King, E. B., Huffman, A. H., and Peddie, C. I. (2013). LGBT parents and the workplace. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., and Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545–551.

368

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood Kosciw, J. G., and Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, and ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K-12 schools. New York: GLSEN. Kulpa, R., and Mizielinska, J. (Eds.). (2016). De-centering western sexualities. London: Routledge. Kuvalanka, K. A., Teper, B., and Morrison, O. A. (2006). COLAGE: Providing community, education, leadership, and advocacy by and for children of GLBT parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2, 71–92. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 98–111. Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., and Peplau, L. A. (2012). Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 465–472. Lo, I. P., Chan, C. H., Chan, T. H. (2016). Perceived importance of childbearing and attitudes toward assisted reproductive technology among Chinese lesbians in Hong Kong: Implications for psychological well-being. Fertility and Sterility, 106, 1221–1229. Lubbe, C. (2013). LGBT parents and their children: Non-Western research and perspectives. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Lyons, T. A. (1983). Lesbian mothers’ custody fears. Women and Therapy, 2, 231–240. MacCallum, F., and Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407–1419. Martel, F. (2018). Global gay: How gay culture is changing the world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mennel, B. (2012). Queer cinema: Schoolgirls, vampires, and gay cowboys. New York: Columbia University Press. Mezey, N. J. (2013). How lesbians and gay men decide to become parents or remain childfree. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-Parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Miller, B. (1978). Adult sexual resocialization: Adjustments toward a stigmatized identity. Alternative Lifestyles, 1, 207–234. Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544–552. Miller, B., Kors, S., and Macfie, J. (2017). No differences? Meta-analytic comparisons of psychological adjustment in children of gay fathers and heterosexual parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 14–22. Moore, M. R. (2008). Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review, 73, 335–356. Orel, N. A., and Fruhauf, C. A. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender grandparents. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Pagelow, M. D. (1980). Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: A comparison of problems, coping and solutions. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 198–204. Pallotta-Chiarolli, M., Haydon, P., and Hunter, A. (2013). “These are our children”: Polyamorous parenting. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Parsons, J. T., and Grov, C. (2013). Gay male identities, desires, and sexual behaviors. In C. J. Patterson and A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press. Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025–1042. Patterson, C. J. (1994a). Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and sex-role identity. In B. Greene and G. Herek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 156–175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patterson, C. J. (1994b). Lesbian and gay couples considering parenthood: An agenda for research, service, and advocacy. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 33–55. Patterson, C. J. (1997). Children of lesbian and gay parents. In T. Ollendick and R. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 235–282). New York: Plenum Press. Patterson, C. J. (1998). Family lives of children with lesbian mothers. In C. J. Patterson and A. R D’Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families: Psychological perspectives (pp. 154–176). New York: Oxford University Press. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052–1069. Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64, 727–736. Patterson, C. J. (2013). Sexual orientation and family lives. In C. J. Patterson and A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.

369

Charlotte J. Patterson Patterson, C. J. (2016). Parental sexual orientation and child development. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 45–49. Patterson, C. J., and Chan, R. W. (1998). Families headed by lesbian and gay parents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Patterson, C. J., and D’Augelli, A. R. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press. Patterson, C. J., and Friel, L. V. (2000). Sexual orientation and fertility. In G. R. Bentley and N. Mascie-Taylor (Eds.), Infertility in the modern world: Biosocial perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, C. J., and Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Lesbian and gay parents and their childen. Policy brief, National Council on Family Relations. Available online at: https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2017-01/ncfr_policy_ brief_november_final.pdf Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., and Mason, C. D. (1998). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children’s contacts with grandparents and other adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 390–399. Patterson, C. J., and Riskind, R. G. (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 326–340. Patterson, C. J., Riskind, R. G., and Tornello, S. L. (2014). Sexual orientation and parenting: A global perspective. In A. Abela and J. Walker (Eds.), Contemporary issues in family studies: Global perspectives on partnerships, parenting, and support in a changing world. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Patterson, C. J., Sutfin, E. L., and Fulcher, M. (2004). Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parenting couples: Correlates of specialized versus shared patterns. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 179–189. Patterson, C. J., and Tornello, S. L. (2010). Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International perspectives. Zeitschrift fur Familienforschung ( Journal of Family Psychology), Sonderheft, S, 103–110. Perlesz, A., Brown, R., Lindsay, J., McNair, R., DeVaux, D., and Pitts, M. (2006). Family in transition: Parents, children and grandparents in lesbian families give meaning to ‘doing family’. Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 175–199. Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, experiences, and values in changing times. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pinderhughes, E. E., and Brodzinsky, D. M. (2019). Parenting in adoptive families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol. 1: Children and parenting (3rd ed., pp. 322–367). New York: Routledge Publishers. Potter, D. (2012). Same sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 556–571. Potter, D., and Potter, E. C. (2016). Psychosocial well-being in children of same-sex parents: A longitudinal analysis of familial transitions. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 2303–2328. Rabun, C., and Oswald, R. F. (2009). Upholding and expanding the normal family: Future fatherhood through the eyes of gay male emerging adults. Fathering, 7, 269–285. Ray, V., and Gregory, R. (2001). School experiences of the children of lesbian and gay parents. Family Matters, 59, 28–35. Richman, K. D. (2009). Courting change: Queer parents, judges, and the transformation of American family law. New York: New York University Press. Ricketts, W., and Achetenberg, R. (1990). Adoption and foster parenting for lesbians and gay men: Creating new traditions in family. In W. Bozett and M. B. Susman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations. New York: Haworth Press. Riskind, R. G. (2011). Sexual orientation and use of assisted reproductive technology: Social and psychological issues. In J. Schenker (Ed.), Ethical and legal aspects of ART. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Riskind, R. G., and Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting intentions and desires among childless lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 78–81. Riskind, R. G., Patterson, C. J., and Nosek, B. A. (2013). Childless lesbian and gay adults’ self- efficacy about achieving parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 222–235. Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., and Noret, N. (2008). Victimization, social support, and psychosocial functioning among children of same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the United Kingdom. Developmental Psychology, 44, 127–134. Ross, L. E., and Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the “B” in LGBT parenting? A call for research on bisexual parenting. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Ross, L. E., Steele, L., Goldfinger, C., and Strike, C. (2007). Prenatal depressive symptomatology among lesbian and bisexual women. Archives of women’s mental health, 10, 53–59. Russell, S., and Horn, S. (Eds.). (2017). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

370

Lesbian and Gay Parenthood Shechner, T., Slone, M., Lobel, T. E., and Shechter, R. (2011). Children’s adjustment in non traditional families in Israel: The effect of parental sexual orientation and the number of parents on children’s development. Child Care Health Development, 39, 178–184. Schoonover, K., and Galt, R. (2016). Queer cinema in the world. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Shapiro, D. N., Peterson, C., and Stewart, A. J. (2009). Legal and social contexts and mental health among lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 255–262. Shenkman, G. (2012). The gap between fatherhood and couplehood desires among Israeli gay men and estimations of their likelihood. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 828–832. Stacey, J., and Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66, 159–183. Stotzer, R. L., Herman, J. L., and Hasenbush, A. (2014). Transgender parenting: A review of existing research. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Sumontha, J., Farr, R. H., and Patterson, C. J. (2016). Social support and coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 987–996. Sutfin, E. L., Fulcher, M., Bowles, R. P., and Patterson, C. J. (2008). How lesbian and heterosexual parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of gendered environments. Sex Roles, 58, 501–513. Tasker, F. L. (2013). Lesbian and gay parenting post-heterosexual divorce and separation. In A. E. Goldberg and K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. New York: Springer. Tasker, F. L., and Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York: Guilford. Tasker, F., and Patterson, C. J. (2007). Research on gay and lesbian parenting: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Family Studies, 3, 9–34. Tornello, S. L., Farr, R. H., and Patterson, C. J. (2011). Predictors of parenting stress among gay fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 591–600. Tornello, S. L., and Patterson, C. J. (2015). Timing of parenthood and experiences of gay fathers: A life course perspective. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 35–56. Tornello, S. L., and Patterson, C. J. (2016). Gay grandfathers: Intergenerational relationships and mental health. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 543–551. United States Bureau of the Census. (2018). Population of the United States. Retrieved from www.census.gov. Wainright, J. L., and Patterson, C. J. (2006). Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 526–530. Wainright, J. L., and Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with female same- sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 117–126. Wainright, J. L, Russell, S. T., and Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886–1898. Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., and Donovan, C. (2001). Same-sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London: Psychology Press. Weeks, R. B., Derdeyn, A. P., and Langman, M. (1975). Two cases of children of homosexuals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 6, 26–32.

371

11 SIBLING CAREGIVING Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

Introduction In April 2017, a 5-year-old boy found his mother collapsed in the shower. Believing she had died, and not wanting his 2-month-old baby sister to be distressed, he wrapped her in a blanket and carried her to the safety of neighbors (Wasu, 2017). Although the boy’s quick thinking was credited with saving his mother’s life, his actions conveyed not only his concern for his mother, but also his commitment to providing care to his vulnerable sister. As evidenced in this story, even at a very young age, children are sensitive to their sisters’ and brothers’ physical and emotional needs and take action to respond to those needs (Dunn, 2007; Howe, Della Porta, Recchia, and Ross, 2016; Kramer, 2010). The fire department in his rural Arizona town named him an “honorary firefighter” for his bravery in caring for his mother. However, his role in providing both physical and emotional care to his infant sister received almost no recognition. This is just one example of how siblings’ contributions to one another’s care and development—which can be life changing—have been overlooked and understudied historically (Dunn, 2007; East, 2010). The major objectives of this chapter are to bring stronger focus to the many ways siblings extend care and support to one another, to explore how these actions both reflect, and are formative for, individual and family well-being, and, further, how parents can best set the stage for continued care and support throughout siblings’ relationship across the life course.

Sibling Caregiving as “Unseen” Phenomena Siblings have great access to one another during childhood and adolescence and, as discussed ahead, have been shown to be critical agents of one another’s socialization (Kramer and Conger, 2009). As reported by McHale, Updegraff, and Whiteman (2012), using 2010 Current Population Survey data (King et al., 2010), a higher percentage of youth in the United States live with one or more siblings (82.22%) than live with a father figure (78.19%). Time use data have shown that in middle childhood, siblings spend more time with one another than with parents, peers, or by themselves (McHale and Crouter, 1996). For example, Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, and Delgado (2005) found that adolescent siblings in Mexican American families living in the southwestern United States spent an average of 17 hours per week in shared activities—more time than they spent with parents or other family members. Through nightly telephone interviews with a U.S. sample who was largely of European American descent, Tucker, McHale, and Crouter (2008) found adolescent siblings spend 372

Sibling Caregiving

an average of 10 hours per week in shared activities. Despite such access, it is curious that whereas the contributions of mothers and fathers are well regarded in promoting children’s social, cognitive, and emotional development and caregiving, siblings are not often recognized for the critical sources of caregiving they too provide. The lack of attention to the caregiving acts exchanged among siblings may be understandable, at least in Western technological societies, as much of sibling interaction may occur outside of parents’ view, especially when parents work outside of the home. Thus, the efforts siblings take to care for one another may not be readily apparent, often hidden, or “unseen.” As discussed in this chapter, although parents may not be privy to all of siblings’ exchanges of care, support, and emotional assurance, interactions such as these nonetheless play a formative role in both older and younger siblings’ development (Maynard, 2002). In many non-Western or rural agrarian societies, where sibling caregiving is recognized as occurring very frequently (Zukow-Goldring, 1989), parents take for granted the significance of these acts. According to Zukow-Goldring (2002), “The majority of the world’s parents assume their children will become competent caregivers and depend on their assistance in socializing younger sisters and brothers” (p. 257). Thus, sibling caregiving may be visible, but yet not considered as anything out of the ordinary. As a result, adults may fail to recognize its significance for children’s development and the well-being of the family as a whole.

The Challenge of Promoting Sustained Sibling Caregiving Mothers and fathers of young children frequently express, in surveys and interviews, the desire that their children will not only get along well in childhood, but also continue to provide care and support to one another, especially in later adulthood when parents themselves are no longer present or able to help (Kramer and Baron, 1995). Because it is not likely that individuals will provide care and support to a sibling they have a conflictual or hostile relationship with, parents often inquire about how they can best nurture the types of sibling relationships that will encourage their offspring to be consistent sources of care and support to one another as adults (Kramer and Gottman, 1992). The quality of the relationship that siblings establish early in childhood often sets the stage for more supportive and caring relationships later in life. Longitudinal examinations of continuity and change in sibling relationship quality, in the absence of intervention, have shown high levels of consistency in positive and negative forms of sibling interaction over time (Dunn, 2007; Kramer and Kowal, 2005). Although we lack data about whether these patterns persist into adulthood, it is likely that the exchange of support and care among siblings later in life depends on the quality of the relationship established much earlier in life. The question of how parents may best encourage sustained caregiving among siblings is addressed later in this chapter.

Siblings as Agents of Socialization In an earlier review of sibling caregiving, Zukow-Goldring (2002) presented evidence from around the globe to advance that, even as children, siblings not only give care to their younger sisters and brothers to protect them from harm and meet some of their basic physical needs, but also more importantly serve as “competent socializing agents” (p. 254), introducing their sisters and brothers to ways of acting and knowing that may be distinct from what they learn from parents and other adults. Relatedly, children serve as “culture brokers” (p. 278), moderating relationships their siblings establish within their immediate family, community, culture, and society. This chapter extends Zukow-Goldring’s conceptualization of siblings across the globe as capable agents of socialization and culture brokers to further explore how siblings contribute to one another’s socioemotional development and wellbeing throughout the life course. In so doing, this chapter adopts Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological 373

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

perspective to understand the various contextual influences that may shape expressions of sibling caregiving, focusing first on broader, more distal systemic contexts and then narrowing to examine the ways in which sibling caregiving is shaped by proximal familial processes, and by the characteristics that children and parents bring to these relationships. The discussion begins by examining definitions of sibling caregiving, the forms it may take, and its potential roles in socioemotional development.

Definitions of Sibling Caregiving The range of activities included in definitions of sibling “caretaking” and “caregiving”—terms used relatively interchangeably in the literature—reflects the plurality of perspectives on the role siblings may play in one another’s well-being and development. Hafford (2010) regarded sibling caregiving as the temporary transfer of parental authority or supervisory responsibilities to an older sibling, such as when a parent asks a child to “look after” a sibling while the parent is absent. In a similar vein, East and Hamill (2013) considered typical sibling caregiving responsibilities to include “monitoring to keep from harm, feeding or helping to feed, getting siblings ready for school, and helping with bathing, dressing or homework” (p. 543). These definitions may best fit many of the forms of sibling caregiving observed within families in Western technological societies in which sibling care is considered to be auxiliary to parental care. Parents are understood as the primary providers of care to children, if not performing it themselves, then at the very least assuming responsibility for determining the types of care a child needs (and should receive) and who should provide it (e.g., whether particular tasks should be delegated to a sibling, other family member, or childcare provider). Taking a more comprehensive and global perspective, Weisner and Gallimore (1977) conceptualized sibling caregiving broadly, as activities ranging from complete and independent full-time care of a child by an older child to the performance of specific tasks for another child under the supervision of adults or other children; it includes verbal or other explicit training and direction of the child’s behavior, as well as simply “keeping an eye out for younger siblings.” (p. 169) Weisner and Gallimore’s definition takes into account many of the forms of sibling caregiving that are observed in non-Western or agrarian societies, where children may be delegated extensive care­ giving responsibilities, or on occasion in Western societies when a child or adolescent provides extensive care when a parent is incapacitated (East, 2010). It is notable that Weisner and Gallimore (1977) included “all kinds of socialization, training, and routine responsibilities one child assumes for others” (p. 169, emphasis added) as part of their definition of sibling caregiving, reinforcing the notion that siblings can and do teach one another a myriad of things, and that their contributions to one another’s welfare extends well beyond the provision of tangible support and supervision. This broader conceptualization of sibling caregiving remains influential and has been adopted in numerous studies of sibling caregiving (Bryant, 1982; Yi et al., 2012). Bryant (1989) further broadened the definition of sibling caregiving to include those instances in which siblings turn to one another “for counsel and emotional support” (p. 143, emphasis added). Especially as adolescents, caregiving may involve confiding, self-disclosure, and sharing advice (Bryant, 1989; Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Rinaldi, and Lehoux, 2000), mediating frustration with parents (Bank and Kahn, 1975), advocating on one’s behalf (Burke, Arnold, and Owen, 2015; Li, 2006), or serving as a sounding board when trying to solve problems or plan for the future (Tucker, Barber, and Eccles, 1997). Although the inclusion of emotional support as part of the definition of sibling caregiving was a departure from more traditional definitions, there is supporting evidence for considering emotional responsiveness as part of sibling caregiving. For example, the majority of 374

Sibling Caregiving

Scottish primary school children interviewed by Kosonen (1996) named their sibling as the person they would first turn to for assistance when worried (56%) or on encountering something they needed help with (63%). In fact, siblings were identified as confidantes more frequently than were fathers and only slightly less frequently than mothers. Thus, as Bryant (1989) advanced, siblings represent an important component of children’s social/emotional support network; their role as agents of support may be particularly heightened for children who have an otherwise limited support network (Kosonen, 1996). Perceptions about which tasks and responsibilities are considered appropriate forms of sibling caregiving vary considerably in accordance with culture (Cicirelli, 1994; Maynard, 2002; Nuckolls, 1993; Weisner and Gallimore, 1977; Zukow-Goldring, 2002), ethnicity (Burton, 2007), gender roles (Grigoryeva, 2017), family structure (East, 2010), and socioeconomic status (McMahon and Luthar, 2007), among other factors. Thus, it is important that the working definition of sibling caregiving be broad enough to encompass the forms of sibling caregiving that occur in diverse corners of the world. In following Bryant (1989), Weisner and Gallimore (1977), Zukow-Goldring (2002), and East (2010), this chapter adopts a relatively expansive definition of sibling caregiving, considering it to encompass a range of actions and processes that are directed toward meeting the physical and safety needs of a sibling, and those that might promote the social, cognitive, and emotional development and well-being of that child and her family. That is, sibling caregiving is considered to include various forms of teaching and instruction and socialization as well as the provision of emotional support and comfort, companionship, advice, and financial and other forms of assistance and advocacy. Definitions of sibling caregiving are also recognized as culturally relevant, that is, the types of caregiving that are observed are expressions of the culture in which it is embedded and must be understood using a cultural lens. This chapter presents an analysis of the wide-ranging forms that sibling caregiving may take across development and across geography with an eye toward describing the variety of functions that sibling caregiving may fulfill to enhance the well-being of individuals, families, and society. The chapter begins with a brief review of the various forms that sibling caretaking may take in Western and non-Western cultures. This discussion brings focus to the characteristics of siblings (and their families) that are likely to place them in the respective roles of providers and recipients of care, the typical precipitants and duration and extent of sibling caregiving, and the different forms of caregiving that tend to emerge with development. The chapter next addresses the functions that sibling caregiving may hold for families in diverse cultures, including serving as a family economic survival strategy or as a mechanism for providing respite or support to parents. Particular emphasis is placed on the functions sibling caregiving may serve in both reflecting and advancing individuals’ socioemotional development. Next, a broad set of sociocultural factors (i.e., cultural, historical, and legal factors) are examined for their potential influences on sibling caregiving. This is followed by an examination of potential familial influences, including family members’ ethnic and cultural identities, family structure, and experiences of stress and economic pressures. A review of intrafamilial factors that may influence sibling caregiving follows that includes attention to the characteristics that parents and children bring to family interactions, such as their personality, health, and mental health. The chapter culminates in a discussion of how sibling caregiving can be promoted through evidencebased practice and experimental interventions, and how it may be best studied in future research. We begin with an exploration of the various forms that sibling caregiving takes around the globe.

Forms of Sibling Caregiving Although the forms, functions, and frequency of sibling caregiving may vary dramatically across the globe, “social historians have verified that children have been expected to provide some caregiving in 375

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

much of our history and in most cultures” (East, 2010, p. 56). On the basis of extensive ethnographic and cross-cultural studies, numerous researchers (Cicirelli, 1994; Larson and Verma, 1999; Nuckolls, 1993; Weisner and Gallimore, 1977; Zukow-Goldring, 1989, 1995, 2002) observed significant variability in both societal expectations and specific sibling caregiving behaviors that occur across nations, cultures, ethnicities, and economic groups. In light of the diverse factors that may differentially set the occasion for sibling caregiving, it is useful to consider caregiving activities in terms of the following four dimensions: (1) who provides care to whom, (2) the precipitants of sibling caregiving (e.g., whether caregiving is spontaneously offered on recognition of a sibling’s need or is performed upon an adult’s direction), (3) the duration and/or extent of the caregiving activity, and (4) the developmental periods during which caregiving occurs.

Who Provides Care to Whom Age Across the globe, children generally begin to provide care to siblings between the ages of 5 and 10 years, with daughters (mostly eldest daughters) more often assuming such responsibilities than sons (Zukow-Goldring, 2002). Kosonen (1996) reported that Scandinavian adults consider children as young as 7 years of age, and Norwegian adults consider children 10–12 years of age, capable of household task management, including caring for siblings in the absence of adult supervision. In cultures where mothers have high workloads, children may be prompted to begin even earlier, as young as 3 years of age (Morrongiello, MacIsaac, and Klemencic, 2007). In large families, caregiving burden may be greatest when the age span between children is wide, with elder children (typically daughters) expected to take greater responsibility for the care of younger siblings (East, 2010; Zukow-Goldring, 2002).

Birth Order Although elder siblings are more frequently observed to extend care to younger siblings rather than vice versa (Hafford, 2010; Weisner and Gallimore, 1977), it is also important to recognize that care­ giving can be, and often is, reciprocal. Even as toddlers, children may extend some forms of care to elder siblings, for example, by comforting an older sibling who is hurt (Dunn and Munn, 1985). Howe et al. (2016) observed sequences of teaching and learning among sibling dyads across two time points in early childhood, approximately 2 years apart. Across both observations, older siblings were more likely than younger siblings to engage in teaching; however, younger siblings’ efforts to teach their older siblings significantly increased from the first observation (at 2 years of age) to the second (at 4 years of age). These findings suggest that, even in early childhood, forms of caregiving can be reciprocal, and that the presumption that only elder children give care to younger siblings should be avoided. Patterns of sibling caregiving among children very close in age—as may be the case with twins, half, or stepsiblings—are not yet fully understood. As reviewed by Tancredy and Fraley (2006), across development, twins are more likely to use one another as attachment figures than are non-twins, as they more often demonstrate key attributes of attachment relationships, (i.e., proximity seeking, separation distress, the use of the other as a safe haven during times of stress, and as a secure base from which to explore the world). In a cross-sectional online study of attachment relationships, Tancredy and Fraley (2006) found that young adults who had a twin were more likely than those without a twin to regard their sibling as an attachment figure, especially if they were encouraged to spend time together during childhood, and as adults, shared interests, experienced empathy for another, and “included the other as part of the self ” (p. 87). Age differences between non-twin siblings did not 376

Sibling Caregiving

predict attachment relationships. This suggests that having a developmental advantage, such as when one sibling is significantly older or more experienced than another, does not need to exist for siblings to provide meaningful levels of support and care.

Gender Research with U.S. samples indicates that older sisters are more often caregivers of younger siblings than older brothers (Bryant, 1989; Dodson and Dickert, 2004; Garner, Jones, and Palmer, 1994). Larson and Verma (1999) conducted cross-cultural comparisons of how male and female adolescents within postindustrial (e.g., European nations, North American nations, East Asian nations) and nonindustrial (e.g., Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nepal, Philippines, Mexico, Botswana, Kenya) societies spend their time. In nonindustrialized societies, especially those in which children do not regularly attend formal schools, girls in early childhood spent nearly 2 hours per day on household tasks, including cooking and caring for younger children; this number rose to nearly 7 hours per day by late childhood and early adolescence. Thus, in many nonindustrial societies, by the time female children reach adolescence, they are expected to engage in comparable amounts of household tasks (including childcare) as adult females. In comparison, participation in household tasks by adolescents in the postindustrial countries they studied was less than 1 hour per day (Larson and Verma, 1999). Although boys also participated in household tasks (including childcare) in nonindustrialized societies, they devoted significantly fewer hours than girls (Larson and Verma, 1999). Although boys were observed to participate in household maintenance, these were more commonly outdoor or out-of-home tasks (e.g., running errands, yard work, caring for animals) rather than sibling care tasks. However, according to Larson and Verma, important opportunities exist for nonsupervisory forms of caregiving—as may be the case in instances where a male child or adolescent teaches a brother how to carry out particular tasks and acquire culturally relevant skills—and such forms of sibling instruction may occur in a more gender equitable manner. Even considering cross-cultural differences, Larson and Verma (1999) concluded that “across nearly all populations—regardless of economic development or schooling—girls spend more time in household labor than do boys” (p. 707). Taken together, these findings indicate that across cultures, the provision of care and supervision of siblings—prominent components of household tasks in all societies—are tasks more often expected of female than male offspring, and of older rather than younger offspring. In Western technological societies, where female out-of-the home workforce participation may be more prevalent, considerably less emphasis appears to be placed on female participation in household labor than in non-Western societies. An important caveat is that some cross-cultural studies may overlook forms of sibling caregiving that males are more likely to provide, such as informal forms of teaching and ensuring the safety of siblings in out-of-home contexts. For example, in a study of low-income families in San Francisco who immigrated from the Philippines, China, and Latin America, young adult daughters reported providing more physical forms of assistance, but sons were more likely to provide financial assistance to their siblings, parents, and extended family members (Fuligni, Tseng, and Lam, 1999). Thus, the degree to which males participate in the care of siblings may be under-recognized and appreciated.

Family Structure and Composition Children who live with a father or father figure may provide relatively lower levels of caregiving than children in single-parent homes; mothers in two-parent families may provide more caregiving themselves, as they do not bear the full burden of providing income for the family (East, 2010). Furthermore, children who have large extended families nearby may not be required to provide as much care to siblings as those with less access to adult relatives (East, 2010). Changes in family structure and 377

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

composition, such as those precipitated by parental divorce and remarriage, offer unique opportunities and challenges for sibling caregiving.

Ethnicity Margolis, Fosco, and Stormshak (2014) surveyed adolescents in urban U.S. settings to understand whom they considered to be the adults who provide care to them. Approximately 35% of Latin American, 17% of African American, and nearly 10% of European American adolescents listed older siblings as members of their network of caregivers. The higher percentage of Latin American (and to a lesser degree, African American) youth who considered adult siblings to be significant caregivers likely reflects a greater endorsement of the cultural value of familism (East and Hamill, 2013; Updegraff et al., 2005) in which, among other things, importance is placed on family members (including children) assuming responsibility for one another’s care. African American families have long-standing traditions of providing care to family members (Dilworth-Anderson et al., 2005) and may have greater interest in providing support to siblings in later adulthood than do European American families (Gold, 1990). Namkung, Greenberg, and Mailick (2017) found that European American adults providing personal care to an ill or disabled sibling experienced greater caregiver burden (i.e., more depressive symptoms and lower ratings of life satisfaction) than minority (African American and Latin American) caregivers.

Personal Characteristics Personal characteristics of children may influence the degree to which they are asked to assume care­ giving duties. Perceived levels of competence, emotional maturity, and/or the possession of specific abilities or skills (including those that other family members may not have, for example, due to a language barrier, mental or physical health issues, or developmental delays) may make some children more likely candidates for caregiving assignments than other children in the family, regardless of their birth order (Burton, 2007; East, 2010). Particularly in instances in which one child experiences physical, cognitive, or developmental limitations, birth order may play a lesser role in determining which child assumes a caregiving role (McHale and Gamble, 1989). As children reach more advanced developmental stages, caregiving tends to become increasingly reciprocal (Tucker et al., 1997).

Precipitants of Sibling Caregiving Although many instances of sibling caregiving, especially in early childhood, are prompted by a parent or other adult, child-initiated forms of caregiving also regularly occur (Maynard, 2002; Morrongiello et al., 2007). Provisions of emotional assurance, comfort, and support that occur spontaneously may have different implications for children’s development than caregiving that is performed at the direction of parents or other adults.

Externally Directed Caregiving Requests to provide care to siblings are more often initiated by parents than by other adults. These requests can range from discrete or time-bound duties (e.g., “Make sure you watch out for your sister on your way to school.”) to broader, continuous expectations (e.g., “I’m counting on you to always look out for your brother.”). Although parents may assign these tasks with the aim of obtaining help in an immediate situation or to gain brief respite, particularly in societies in which children’s care of siblings is truly needed, parents may issue these directives to help children develop requisite skills they believe children will need as adults (Weisner and Gallimore, 1977). However, resentment may also 378

Sibling Caregiving

emerge, particularly if children feel that parents do not demonstrate sufficient appreciation for their mandated assistance. Such resentment may be directed at the parent who directed them to provide care or at the sibling whose mere presence may be perceived as precipitating this inconvenience (Dunn and Kendrick, 1982; Murphy, 1993). Song and Volling (2015) found that preschool children’s compliance with their mothers’ requests to help change their infant sibling’s diaper was predicted by preschoolers’ temperament (i.e., soothability) and a cooperative coparenting relationship. Parents may begin to communicate the importance of supporting one another’s physical and emotional needs and prepare their children to provide care to siblings at an early age. Howe and Rinaldi (2004) observed mothers in a laboratory setting as they prepared to leave their toddlers for a short period in the care of their preschool-age siblings. Prior to their departure, mothers provided the elder sibling with strategies and instructions to care for their younger child—who they anticipated would become distressed in their absence. Caregiving was observed as the preschoolers held, kissed, distracted, and offered reassuring statements to their siblings. Morrongiello et al. (2007) conducted telephone interviews with a sample of Canadian mothers to estimate the percentage of time younger siblings (age 2 years on average) were supervised in the home by an elder brother or sister (age 6 years on average) while they were busy with tasks in another room in the home. Mothers indicated that sibling supervision occurs, on average, 11% of the time that children are home. (It should be noted that Morrongiello et al. focused on sibling supervision, and not other forms of sibling caregiving.) However, because mothers were asked to report only on the times that they specifically designated an older sibling to provide care for a sibling, and not those times when siblings spontaneously assumed responsibility, the researchers acknowledged that this statistic is likely an underestimate of the sibling caregiving that routinely occurs (Morrongiello et al., 2007).

Child-Initiated Caregiving Caregiving that is provided voluntarily by a child, without prompting or request from a parent, may be particularly meaningful, and of a higher quality, than if it is extrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan, 2000) or directed by an adult. Even at a very early age, children have the capacity to independently identify instances in which their sibling requires assistance or support and respond accordingly (Dunn, 1983, 2007). Stewart (1983) found that half of the preschoolers he observed who were left alone in a waiting room without their mothers in a simulated “Strange Situation” spontaneously extended comfort, assurance, and care to their infant siblings. Maynard (2002) observed that Mayan children as young as 4 years of age independently identified and initiated opportunities to teach younger siblings new skills. In many cultures, very young children imitate the forms of childcare they observe their parents performing, both in fantasy (e.g., doll play) and in reality with actual siblings (Kramer, 1996). With what begins as emulation of parental styles of caregiving, with practice and over time, children develop their own styles of caregiving (Weisner and Gallimore, 1977). A young child’s ability to independently identify a younger sibling’s need and then implement a strategy (without prompting) to meet that need represents a significant milestone in the development of social understanding (Dunn, 1983). As part of Dunn’s longitudinal research conducted in the natural setting of family’s homes in Cambridge, England, Dunn and Munn (1985) observed young firstborn children as they anticipated the emotions of their family members during conflict and attempted to address these emotions. As 2-year-olds, the children responded to the distress of an infant sibling with kisses, pats, and going to their mother for assistance. By 3 years, children were better able to tailor the type of comfort they provided to the presumed cause of the infant’s distress, such as by returning a pacifier that the baby had dropped. Observations such as these led Dunn and Munn (1985) to suggest that through early encounters with siblings, children develop a “practical understanding of the emotional state of the other family member and how to alleviate it” (p. 490). 379

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

Duration and Extent of Caregiving Behaviors Caregiving behaviors can range from momentary activities—such as assisting with a diaper change or helping a younger sibling grasp an object out of his reach—to those that extend over time and across occasions, as when an adolescent mentors a sibling in a complex task (e.g., learning to tie a shoe or addressing a difficult situation with a peer). Factors such as whether the caregiving that is provided is brief or extensive—occurs on a one-time basis or is part of a series—and changes in accord with the growing capabilities of both the recipient and provider of care can be quite helpful for understanding the functions that sibling caregiving plays in particular families. For example, in families in which a parent (or child) is incapacitated by illness, disability, or other hardship, children may engage in more sustained and intensive caregiving of siblings (East, 2010). Children in families such as these may assume near-primary responsibility for ensuring that siblings eat breakfast, make it to school on time, and complete homework (McMahon and Luthar, 2007). The extent to which a child assumes responsibility for the care and well-being of a sibling could be described in terms parallel to those offered by Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, and Levine (1985) to describe fathers’ level of involvement in supporting their children’s development: (1) interaction, or the extent of fathers’ actual interaction with children; (2) availability, or the degree to which an individual is potentially available to children for interaction but perhaps not actually engaging with them; and (3) responsibility, or the role fathers take to ensure that children are taken care of or have developed to manage a system of care that addresses their overall well-being (e.g., setting up childcare, making medical appointments, and securing resources for these tasks). Pleck (2010) revised his conceptualization of father involvement to include three primary components (positive engagement activities, warmth and responsiveness, and control) as well as two auxiliary dimensions of responsibility (social and material forms of care that may be provided outside of interaction with the child, such as making plans or arrangements to meet a child’s social needs, and process responsibilities, such as recognizing a child’s needs rather than waiting to be asked to fulfill a child’s needs). Sibling involvement in the provision of care for a brother or sister can similarly be understood as simultaneously functioning at one or more of these levels. For example, a child could be highly engaged with a sibling, not only by being available and interactive, but also because the sibling perceives and takes responsibility for some aspects of the sibling’s well-being (e.g., taking custody of minor siblings when a parent is unable to fulfill parenting duties). Thus, the duration and extent of sibling caregiving responsibilities that a child assumes vary considerably depending on family structure and functioning, and in accord with their own developmental level and other personal characteristics. Siblings deserve consideration for raising the visibility and value of their contributions to families. Although it is tempting (especially in Western technological societies) to believe that sibling caregiving is a nonessential, “bonus” contribution, in some families (such as those with parents affected by psychological disorders or addiction), it is may be entirely critical to the survival of individual children.

Sibling Caregiving Across the Life Course Forms of sibling caregiving vary significantly across the life course, with brief, discrete instances of sibling caregiving—such as consoling a crying brother or sister—emerging spontaneously in early childhood (Dunn, 1983, 2007) and becoming more complex, intense, and sustained as siblings age (Lu, 2007).

Early Childhood Toddler-age children typically seek contact with a sibling when distressed or when separated from a parent, particularly when older siblings respond with comfort and reassurance (Teti and Ablard, 380

Sibling Caregiving

1989). Children as young as 2 years old regularly demonstrate an interest in helping and serving the needs of others (Hepach, Vaish, Grossmann, and Tomasello, 2016; Hepach, Vaish, and Tomasello, 2017), including participating in the care and nurturance of their brothers and sisters (Dunn, 1983, 2007). Caregiving activities during early childhood may be relatively simple in nature (e.g., help feed or entertain a sibling while a parent is out of the room), may be imitations of acts they have observed adult caregivers to provide (e.g., verbally soothe a baby when she cries), and be initiated via adult assignment. As children become acquainted with the more complex tasks associated with meeting the needs of another, over time, they become able to independently identify opportunities to provide care (Dunn and Kendrick, 1982).

Middle Childhood From her cross-cultural review of sibling caregiving practices, Zukow-Goldring (2002) observed that sibling caregiving activities tend to increase from early to middle childhood, with caregiving responsibilities increasing substantially around the time that the elder sibling reaches 5 years of age and peaking sometime between ages 7 and 13 or 14 years. Parents may assign more chores and household responsibilities to children as they reach middle childhood, which may include minding a sibling (Bryant, 1982). In some cases, parents may instruct siblings to share responsibilities (such as household tasks), which provide ample opportunities for more experienced siblings to teach or coach their brother or sister how to carry out tasks successfully (Bryant, 1982). Of course, carrying out these shared activities can also be a context for bossiness, bickering, irritation, and conflict (Kosonen, 1996). Middle childhood is a period of tremendous developmental growth in the realms of personal and ethnic identity development (Umaña-Taylor, 2011), social understanding (Saarni, 1999), social skills (Downey, Condron, and Yucel, 2015), and interpersonal problem-solving (Rubin and Rose-Krasnor, 1992) and, as such, can be an important period for the development of prosocial sibling relationships (Stormshak, Bullock, and Falkenstein, 2009). It may be during middle childhood that siblings first begin to view one another as critical sources of knowledge, skills, and strategies that are especially useful for navigating the social worlds beyond the family. For example, the shared experience of going to middle school (which parents have only limited knowledge of ) can enable “academic caretaking” (Bryant, 1982, p. 107) in which a more experienced sibling may use his or her inside knowledge to coach the other (e.g., help with homework or explain strategies for meeting teachers’ seemingly excessive demands). Additionally, siblings’ exchanges of emotional forms of support and guidance may also increase during middle childhood (Kosonen, 1996), especially when they, or their family, face critical transitions or stressors (Bryant, 1982).

Adolescence Involvement in caregiving, especially in terms of the provision of physical care and supervision, appears to decrease in adolescence, particularly as the need for care declines and each sibling develops stronger relationships with individuals outside of the family. However, engagement in emotional forms of caregiving often persists throughout adolescence and into adulthood (Cicirelli, 1995; Margolis et al., 2014; Maynard, 2002; Tucker et al., 1997). Particularly in late adolescence, older siblings are perceived as serving as important care providers for younger siblings through sharing advice and emotional support (Tucker et al., 1997). In home and telephone interviews, Tucker, McHale, and Crouter (2001) found that first- (M = 16 years) and second-born siblings (M = 13 years) frequently sought each other out for advice on both nonfamilial (e.g., peer, academics) and familial issues, making them particularly poised to provide support during periods of stress. Adolescents often view their siblings as more knowledgeable and understanding about their experiences—occurring both within and external to the family—than parents or other adults (Tucker et al., 1997). In particular, 381

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

adolescents may find their sisters and brothers to be helpful in managing relationships with parents (e.g., how to avoid making a parent angry), given that they have more knowledge of, and experience with, the parent than would a peer or nonfamilial confidante (Tucker et al., 1997). The influence of siblings may become more powerful than parental influence during adolescence, possibly as powerful as peers (McHale et al., 2012). For example, concurrent rates of sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy (East and Jacobson, 2001), alcohol and drug use (Rende, Slomkowski, Lloyd-Richardson, and Niaura, 2005; Rowe and Gulley, 1992), and delinquent acts (Criss and Shaw, 2005) among adolescent siblings suggest mutual influences on one another’s behavior. For example, delinquent acts performed by younger siblings in middle adolescence were predicted by higher levels of hostility and coercion with their same-sexed sibling in early adolescence (Slomkowski, Rende, Conger, Simons, and Conger, 2001). Slomkowski et al. also found that in sibling dyads with an older brother who engaged in delinquent acts, warmth and support in early adolescence were predictive of their younger brother’s later delinquency. In contrast, lower levels of sibling warmth and support predicted younger sibling delinquency in dyads with an older sister who engaged in delinquent acts. In addition to suggesting a “partner in crime” model for brothers in which they socialize one another to engage in deviant acts, it is also possible that adolescents’ engagement in deviant activities increases if they have been introduced by a sibling to peers who model such behaviors and/or they become part of a deviant peer group (Criss and Shaw, 2005). It is also possible that, as adolescents, individuals may have stronger predilections and/or powers to resist offers of guidance and support from sisters and brothers (Campione-Barr, 2017). For example, if the recipient of caregiving views the siblings’ assistance as an infringement of independence, or as insufficient recognition of their growing capabilities, the sibling may become indignant or resistant (McHale, Kim, and Whiteman, 2006) and conflict and resentment may follow (East, 2010). Resistance toward care and support may be especially likely if siblings lack a warm relationship (Cicirelli, 1995).

Emerging and Early Adulthood Although younger siblings are most often the recipients of emotional caregiving during middle childhood and adolescence, the level of support and care exchanged between siblings begins to become more equitable in emerging adulthood (Stocker, Lanthier, and Furman, 1997; Tucker et al., 1997). However, as young adults leave the family for college and begin their careers, sibling contact generally lessens in frequency and becomes increasingly voluntary and discretionary—they are not “required” to interact—except perhaps during certain ritual occasions (Cicirelli, 1995). Emotional support and caregiving continues in many families as siblings intentionally maintain their relationships through phone, e-mail, and text communications; greater sibling relational maintenance generally occurs among siblings who report greater closeness and intimacy than hostility (Lindell, Campione-Barr, and Killoren, 2015; Myers and Goodboy, 2010). As siblings enter early adulthood, their help may be especially useful for navigating challenges associated with establishing careers, romantic relationships, and financial security (Conger and Little, 2010; Stocker et al., 1997). For example, in families of first-generation college students, elder siblings may be given full responsibility for guiding younger siblings with their applications for admission and financial aid as well as helping with their preparation and adjustment to college life and later, the job search process, given that these are unfamiliar experiences for parents (St. Clair-Christman, 2011). Whereas professionals—teachers and college counselors—may possess knowledge of college application and admission processes that parents may not possess, parents consider their elder children to be the real experts; it is they who possess intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the family, the family’s economic struggles, and the emotional reactions (e.g., fears, worries) family members may have about a child leaving the home. Thus, elder siblings likely serve as immediate references for younger siblings as to what types of career paths, economic mobility, and relationships may be 382

Sibling Caregiving

possible for them and how to attain such success (Conger and Little, 2010). Given their inside knowledge of the family, emerging adults may be uniquely positioned to guide younger siblings through the developmental tasks associated with the transition to adulthood.

Middle Adulthood Sibling interactions may decline in frequency in middle adulthood as individuals’ attention often turns toward meeting workplace demands, achieving financial security, and rearing a family. Particularly when adult siblings live at some distance, interaction becomes increasingly voluntary; although as members of the same family, they may feel some degree of obligation to one another (Walker, Allen, and Connidis, 2005) and understand that help will be mobilized at a time of need (Tolkacheva, Brouse van Groenou, and van Tilburg, 2010). Lee, Mancini, and Maxwell (1990) found that discretionary (rather than obligatory) contact between adult siblings was most strongly predicted by emotional closeness, feeling responsible for one’s sibling, having fewer siblings, geographic proximity and, paradoxically, greater conflict (which might be explained by greater frequency of interactions). Sibling support in middle adulthood appears to occur most often among same-sex sibling pairs and those who live geographically close (Cicirelli, 1995). Among Taiwanese families, sibling contact in middle adulthood is greatest among sisters than any other gender composition; the least amount of contact occurs among brothers (Lu, 2007). During middle adulthood, siblings often aid one another by alleviating child caregiving burden (Hunter, Pearson, Ialongo, and Kellam, 1998); for example, in Taiwan, adults often provide care to each other’s children (Lu, 2007). For many adults, siblings continue to play an important role during major life events, such as the entrance or exit of family members through marriage, the birth of children, divorce, and death (Connidis, 1992, 2010) or their own illness (Stahl and Stahl, 2017). Siblings may especially seek emotional care from one another in the face of a crisis, such as addressing financial turmoil or the death or serious illness of a family member (Bedford, 1998; Cicirelli, 1995). When faced with addressing their parents’ affairs in the face of serious illness or death, sibling contact may increase as they work to manage needs, share memories, or secure companionship (Bedford, 1998). In addition, the shared experience of losing a parent, and undergoing the grieving process as a family, may bring adult siblings closer together (Lu, 2007). However, in instances in which a parent requires long-term care, it is often the case that it is only one sibling (typically, an elder female) who assumes primary responsibility for the care of that aging parent (Coward and Dwyer, 1990), with conflict erupting if individual siblings perceive inequity in who is providing care (Ingersoll-Dayton, Neal, Ha, and Hammer, 2003). Feelings of resentment, perhaps stemming from childhood perceptions of unwarranted parental differential treatment, can reemerge as siblings plan for the care of an aging parent (Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2003; Soli, McHale, and Feinberg, 2009). Grigoryeva (2017) reported that daughters provide twice as much care to elderly parents than sons; however, even with these differences, sons tend to provide more care to their fathers, whereas daughters tend to provide more care to their mothers. Adult siblings of an individual with a disability typically assume greater caregiving responsibilities once parents are no longer able. Such caregiving may include financial and legal decision-making; securing, monitoring, and evaluating services (e.g., home healthcare); and providing companionship or social interaction (Davys, Mitchell, and Haigh, 2011). Increased caregiver burden can create stress for these care providers as well as for their immediate families.

Later Adulthood Although sibling support may occur less frequently than at other ages, it may nonetheless play an important role in promoting the socioemotional well-being of older adults. For example, O’Bryant 383

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

(1988) demonstrated that regular interaction with married sisters was predictive of positive affect among recently widowed women over 60 years of age. Relationships appear to be most intimate among sisters, but same-sexed sibling relationships, in general, appear to be more intimate in later adulthood than cross-sexed siblings (Bedford and Avioli, 2001). Furthermore, factors such as physical proximity to a sibling and perceived closeness of the relationship between siblings have associations with both increased life satisfaction and decreased depressive symptoms (Bedford, 1998). Indeed, closeness and confiding among older adult siblings appear to be greater when one or both are single, have launched or did not have children, or have had a spouse pass away (Bedford and Avioli, 2001). The support siblings provide while grieving the loss of a spouse may strengthen their bond (Bedford and Avioli, 2001). On examining sibling relationships in Taiwan, Lu (2007) found that sibling contact and support is most frequent during early adulthood, lower in middle age, and lowest in older adulthood. In addition, individuals who report feeling a sense of emotional closeness to a brother or sister are also more likely to provide help to that sibling than to those they feel less close (Lu, 2007). Levels of support exchanged among siblings in older adulthood are associated with the perceived quality of these relationships (Gold, 1989). On the basis of qualitative interviews with adults 65 years of age and older, Gold found more emotional caregiving occurred in sibling relationships described as intimate and congenial, greater instrumental support in siblings described as loyal, and little to no caregiving in those considered apathetic and hostile. Furthermore, in later adulthood, siblings may provide acutely increased levels of care in the face of a particular hardship—such as when one becomes seriously ill or hospitalized, requires transportation or household assistance, or suffers the loss of their spouse. Cicirelli (1995) found that during periods of hospitalization, only 6% of older adults in the United States reported desiring or expecting help from a sibling on returning from hospitalization, relying on their spouses or children for tangible forms of assistance. In contrast, approximately 50% of all respondents indicated a desire for psychological support from their sibling. This is a notable indication of the significance of emotional caregiving among siblings, which can extend to the very end of their lives. Given their lifelong attachment and closeness (Tancredy and Fraley, 2006), the loss of a sibling can be particularly painful and, as Cicirelli (2009) noted, “the survivors of a sibling’s death may have intense and profound grief reactions often lasting for decades” (p. 24). Taken together, these findings suggest that siblings play important roles in providing emotional support and caregiving for one another across the life course even though the specific functions and dynamics of these caregiving behaviors may differ over time and in the face of various life events. Individuals’ needs for sibling caregiving appear to lessen as emerging adults focus on developing their own social and professional networks of support. However, the need for sibling care and support often resurfaces later in life, when ironically, the ability to provide such care has diminished with age. Nonetheless, the emotional bonds and socioemotional support exchanged among sisters and brothers persist well into adulthood—with strong feelings about one’s sibling continuing even beyond death (Cicirelli, 2009).

Functions of Sibling Caregiving As the brief review of sibling caregiving across the course of development suggests, caregiving has the potential to fulfill a wealth of functions that enhance the well-being of individuals, families, and society. These range from the tangible and pragmatic (e.g., enabling parents to work and contribute to their communities) to the abstract (e.g., enabling children to develop empathy for others). Through their extensive ethnographic studies of sibling caregiving that spanned both Western technological and non-Western societies, Weisner and Gallimore (1977) identified eight domains as “correlates and consequences” of sibling caregiving (p. 176)—essentially, ways in which sibling care­ giving can have a cascading influence on development that goes beyond the momentary provision 384

Sibling Caregiving

of care. These correlates and consequence of sibling caregiving are: (1) supporting the mother-child relationship by relieving mothers of the full responsibility of childcare; (2) promoting the caregiving child’s maturity and contributions to the welfare of the family and affording that child associated privileges; (3) providing a structure by which younger siblings become socialized into the world of peers; (4) developing social responsibility and nurturing behaviors, including the ability to anticipate and respond to another individual’s needs; (5) learning culturally relevant gender roles, including the socialization of females into maternal roles; (6) developing personality traits that parallel their respective roles as primarily requiring, or providing, care; (7) promoting affiliation motivation or “the tendency of individuals to attend and orient to others” (p. 180); and (8) the formation of motivational styles and classroom engagement which has implications for learning and cognitive performance. Thus, as explored ahead, sibling caregiving is a dynamic process, that can have many positive implications for child and family development.

Sibling Caregiving as a Family Survival Strategy Particularly in agrarian societies, sibling caregiving is often an instrumental component of ensuring the economic prosperity and functioning of a family, as providing care for a sibling allows parents to gather food, direct their attention to other activities (Maynard, 2002), or participate in “heavier and more skilled tasks that benefit the family” (Larson and Verma, 1999, p. 705). Whereas Cicirelli (1994) suggested that the function of sibling caregiving in Western societies is often to provide parents with temporary relief of responsibility, in non-Western societies, elder siblings do “more than just give the mother free time for other activities; [they] allow the parents to fulfill necessary work roles for family survival and maintenance” (p. 10). Cicirelli further suggested that sibling caregivers provide economic security for families “as a backup system in the event that parents do not survive some catastrophe” (p. 10). In recognition of these important roles, siblings who are caregivers may be regarded with a higher level of respect than non-caregiving children (Larson and Verma, 1999).

Sibling Caregiving as Processes That Reflect and Advance Socioemotional Development As near-age mates who share a host of experiences, siblings have an uncanny ability to understand one another’s perspectives, needs, and interests (Dunn, 2007; Howe et al., 2016; Kramer, 2010, 2014). These “powers” of social understanding (Dunn, 2007) enable siblings, even in early childhood, to detect the needs of others and, on many occasions, to act to address those needs (Hepach, 2016; Hepach et al., 2016, 2017). Dunn and Kendrick (1982) demonstrated that by studying the interactions of siblings as young as 2 years of age in the natural context, we can learn much about how children develop socially and emotionally—with children often demonstrating competencies with their siblings that, on the basis of prior research and theory, one would not expect them to demonstrate until later in development. In line with Dunn’s extensive findings, sibling caregiving behaviors may both reflect, and potentially advance, children’s development of key social and emotional competencies.

Sensitivity to the Needs of Others On the basis of their ethnographic studies of diverse cultures, Whiting and Edwards (1988) described how the social and emotional development of a caregiver is reflected in that child’s success in caring for an infant. As described by Zukow-Goldring (2002): The inability to assess the internal state of another (treating crying baby as if she is cranky when instead she is sleepy), to foresee the implications of one’s acts in relation to another 385

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

person’s response (more bouncing will not satisfy a hungry baby), to find alternate solutions (continuing to bounce a baby who persists in crying rather than stopping, and then walking with or singing to the baby), and to control one’s own impulses (slapping a fussy baby in frustration) illustrate missing competence. (p. 262) Furthermore, possession of these characteristics may shift from time to time, influencing the degree and type of caregiving responsibilities one sibling provides another. For example, during a period of a sibling’s extreme physical illness or injury, a well sibling may engage in greater, or more sensitive, levels of caregiving than before or after the illness has occurred (Branstetter, 2007).

Advancing the Mastery of New Competencies Siblings scaffold (Vygotsky, 1978) one another’s mastery of new skills, often enabling brothers and sisters to complete tasks that require skills beyond their present level of competency. Whereas in very early childhood an older sibling might retrieve an object out of an infant sibling’s reach and place it in the infant’s hands, later the older child might instead only move the object close to the younger sibling so the younger child can work to grasp it. In the same vein, when faced with emotionally challenging situations, a care-providing sibling may first supply a brother or sister with direct advice or instruction on how to address such a scenario. In subsequent encounters of this type, the elder sibling may reduce the use of direct assistance and instead ask probing questions designed to help the sibling arrive at his or her own conclusion. For example, the elder sibling may remind the younger sibling about past events and the problem-solving behaviors that proved successful for them in the past, prompting the sibling to consider how to apply those skills to the current situation. These scenarios represent basic examples of the role that scaffolding may play in the sibling caregiving dynamic, and they exemplify the transactional process of sibling caregiving, by which a sibling aims to provide the level of care that matches the needs of a brother or sister. Maynard (2002) observed that sibling caregiving practices in the Zinacantec Mayan village culture in Chipas, Mexico, followed a similar model of teaching and learning as what occurred in adult apprenticeship of weaving, such that interactions involved “scaffolded help, contextualized verbal explanations and feedback, and obedience, with virtually no praise or criticism” (p. 978). Maynard observed discrete stages of caregiving practices, with elder siblings responding to the cognitive and verbal needs of their younger siblings in progressively more sophisticated ways, for example, from nonverbal teaching when the younger child was 3–5 years of age, progressing to commands when the younger child reached 6–7 years of age, and eventually using complex discussion and explanations when the younger child reached 8–11 years of age. As these examples illustrate, whereas sibling caregiving can hold significant benefits to the child who receives care, developmental benefits also accrue to the provider of such care; for example, care providers advance their skills in the domain they assist with, they experience a sense of satisfaction that comes from helping another, and they become more sensitive to the needs and capabilities of others. According to Howe et al. (2016), care-providing siblings are able to capitalize on “inherent developmental advantages, enabling them to direct and control interactions with younger siblings . . . who in turn may benefit developmentally from interacting with more knowledgeable older siblings” (p. 2).

Social and Emotional Understanding The exchange of warmth and emotional support, particularly with an older sibling, appears to facilitate the development of a younger child’s social understanding ( Jenkins and Dunn, 2009) and 386

Sibling Caregiving

promote abilities to provide effective support for one another over time. Dunn, Slomkowski, and Beardsall (1994) found that the emotional support school-age siblings provide one another in the face of adverse events (e.g., social difficulties at school, maternal illness, accidents, or illnesses they themselves experienced) was associated with more close, friendly, and affectionate relationships with their sibling. Children’s abilities to accurately perceive what their sibling is experiencing may contribute to their ability to appropriately respond to their sibling’s immediate physical or emotional needs (Howe and Ross, 1990; Kramer, 2014; Volling et al., 2017). Perspective-taking, in particular, may be an integral component of effective sibling caregiving. Stewart and Marvin (1984) assessed the perspectivetaking skills of 3- to 5-year-old children who had toddler-age younger siblings by asking them to form inferences about another person’s likes or dislikes and knowledge based on information provided in a brief story. The performance of sibling caregiving behaviors correlated with children’s perspective-taking abilities. Similarly, Garner et al. (1994) found that preschoolers who had stronger emotional role taking skills and knowledge of caregiving scripts extended more care and comfort to their toddler-age siblings during a modified Strange Situation task. Particularly as they reach middle childhood, children can be very knowledgeable about their sisters’ and brothers’ tendency to react in particular ways in stressful situations, which can be harnessed to provide effective forms of help and support (Kahn and Lewis, 1988). Howe, Aquan-Assee, Bukowski, Lehoux, and Rinaldi (2001) found that stronger competencies in emotional understanding enable siblings in middle childhood and early adolescence to provide more realistic and, possibly, more effective assistance in managing life challenges. Children with well-developed abilities in emotional understanding—as evidenced by, for example, an enriched vocabulary with which to communicate about emotions and internal states, an understanding of the display rules that govern the socially acceptable forms of emotional expression, as well as skills in decoding the emotional expressions of others, and the regulation of emotions—may be better equipped to support siblings as they encounter stressful situations or difficult interpersonal issues (Howe et al., 2001; Howe, Petrakos, and Rinaldi, 1998; Kramer, 2014; Volling, McElwain, and Miller, 2002). Sibling caregiving can provide increased opportunities for learning, companionship, exchange of warmth and affection, sharing of advice, and provision of mentorship and guidance in the face of new experiences (Bryant, 1989; Cicirelli, 1995; Kosonen, 1996; Tucker et al., 1997). Additionally, acts of sibling caregiving reflect, or may actively promote, children’s socioemotional development, including empathy, perspective-taking, learning to become independent and self-sufficient, and balancing the often competing demands that emerge in various relationships and contexts (East, 2010; East, Weisner, and Reyes, 2006). Sibling caregiving may play a beneficial role for children who face adverse or challenging experiences, as the act of providing care can give youth a sense of purpose and experience, which can foster personal connections and self-confidence (East, 2010). Contributing to the care and prosperity of one’s family can also help children to understand how individuals can work together effectively in a hierarchical society (East, 2010). As siblings provide care to one another, opportunities for conflict arise. However, even in the course of sibling conflict, social, emotional, and cognitive skills can be developed if conflict remains constructive rather than destructive (Shantz and Hobart, 1989). It takes a fair amount of social competence to engage in, and manage, a fight with another child, and children develop stronger competencies in argumentation, conflict management, and the regulation of strong negative emotions in the safe confines of sibling relationships (Kramer, 2014). Through negative encounters such as these, children also expand their emotional vocabulary, and strengthen their ability to recognize, decode, and interpret the emotions of others (Dunn, 2007) and improve their ability to regulate challenging emotions (Kennedy and Kramer, 2008). It is a paradox that, despite intense negative affect, some constructive forms of sibling conflict can be formative for individual’s social, cognitive, and emotional development. 387

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

The Dark Sides of Sibling Caregiving Not all experiences with siblings are prosocial, and sibling caregiving can also be associated with a host of risks and negative interpersonal processes (Kramer and Conger, 2009; Kosonen, 1996).

The Risks of Sibling Supervision Sibling supervision can indeed pose a risk to a child’s safety, as rates of injuries are 33% higher in instances where he or she is being supervised by an elder sibling rather than another adult (Morrongiello, 2005; Morrongiello et al., 2007). Rauchschwalbe, Brenner, and Smith (1997) examined the supervisory arrangements that were in place when 32 toddlers (age 5–15 months) drowned in bathtubs. Of the 32 deaths reported to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 11 occurred while an older sibling (whose ages were not specified) was left to watch the younger child. Sibling caregiving may increase the risk of injury to children because caregiving children lack sufficient judgment (Nathans, Neff, Goss, Maier, and Rivara, 2000) and/or competence (Kurdick and Fine, 1995) to provide adequate supervision. However, Morrongiello et al. (2007), who examined sibling supervision with a sample of well-educated, middle- to upper-middle-class Canadian parents with younger children, who were 1.5–3 years old, and older children, who were 3–13 years old, found that rates of injuries during periods of sibling supervision are not related to the competency, skills, or supervisory strategies employed by the sibling supervisors. Rather, a key factor was the younger sibling’s compliance to these supervisory strategies; the risk of injury to a child was greater when the supervisee was resistant to the instructions of their care-providing sibling. Although the mothers interviewed in this study were aware of the increased risk for injury, this did not deter them from requesting a child to supervise a sibling. Furthermore, mothers did not discourage sibling supervision even when siblings did not get along and were more apt to engage in conflict. Parents may not adequately prepare their child to provide care in the face of resistance or resentment (Morrongiello et al., 2007). Furthermore, parents may send conflicting messages about a child’s authority—for example, telling children to make a sibling behave appropriately but without granting them the authority to carry through with instructions, commands, and threats. As sibling interactions may rapidly fluctuate between the lateral and the hierarchical, there may be considerable confusion (and frustration) on the part of both children as to who is responsible, and who has the authority, to direct the other’s behaviors. As children lack preparation for an authoritative role as well as true authority, they may resort to punitive or highly controlling measures (Bryant, 1989); care-providing siblings may resort to “excessive authoritarianism, with older children tending to tyrannize, harass, and threaten younger siblings” (Cicirelli, 1995, p. 111). With little experience in how to manage defiant or challenging behaviors, negative interactions may escalate (Patterson, 1984).

Contexts for Bullying and Abuse Taken to more extreme levels, in the name of caregiving, siblings have acted as perpetrators of bullying, torment, intimidation (Bowes, Wolke, Joinson, Lereya, and Lewis, 2014; Hoetger, Hazen, and Brank, 2015; Kosonen, 1996), relational aggression (Stauffacher and DeHart, 2005), and physical and sexual abuse (Wiehe, 1997). In a longitudinal study conducted in the United Kingdom by Bowes et al. (2014), 47.4% of participants reported experiencing sibling bullying at some point during childhood, which, in turn, was associated with depressive symptoms and self-harm in adulthood. Wiehe (1997) reported the surprising frequency with which physical, emotional, and sexual abuse has been perpetrated by siblings outside of parents’ view. Thus, when sibling caregiving occurs in the absence of adult supervision, the victimization of vulnerable siblings may be more likely to occur (Kosonen, 1996) and be sustained over time. However, sibling bullying can also occur when adults are present. Skinner and 388

Sibling Caregiving

Kowalski (2013) found that 40% of their adult respondents recalled that during childhood, sibling bullying had occurred when one or both parents were in the home. Further inquiry is needed to understand how sibling caregiving per se provides a context for bullying and aggression in childhood and how these experiences relate over time to individuals’ socioemotional development and wellbeing as well as the quality of relationships children establish with sibling and other family members.

Impact on the Providers of Care In cases where caregiving is extensive, caregiving responsibilities can interfere with a child’s ability to engage in age-appropriate behaviors such as leisure activities with peers, attend school functions, and to complete homework, all of which can contribute to decreased academic achievement and dropping out of school (East, 2010; East et al., 2006). Caregiver burden has been associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression, social difficulties, stress, and/or feeling worried or resentful about caregiving responsibilities (East, 2010; McMahon and Luthar, 2007) Furthermore, excessive sibling caregiving responsibilities may be associated with the parentification or the premature adultification of older siblings—an experience in which a child becomes involved in “developmentally inappropriate expectations that children function in a parental role within stressed, disorganized family systems” (McMahon and Luthar, 2007, p. 267). Parentification of a sibling can be linked to adverse outcomes; for example, Van Loon, Van de Ven, Van Doesum, Hosman, and Witteman (2017) found that the parentification of adolescents whose parents have a mental illness was directly and indirectly (via perceived stress) related to both internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, somatic complaints) and externalizing (e.g., aggression, rule breaking) behavior problems at the time the youth were surveyed. One year later, parentification continued to be associated with internalizing, but not externalizing, symptoms. Van Loon et al. (2017) suggested that, in some instances, responsibilities to provide care to family members—including emotional care­giving—can be associated with distorted family boundaries and the assumption of responsibilities inconsistent with developmental expectations for a child. Developmentally inappropriate expectations may be especially true in instances in which a parent is incapacitated in some way, such as with a mental or physical illness. In summary, whereas sibling caregiving offers a host of benefits for both the providers and recipients of care, and can be an extraordinary context for the development of a wide array of socioemotional competencies, it may also set the occasion for negative and, sometimes, dangerous sibling interactions. Researchers, practitioners, educators, and parents need to be cognizant of this potential, particularly if they aim to promote the types of sibling relationships that will be marked by the mutual provision of care and support sustained into late adulthood.

Sociocultural Influences on Sibling Caregiving Caregiving behaviors evolve as both an expression and a function of “cultural priorities” within a society (Otto et al., 2017, p. 1235). Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological perspective provides a framework with which to understand sibling caregiving practices in light of the various social contexts in which individuals and families operate. Thus, the following exploration adopts an ecological lens to consider a variety of contextual factors, ranging from broad sociocultural influences to more proximal influences.

Cross-Cultural Examinations of Sibling Caregiving Cross-cultural research has illuminated dramatic variations in sibling caregiving across the globe, appearing to be a custom more deeply woven into the cultural fabric of non-Western (nonindustrialized 389

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

or rural agrarian) societies than of Western technological societies. Such variations may reflect the individualistic nature of many Western societies, particularly those with European influences, where greater emphasis is placed on the contributions of individuals rather than the family or community as a collective (Kim, Triandis, Kâğitçibaşi, Choi, and Yoon, 1994). In promoting the independence and unique success of their children as individuals, parents in Western societies prompt children to provide care to siblings less often. In contrast, in valuing collectivism (Kim et al., 1994) and intrafamilial interdependence and connectedness (East, 2010), parents in some non-Western societies may encourage sibling caregiving as they emphasize the importance of children actively contributing to the well-being of the family.

Non-Western Societies Rabain-Jamin, Maynard, and Greenfield (2003) compared the sibling caregiving practices of the Zinacantec with that of two villages of the Wolof peoples of Senegal. The comparisons of these two cultures were particularly rich given how significantly they differed; the Zinacantecs are Catholic and monogamous, whereas the Wolof are Muslim and polygamous (Rabain-Jamin et al., 2003). Wolof families live in compounds that consist of a collection of separate homes that house co-spouses and their children. Compounds vary in size and can contain 10–30 individuals; it is not uncommon for children to have half-siblings living in the compound who were very close in age. In contrast, the Zinacantecs live in single-family households, often in close proximity to extended family members. Reflective of their more individualistic society, Zinacantec elder siblings took responsibility for integrating their sisters and brothers into social groups (Rabain-Jamin et al., 2003). In contrast, and perhaps reflective of their more collectivistic society, Wolof children did not require as much help from their older siblings to become socially integrated into social groups. Wolof children as young as 2 years old demonstrated an active interest in participating in the play of older children and did not require a formal entrée from elder siblings. Despite stunning differences in the physical and social structure of these two societies, sibling caregiving figures prominently in the socialization of young children in both. Taken together, these studies suggest that care-receiving children learn about the complexities of social hierarchies, acceptable social behavior, and what productive membership of their society means. In turn, care-providing siblings learn how to nurture—especially how to identify and respond to the needs of others.

Western Societies Unlike non-Western societies in which siblings often become well acquainted with childcare practices through sibling caregiving long before they become parents, the adoption of caregiving roles in Western technological societies (at least in the present era) does not typically occur until an individual becomes a parent himself or herself (Weisner, 1989). However, the value and importance placed on sibling participation in caregiving responsibilities may vary dramatically within Western societies (Cicirelli, 1994). Within the United States, expectations and practices surrounding sibling caregiving vary considerably across ethnic and cultural groups (McHale et al., 2012). For example, Latino families place strong importance on values of “familism”—those principles that reflect an “interdependence among family members including familial support, obligation, and solidarity” (Soli et al., 2009, p. 4)—and hence, sibling caregiving likely occurs more often than in European American families (Margolis et al., 2014). Elder siblings play an important role in the overall acculturation of families who immigrate to Western nations—not only as sibling caregivers, but also as translators, culture brokers, and advocates for the entire family (Fuligni, 2006; Hafford, 2010). For example, elder siblings in Mexican families who have immigrated to the United States often play a prominent role in the daily 390

Sibling Caregiving

functioning of the family, including assisting with the care of younger siblings, as they may surpass parents in quickly developing a versatile understanding of the cultural practices expected in the new culture (Hafford, 2010). In summary, studies of Western and non-Western families suggest that sibling caregiving occurs in some form across the globe, albeit the forms caregiving takes vary in accord with the specific social and cultural characteristics of each society. Furthermore, significant variability in sibling caregiving is found within Western technological and non-Western societies, particularly with respect to ethnic and cultural differences.

Historical Factors Whereas a range of sociocultural factors have historically played a role in shaping sibling caregiving practices, the exact nature of these influences continually evolves across time and geography, as care­ giving practices affect, and are affected by, ever-changing legal, political, and philosophical factors. In “The Childhood We Have Lost: When Siblings Were Caregivers, 1900–1970,” Pollock (2002) highlighted the important roles that siblings have played in childrearing throughout history in Western technological societies. She pointed out that in large numbers of working- and lower-middle-class households, for much of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, young children and even infants, spent much of their time under the watch, not of a doting mother, but a sibling—an adolescent or, not infrequently, only another child. (p. 31) Pollock recalled the work of prominent writers and biographers of the time who generally referred to elder sisters as “little mothers” (p. 32). Being a “little mother” was not considered a chore or additional duty but was “something [girls] did with little reason, little protest, and apparently little consequence” (Pollock, 2002, p. 32). In recognition of their role as caregivers, physicians of the time regarded the teaching of proper care for infants as just as important for elder siblings as for mothers. According to Pollock (2002), sibling care (and especially sibling care that relied on the good will of elder sisters) was thought to have “formed the basis of an affiliative society, serving to ‘integrat[e] the child into the social context’ ” (p. 33). Family historians such as Coontz (1992, 2016) have warned of the dangers of idealizing the “golden ages” of family life in America (2016, para. 1), and it is possible that this view of sibling care as important for establishing an “affiliative society” reflects a “foggy lens of nostalgia for a mostly mythical past” (para. 11). Indeed, Pollock quoted an unnamed anthropologist who characterized an elder sister’s years spent tending to siblings as “ ‘the worst period’ of a child’s life” (p. 33). Whereas the role of elder siblings (typically sisters) as providers of care to younger children was very common in U.S. history, and served a variety of purposes that enhanced family life, it may not have always been beneficial for the caregiving child.

Shifts in Sibling Caregiving as Women Entered the Workforce As the employment opportunities available to women began to increase in the second half of the twentieth century, and as mothers increased their participation in the workforce, caregiving practices within the home also changed as older sisters were generally assigned greater responsibility for caring for siblings (East, 2010; Galley, 2014; Pollock, 2002). According to East (2010), sisters’ greater participation in caregiving in adolescence and early adulthood potentially stemmed from a complex set of interrelated factors, including pressures to conform to sex role stereotypes, a socially or biologically driven orientation to nurture others, and gendered socialization practices. 391

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

As their mothers entered the workforce, over time, adolescent females also began to see the value in spending time outside of school earning money and obtaining work experience rather than staying at home to care for younger siblings (Pollock, 2002). Legislation passed during World War II established childcare options and subsidies that enabled women to work outside the home while men were deployed; such options expanded in the decades after World War II (Illinois Facilities Fund, 2000). Thus, increased workforce participation among mothers and elder sisters was associated with the eventual transfer of supplemental childcare from siblings to childcare professionals (Pollock, 2002), although it is difficult to definitively identify which was the driving factor. Despite its increased availability and government subsidization, access to quality childcare is financially out of reach for many families (Otto et al., 2017). Thus, sibling caregiving continues to play a prominent role in the provision of care for younger children whose parents are employed, especially among single-parent families (East, 2010). According to East, “Solitary sibling caregiving continues today, with millions of children singularly cared for by an older sibling while their parents are away at work” (p. 2). Morrongiello et al. (2007) found that even in households where parents can afford to hire childcare providers, sibling supervision still occurs, albeit in discrete, short-term periods of time. In their review of seven studies on children’s participation in family labor, Dodson and Dickert (2004) found that the care of younger children was the form of family labor most commonly reported, which they considered an “overlooked survival strategy” for parents (p. 318). Despite its prevalence, many parents in the United States today are reluctant to admit to using a child as a primary, albeit temporary, care provider, as solitary caregiving is widely stigmatized (Creighton, 1993), as it may be perceived as poor parenting or even child neglect.

Legal Standards Whereas sociocultural factors largely govern which forms of sibling caregiving are considered appropriate, legal standards appear to play catch-up. For example, the age at which parents permit children to provide care for siblings in their absence—and what types of care they may provide—is a hotly debated issue, yet, surprisingly, few legal guidelines exist. In the United States, only three states currently specify the age at which children can be left alone or in the care or another child, and each of these states sets different ages—8 years old in Maryland, 14 years old in Illinois, and 10 old years in Oregon (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013). Given the wide disparity in the ages specified in these three states, legal standards do not appear to be based on scientific evidence or even coherent theories that speak to children’s developmental capacity to adequately provide such care. Although inadequate supervision of a child (which could include care from an underage sibling) is considered a form of child neglect nationwide, few guidelines are available to help parents define what “adequate supervision” entails (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013). Tomlinson and Sainsbury (2004) found a lack of consensus among the recommendations of pediatric health professionals in the United Kingdom regarding the appropriate age for children to be left without adult supervision, leaving parents to form their own judgments (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013; McCarren, 2015; Turner, 2015), which are often subject to scrutiny of child welfare officials and the public at large. In England, figures provided by The Telegraph newspaper estimate that “a parent is arrested every day on the suspicion of leaving one or more children at home alone” (Turner, 2015, para. 1). In a widely publicized case in the United States, a Maryland couple was accused of child neglect in 2015 after allowing their 10-year-old child to supervise a 6-year-old sibling while they visited a park (McCarren, 2015). Whereas the children’s mother felt she was providing them with an opportunity to practice independence and responsibility, adults who saw the children alone in the park were concerned for their safety and called protective services, which led to an investigation of child neglect

392

Sibling Caregiving

(McCarren, 2015). Although the investigators concluded that the parents were not guilty of child neglect (St. George, 2015), cases such as these highlight the need for greater clarity in legal and ethical standards related to sibling care.

Familial Influences on Sibling Caregiving As we narrow our examination of factors that shape the occurrence of sibling caregiving, and how it reflects and stimulates individual growth and development, it is important to consider the range of contextual factors that may shape sibling caregiving behaviors, such as economic factors, families’ ethnic and cultural identities, changes in parental marital status, or placement in foster care as result of child abuse, neglect, or other turmoil.

Economic Factors Families’ economic security, including parental work status, income, and the ratio of dependents to earners in the household, may influence parents’ reliance on children as care providers for siblings (Otto et al., 2017; Vandenbroeck, De Visscher, and Van Nuffel, 2008). As lower income families have less access to quality childcare (Otto et al., 2017), families’ reliance on children to supervise and care for siblings often increases (East, 2010), which, in turn, escalates safety risks (Morrongiello et al., 2007). In a study of mother-child dyads living in urban poverty, McMahon and Luthar (2007) asked children (age 8–17 years) to complete the Child Caretaking Scale (Baker and Tebes, 1994) to assess the extent to which they assumed caregiving responsibilities and experienced caregiving burden. Children who were the oldest in their family and whose mothers had lower levels of education and/ or worked outside the home were more likely to be given responsibility to care for their siblings in comparison to families with higher incomes. Thus, although supervisory roles are assigned to siblings across socioeconomic strata (East, 2010; Morrongiello et al., 2007), the scope of caregiving responsibilities children assume for siblings may be particularly related to the level of economic pressures their family experiences.

Ethnic and Cultural Identity Siblings are important sources of support and feedback as children, adolescents, and emerging adults develop their own understanding of what it means to be a person of their culture and ethnicity (Umaña-Taylor, 2011). As individuals who face identical challenges—biological siblings may be looked toward for help in navigating the intricacies of a unique cultural or ethnic identity and, perhaps, in addressing discrimination and racism (Butler-Sweet, 2011). As seen with ethnically blended families (Song, 2010), individuals may view their siblings as particularly qualified to help them address the unique challenges associated with being a child of multiple cultures. A young woman interviewed by Song poignantly highlights how siblings may play a unique role in ethnic identity development; the interviewee was a younger child in a family in which the mother was Black African and the father was White and English. She remarked that in seeing how her brothers had each adopted distinct ethnic identities, she realized she, too, was able to adopt her own approach. Song further found that young adult siblings from ethnically blended families may choose to not ascribe to one parent’s culture of origin or the other’s, but rather to identify one that unifies them. Although siblings may elect to develop a shared cultural identity, and one that may be distinct from either of their parents’ identities, it is vital to acknowledge that through their unique process of ethnic identity development, individual siblings may forge their own distinct identities (ButlerSweet, 2011).

393

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

Parental Marital Status and Relationship Quality The structure and climate of a family can set the stage for different forms of sibling caregiving. Although it is understood that greater sibling caregiving occurs in single parenthood than in maritally intact households (East, 2010), little research to date has examined how sibling caregiving practices occur in alternate family structures, such as divorced or remarried families.

Parental Divorce Support from a sibling has been identified as a protective factor for children undergoing pronounced interparental conflict ( Jenkins, 1992; Jenkins, Dunn, Rasbash, O’Connor, and Simpson, 2005) and divorce (Roth, Harkin, and Eng, 2014). Roth et al. (2014) conducted narrative interviews and administered questionnaires to female undergraduates whose parents had divorced when they were 7–13 years of age. Respondents recalled that they and their siblings often relied on one another for emotional support in the face of their parents’ divorce. Birth order was a key factor, as older sisters reported engaging in heightened levels of sibling caregiving than did respondents who were younger sisters in their families. Many older sisters recalled exerting greater control and dominance toward their younger siblings, indicating that they felt it was their duty or obligation to take control when parents were physically or emotionally absent or used poor parenting strategies. Participants in their study did not express resentment about the greater responsibilities they assumed for younger siblings; however, only females were interviewed in this study, and it is possible that males may have different perspectives on sibling support and caregiving during parental divorce. Poortman and Voorpostel (2009) examined the long-term impact of divorce on sibling relationships into adulthood in the Netherlands. In-person interviews with adult sibling pairs revealed that levels of interparental conflict were a stronger predictor of sibling conflict than whether parents remained married or divorced. Higher levels of interparental conflict were associated with lower quality sibling relationships, more frequent conflict, and less sibling contact with one another. Taken together, these results provide evidence of the potential that siblings have to provide care and emotional support to one another during times of parental discord and may serve as a protective influence ( Jenkins et al., 2005; Roth et al., 2014). However, in families that experience high levels of interparental and sibling conflict, such support may not occur.

Stepfamily Formation Sibling caregiving practices may shift when divorced or single parents begin a new intimate relationship, cohabitate with, or marry a new partner or spouse, particularly if step- or half-siblings are introduced into the family’s life (Anderson, 1999; Dorius and Guzzo, 2016). The challenges associated with establishing relationships with new siblings, who may come from a very different background, can be immense, particularly when they share a residence and when significant shifts in birth order result (such as when a firstborn child becomes a middle child). For only children, the blending of two families in which their parent’s new spouse brings children may be the first time that child has ever experienced a sibling relationship (Dorius and Guzzo, 2016). Given the value of sibling support during parental divorce (Roth et al., 2014), it is likely that such support could also be useful during stepfamily formation (Anderson, 1999). However, very little is currently known about how sibling caregiving occurs and functions in cohabitating and remarried families.

Siblings in Foster Care Sibling support and caregiving also play important roles when children are placed into substitute or foster care as a result of family turmoil, neglect, or abuse. Herrick and Piccus (2005) estimated that 394

Sibling Caregiving

between 47% and 59% of children in the U.S. foster care system are placed separately from at least one of their siblings. They noted that the separation of siblings may not only jeopardize the quality of siblings’ attachment, but also may be particularly damaging for children and adolescents who have assumed responsibility for caring for a sibling. Herrick and Piccus found that such separations led care-providing siblings to feel that they had “failed” their sibling; in contrast, siblings who felt successful in their role as caregiver experienced a heightened sense of self-efficacy. The decision to separate siblings by child welfare officials is often based on concerns that the elder sibling has become “parentified” to the extent that the younger child is more likely to respect the sibling’s authority rather than the foster parents’ authority, which could impede that child’s adjustment to foster care. However, the decision to place siblings in separate foster homes may preclude siblings’ ability to support one another during a most traumatic time in their lives. Thus, Herrick and Piccus advised child welfare professionals to recognize the critical importance of siblings as emotional caregivers, especially in situations in which attachments with other caregivers are disrupted. Linares et al. (2015) developed a preventive intervention, Promoting Sibling Bonds, to reduce forms of sibling conflict that may threaten the sustained joint placement of siblings in foster homes. Although this discussion does not fully capture all of the possible familial-level influences that can shape sibling caregiving, there is growing evidence that the care and support exchanged among siblings can be important ingredients for helping families effectively respond to a variety of stressful events and transitions.

Within Family Influences on Sibling Caregiving In this section, focus is narrowed to consider the ways in which the individual characteristics of parents and children shape, and are shaped, by sibling caregiving practices.

Parent Characteristics Personality Whereas a parent’s decision to assign caregiving tasks may depend somewhat on their perceptions of qualities of the elder sibling (e.g., Are they old enough? Mature enough?), personality and other characteristics of the parent in question also play a role in determining parenting behaviors (Bornstein, 2016). Morrongiello et al. (2007) administered surveys to Canadian mothers to better understand how, when, and why parents assign supervisory responsibilities to elder siblings. Mothers who scored higher on the neuroticism subscale of the Big-Five Inventory ( John, Donohue, and Kentle, 1991) reported assigning sibling supervision tasks more frequently; in contrast, mothers who scored higher on the protectiveness/conscientiousness subscale reported assigning sibling supervision less often. Thus, mothers who feel greater personal responsibility for carrying out caregiving are less likely to request assistance from children, whereas mothers experiencing stress are relatively more likely to do so.

Mental Health Elder siblings are often called on to assume caregiving responsibilities for their younger siblings in instances in which a parent experiences mental illness (Reupert and Maybery, 2007a, 2007b). Maybery, Ling, Szakacs, and Reupert (2005) conducted focus groups with Australian parents who either themselves or their partner had a mental health diagnosis; separate focus groups were conducted with their 6- to 16-year-old children. Sibling support emerged as a key theme in both the parent and child focus groups, for example, as fathers noted that their children ceased fighting and voluntarily 395

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

supported one another when their mother had an episode of mental illness. In child focus groups, facilitators noted the evident closeness of siblings and their ability to rely on one another when their parent experienced a mental health crisis.

Chronic Illness of a Parent Similarly, elder siblings may assume responsibilities for comforting younger siblings in instances in which a family is coping with a chronic and/or terminal illness of a parent. Christ and Christ (2006) overviewed approaches for aiding children as they cope with the terminal illness of a parent. In particular, they noted the difficulty that elder siblings may have in remaining patient with a younger sibling’s questions or confusion about the parents’ illness and/or death, especially while they themselves are also coping with this critical stressor. Engagement in sibling caregiving under these circumstances can have important implications both for care recipients (who directly benefit from support) and care providers (who may experience enhanced self-confidence, sense of power and control, and resilience amid a challenging circumstance; Maybery et al., 2005). At the same time, however, excessive caregiving responsibilities may also limit children’s and adolescents’ ability to socialize with peers, achieve personal growth, or excel academically (Reupert and Maybery, 2007a).

Child Characteristics Sibling caregiving practices also vary dramatically depending on the characteristics of the children themselves, including the chronic illness, disability, mental health, and propensity toward risk-taking.

Chronic Illness or Disability of a Child Siblings are inextricably affected when a child in the family experiences a chronic illness or disability. Well siblings may receive less attention from parents, have reduced access to social and recreational activities, and may be quite concerned about parents’ reactions and well-being (Barlow and Ellard, 2005). In their systematic review of research related to the psychosocial well-being of families affected by childhood chronic illness, Barlow and Ellard (2005) found that siblings of children with chronic illness were more likely than siblings of healthy children to display internalizing behaviors, such as anxiety or depressive symptoms. Further, well siblings may attempt to “care” for the sibling (and parents) by minimizing or even subjugating the needs and demands he or she presents to parents. Research conducted with school-age siblings of children with diabetes (age 11–17 years) found that 55% were directly involved in the medical care of their ill sibling, perhaps by helping to manage the child’s diet or administer insulin, even though they reported having a limited understanding of the disease; 40% reported spending more time at home and less time with friends than their peers (Adams, Peveler, Stein, and Dunger, 1991). Williams, Lorenzo, and Borja (1993) interviewed 100 mothers of children with a chronic cardiac or neurologic condition in Manila, Philippines, and found that well siblings were assigned increased responsibility for caring for their ill sibling, as well as for housekeeping, with twice as many responsibilities delegated to girls than boys. Not surprisingly, parental attention and care to healthy siblings is often significantly diminished once a sibling is diagnosed with a chronic illness (Branstetter, 2007; Williams et al., 1993). Neurotypically developing children are frequently called on to provide care activities to siblings with chronic illnesses or developmental delays. Such practices have been shown to present a mix of positive and negative implications for caregiving children (Burke et al., 2015; McHale and Gamble, 1989), including increased sensitivity, caring, supportive behaviors, and nurturing behaviors along with more internalizing disorders (Barlow and Ellard, 2005), social withdrawal, somatic complaints, 396

Sibling Caregiving

feelings of loneliness/isolation, anger, anxiety, and excessive concern about their chronically ill sibling (Williams, 1997).

Mental Health Individuals with psychological diagnoses, behavioral conditions, and/or developmental delays may also present unique challenges and responsibilities for siblings. In a longitudinal study, Rodrigues, Binnoon-Erez, Plamondon, and Jenkins (2017) found that the emotional and behavioral symptoms of 4.5-year-old children were strongly predicted by the presence of similar symptoms in their older siblings, assessed when they were 2 months of age. Rodrigues et al. advocated for further study of how the identification of behavioral or mental health problems in elder siblings can be a risk factor for younger siblings, alerting practitioners to direct preventive resources to these children. Stalberg, Ekerwald, and Hultman (2004) conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 adult siblings of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. Caregiving emerged as a common coping mechanism for dealing with feelings of guilt or inadequacy associated with their sibling’s psychiatric condition. Well siblings reported feeling less helpless and less inadequate when they provided care; they also felt that providing care kept them involved in their sibling’s life, which was important to them as they realized that their involvement was more discretionary at this point in their lives. Caregiving of siblings with a psychiatric illness (or developmental disability) may continue, or even increase, in adulthood, especially after parents are no longer able to take responsibility (Namkung et al., 2017). Orsmond and Seltzer (2007) surveyed 154 adults with a sibling with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or Down syndrome (DS) about their instrumental and affective involvement with their siblings. Siblings of individuals with ASD reported experiencing less positive affect in their relationship with their sibling, greater pessimism about their sibling’s future, and greater interference in their relationship with their parents as compared with siblings of individuals with DS. These differences may reflect the pronounced communication impairments and social difficulties often associated with ASD (Orsmond and Seltzer, 2007). As children with an autism spectrum disorder age, their atypical behaviors may become more difficult and unpleasant for a neurotypical sibling, which may lead to less engagement in shared activities over time (Rivers and Stoneman, 2003) and less positive affect (Seltzer, Orsmond, and Esbensen, 2009). These findings suggest that the burden associated with caring for a sibling may vary considerably, depending on the degree to which the affected individual’s medical, developmental, or emotional functioning interferes with general well-being of the care-providing sibling. Furthermore, the quality of the sibling relationship is an important factor as children and adolescents who have warmer and less conflictual interactions with siblings tend to demonstrate fewer internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, even in families with a child with psychopathology (Buist, Deković, and Prinzie, 2013).

Risky Behaviors Through their roles as socializing agents, culture brokers, and teachers, siblings may play significant roles in shaping one another’s risk-taking behaviors. For example, younger siblings are more likely to experience teenage pregnancy if their older sibling is sexually active or has himself or herself faced teen pregnancy (Miller, 2002). In a longitudinal study of 227 Latin and African American families that included an elder sister (age 15–19 years) and a younger sibling (age 11–16 years), East and Khoo (2005) found that a warm sibling relationship reduced the likelihood of risky sexual behaviors and substance abuse among younger siblings. Surprisingly, low sibling conflict predicted risky sexual behaviors; this finding may suggest that sibling conflict in African American and Latin American families may help to limit the scope of risk-taking adolescents engage in. Relatedly, Brook, Brook, 397

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

Gordon, Whiteman, and Cohen (1990) examined associations between the drug use of European American middle-class males and that of their peers, parents, and brothers. Participants’ drug use was more closely related to the drug use of peers and brothers than with parents’ drug use. Brook et al. also found the effects of parental drug use could be offset if an older brother abstained. Taken together, the work of East and Khoo (2005) and Brook et al. (1990) suggests that adolescents play an important role in socializing younger siblings’ engagement in appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, which can potentially have both protective and detrimental functions. Siblings have the potential to open up their social worlds to one another and they may be placed at greater risk for engaging in risky behaviors when they are introduced by their siblings to older peers who engage in such risky or deviant behaviors (Criss and Shaw, 2005). In instances in which a younger child engages in risky behaviors, he or she may turn to an elder sibling for guidance (Killoren and Roach, 2014). Kowal and Blinn-Pike (2004) found that sibling discussions about safe sex, in conjunction with parent discussions, predicted better attitudes toward safe sexual practices; such discussions were more likely to occur when sibling relationship quality was positive. In summary, sibling caregiving practices are influenced by individual characteristics, such as the presence of developmental delays, chronic illnesses, and mental illness. Relatedly, the behavioral patterns of elder siblings, and their peers, can have a unique influence on the behavior of younger siblings. Together, these findings provide further evidence of the pronounced role that sibling care­ giving can have on the socialization and well-being of children and adolescents.

Promoting Caring Sibling Relationships Given the power that sibling relationships have to shape individuals’ lives for the better (and for the worse; Kramer and Conger, 2009), and given parents’ desire to promote the types of positive engagement that will lead to sustained caregiving across the life course (Kramer and Baron, 1995), it is important to consider the practical implications of what we have learned about sibling caregiving. To promote lifelong sibling caregiving, it is necessary to start early and help children to develop a kind of relationship that includes caregiving as well as the desire to give care or be invested in the welfare of one’s sibling. On the basis of the results of prior research, Kramer (2010) outlined an emerging list of evidence-based “essential ingredients” (p. 80) of successful sibling relationships. These ingredients center on helping children develop nine key competencies shown in previous research to be predictive of, or contribute to, prosocial sibling interactions. For parents who aim to promote positive engagement among their children, this may mean adopting childrearing strategies that: (1) recognize and praise children for their efforts to support or protect their sibling as well as demonstrations of loyalty, pride, or placing trust in a sibling (Furman and Buhrmester, 1985); (2) acknowledge both the unique contributions that individual children bring to the family as well as what they together, as siblings, bring to the family (Kowal, Krull, and Kramer, 2006); (3) help children to consider their siblings’ unique perspectives, interests, ideas, and needs as points of view that are just as valid and important as their own (Dunn, 1988); (4) serve as “emotion coaches” (Gottman, 1997) in helping children to develop skills in identifying, naming, and regulating feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in emotionally challenging situations and using this emotional understanding to manage negative affect, disagreements, and conflicts (Kramer, 2014); (5) work with children to explore and correct unfounded negative attributions about one another’s behaviors by clarifying intentions and encouraging communication about the perceived impact of actions (Stormshak, Bellanti, and Goodman, 1999); (6) model and scaffold effective conflict management strategies, such as collaborative problem-solving (Kramer and Baron, 1995), perspective-taking (Howe and Rinaldi, 2004), and mediation (Siddiqui and Ross, 2004; Smith and Ross, 2007), and finally (7) avoid forms of differential treatment that are perceived by children to be unfair or unwarranted while adjusting behaviors and communication to enable children to feel that their individual needs are being met (Kowal and 398

Sibling Caregiving

Kramer, 1997; Kowal et al., 2006; Shanahan, McHale, Crouter, and Osgood, 2008). Further research is needed to identify additional precursors of prosocial sibling relationships along with studies that formally test their contributions to enhancing sibling relationship quality. Several evidence-based interventions have been developed that harness many of these “essential ingredients” to foster positive sibling relationships, including Siblings Are Special (Feinberg et al., 2013), Promoting Sibling Bonds (Linares et al., 2015) and the More Fun With Sisters and Brothers Program (Kennedy and Kramer, 2008; Ravindran, McElwain, Engle, and Kramer, 2015). Experimental interventions such as these can play a critical role in expanding our understanding of how to promote the types of sibling relationships in which sustained caregiving will occur.

Future Directions for Studying Sibling Caregiving Despite the headway many investigators have made to better understand the forms and functions of sibling caregiving across the life course, and across the globe, a multitude of questions remains. Foremost is: How do we promote and preserve forms of sibling caregiving that have been shown to contribute to individual and family well-being, especially in the face of Western technological pressures toward individualistic rather than collectivistic values? How can we better understand the functions of sibling caregiving in our increasingly diverse and complex societies? How can we help siblings to maintain the types of relationships that will continue to foster the exchange of support and care into later adulthood? How can we best test whether sibling caregiving is truly formative for individual, family, and societal development and well-being? Ideally, longitudinal studies that track the precipitants and consequences of sibling caregiving over the life course will provide the most convincing evidence of the contributions caregiving processes can provide. With greater evidence, families may be convinced that the cultivation of sibling relationships, in which caregiving is an integral part, is worthy of their time and effort. Our advice for future researchers is multifold. First, investigators are advised to adopt a definition of sibling caregiving that extends beyond the traditional—such as the fulfillment of physical needs—to incorporate the more complex and difficult-to-define dimensions of caregiving—such as emotional support and social understanding, and service as teachers, coaches, advocates, confidantes, and consolers. It is particularly important to clarify the many ways in which males may provide care to siblings that may have been under recognized because they look different from the nurturant acts commonly associated with female caregiving. Second, investigators must think outside of their own “cultural box.” Much can be learned from caregiving practices in different cultures, particularly as we see that many non-Western societies and U.S. minority groups have already figured out ways to capitalize on children’s abilities to teach and socialize one another. We reiterate the calls of prior work for enhanced attention to understanding sibling practices in non-Westernized societies; for example, there is a persistent lack of attention to families in Middle Eastern cultures (Cicirelli, 1994). Third, it is important to examine sibling caregiving processes within the natural contexts in which children live while paying considerable attention to the overarching social and cultural contexts in which families operate, including the historical, legal, economic, religious, and cultural belief systems that may shape sibling caregiving practices. Cross-cultural and ethnographic studies have emphasized the importance of observing children in natural contexts to discern the ways in which siblings care for and socialize one another (Zukow-Goldring, 2002). A reliance on parental report, or observation in contrived experimental settings, may not sufficiently reveal the extent and functions of caregiving behaviors. Such ethnographic research reminds us that the process of caregiving occurs—and so must be understood—within the contexts of familial and cultural norms that govern language, emotional expression, response to authority, gender, sexuality (Hafford, 2010), and other culturally relevant contextual factors. 399

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton

Conclusion This chapter builds on the seminal work of Weisner and Gallimore (1977), Zukow-Goldring (1995, 2002), and others to recognize sibling caregiving as a notable, dynamic set of processes of socialization that have significant influences on the socioemotional development of all individuals within a family system. Acts of caregiving do not simply extend from elder to younger siblings, but rather are exchanged bidirectionally and are shaped by a host of cultural, societal, familial, and individual factors. This review supports the conceptualization of sibling caregiving as extending beyond traditional perspectives of “care” (such as supervision and the fulfillment of physical needs) to also include forms of teaching and instruction and emotional support (e.g., emotional assurance, soothing, and the provision of advice and help). As our understanding of the significance and function of sibling caregiving grows, researchers and practitioners will be better able to harness this information to better assist families that strive to promote more frequent and meaningful forms of sibling caregiving among their children. Gains in the quantity and quality of sibling caregiving may occur through educational programming, and prevention and intervention programs that are evidence based and experimentally evaluated (Kramer, 2004). In closing, consider this compelling call to action from a father 1 year following the loss of his adult son, Michael, who had Down syndrome. Today, as we all remember Michael, I think about what a difference they [siblings Peter and Amy] made in Michael’s life. They both let us know, pretty early on, that they wanted to be a part of the ongoing decisions about Michael’s life. Peter and Amy taught Michael so many things. They were his audience and he was theirs. They could often calm him down when we were at wit’s end. I know that it was not always easy for them but they were always up to the challenge. Michael loved to go see people and it was always amazing to be with him as he anticipated seeing his many friends. But, special as that was, it was nothing like his anticipation before one of his siblings was coming home. He seemed serene about the fact that both of them left home to pursue their own lives. But he always counted the days before “my big, big brother” or “my good sister” would be coming home. During the last year, Cindy and I have heard two things that pertain to us many times. “I can’t imagine losing a child” and “Michael was blessed to have great parents.” We appreciate it every time we hear that. I hope that Peter and Amy have been repeatedly told that they were great siblings. Because they were. I can’t imagine them being any better. —David Buchanan ( July 2017) In refrain, we call for recognition of the importance of sibling caregiving in promoting individual and family well-being. Let’s make the contributions of siblings to one another’s development “seen.”

Acknowledgments This chapter is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project No. ILLU-793–364. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this chapter are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

References Adams, R., Peveler, R. C., Stein, A., and Dunger, D. B. (1991). Siblings of children with diabetes: Involvement, understanding and adaptation. Diabetic Medicine, 8, 855–859. doi:10.1742-3071/91/090855-05

400

Sibling Caregiving Anderson, E. R. (1999). Sibling, half sibling, and stepsibling relationships in remarried families. In E. M. Hetherington, S. H. Henderson, and D. Reiss (Eds.), Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and the adolescent adjustment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(Serial No. 259, 101–126). doi:10.1111/1540-5834.00049 Baker, M. S., and Tebes, J. K. (1994). The child caretaking scale. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Medicine. Bank, S., and Kahn, M. D. (1975). Sisterhood-brotherhood is powerful: Sibling sub-systems and family therapy. Family Process, 14, 311–337. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1975.00311.x Barlow, J. H., and Ellard, D. H. (2005). The psychosocial well-being of children with chronic disease, their parents and siblings: An overview of the research evidence base. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 32, 19–31. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00591.x Bedford, V. H. (1998). Sibling relationship troubles and well-being in middle and old age. Family Relations, 47, 369–376. doi:10.2307/585267 Bedford, V. H., and Avioli, P. S. (2001). Variations on sibling intimacy in old age. Generations, 25, 34–41. Bornstein, M. L. (2016). Determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology. Vol 4. Risk, resilience and intervention (pp. 180–270). New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119125556. devpsy405 Bowes, L., Wolke, D., Joinson, C., Lereya, S. T., and Lewis, G. (2014). Sibling bullying and risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm: A prospective cohort study. Pediatrics, 134(4), 1032–1039. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-0832 Branstetter, J. E. (2007). Pediatric chronic illness or disability: Family caregivers’ reports of well child-sibling caregiving (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3258377). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Gordon, A. S., Whiteman, M., and Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 116, 111–267. Bryant, B. K. (1982). Sibling relationships in middle childhood. In M. E. Lamb and B. Sutton- Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 87–123). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bryant, B. K. (1989). The child’s perspective of sibling caretaking and its relevance to understanding socialemotional functioning and development. In P. Zukow-Goldring (Eds.), Sibling interactions across cultures (pp. 143–164). New York: Springer. Buist, K., Deković, M., and Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and psychopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 97–106. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.007 Burke, M. M., Arnold, C. K., and Owen, A. L. (2015). Sibling advocacy: Perspectives about advocacy from siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 72–83. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.162 Burton, L. (2007). Child adultification in economically disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations, 56, 329–345. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x Butler-Sweet, C. (2011). ‘Race isn’t what defines me’: Exploring identity choices in transracial, biracial and monoracial families. Social Identities, 17, 747–769. doi:10.1080/13504630.2011.606672 Campione-Barr, N. (2017). The changing nature of power, control, and influence in sibling relationships. In N. Campione-Barr (Ed.), The changing nature of power, control, and influence, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 156, 7–14. doi:10.1002/cad.20202 Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). Leaving your child home alone. Retrieved from www.childwelfare. gov/pubPDFs/homealone.pdf Christ, G. H., and Christ, A. E. (2006). Current approaches to helping children cope with a parent’s terminal illness. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 56, 197–212. Cicirelli, V. (1994). Sibling relationships in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 7–20. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Springer. Cicirelli, V. (2009). Sibling death and death fear in relation to depressive symptomology in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 64B, 24–32. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbn024 Conger, K. J., and Little, W. M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1750- 8606.2010.00123.x Connidis, I. A. (1992). Life transitions and the adult sibling tie: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 972–982. doi:10.2307/353176 Connidis, I. A. (2010). Family ties and aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

401

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton Coontz, S. (2016). The way we never were. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/ article/132001/way-never Coward, R. T., and Dwyer, J. W. (1990). The association of gender, sibling network composition and patterns of parent care by adult children. Research on Aging, 12, 158- 181. doi:10.1177/0164027590122002 Creighton, L. L. (1993). Kids taking care of kids. U.S. News and World Report, 115(24), 26. Criss, M. M., and Shaw, D. S. (2005). Sibling relationships as contexts for delinquency training in low-income families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 592–600. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.592 Davys, D., Mitchell, D., and Haigh, C. (2011). Adult sibling experience, roles, relationships and future concerns: A review of the literature in learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 2837–2853. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03530.x Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Dilworth-Anderson, P., Brummett, B. H., Goodwin, P., Williams, S. W., Williams, R. B., and Siegler, I. C. (2005). Effect of race on cultural justifications for caregiving. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 60, S257– S262. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.5.S257 Dodson, L., and Dickert, J. (2004). Girls’ family labor in low-income households: A decade of qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 318–332. doi.10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2004.00023.x Dorius, C., and Guzzo, K. B. (2016). Factors affecting adolescent risk-taking in stepfather families. In G. Gianesini, and S. L. Blair (Eds.), Divorce, separation and remarriage: The transformation of family. Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, 10, 163–197. Downey, D. B., Condron, D. J., and Yucel, D. (2015). Number of siblings and social skills revisited among American fifth graders. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 273–296. doi:10.1177/0912513X13507569 Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787–811. doi:10.2307/1129886 Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dunn, J. (2007). Siblings and socialization. In J. E. Grusec and P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 309–327). New York: Guilford. Dunn, J., and Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dunn, J., and Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding in the second year. Child Development, 56, 480–492. doi:10.2307/1129735 Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., and Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the preschool period through middle childhood and early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 315–324. doi/10.1037/0012-1649.30.3.315 East, P. L. (2010). Children’s provision of family caregiving: Benefit or burden? Child Development Perspectives, 4, 55–61. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00118.x East, P. L., and Hamill, S. B. (2013). Sibling caretaking among Mexican American youth: Conditions that promote and hinder personal and school success. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35, 542–564. doi:10.1177/0739986313499003 East, P. L., and Jacobson, L. J. (2001). The younger siblings of teenage mothers: A follow-up of their pregnancy risk. Developmental Psychology, 37, 254–264. East, P. L., and Khoo, S. T. (2005). Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship quality to adolescent substance use and risky sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 571–580. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.571 East, P. L., Weisner, T. S., and Reyes, B. T. (2006). Youths’ caretaking of their adolescent sisters’ children: Its costs and benefits for youth. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 86–95. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1002_4 Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., Hostetler, M., Sakuma, K. L., Jones, D., and McHale, S. M. (2013). Siblings are Special: Initial test of a new approach for preventing youth behavior problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 166–173. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.10.004 Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Family obligation among children in immigrant families. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., and Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1020–1044. Furman, W., and Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of their sibling relationships. Child Development, 56, 448–461. doi:10.2307/1129733 Galley, J. (2014, September). Stay-at-home mothers through the years. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. doi:10.21916/. Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., and Palmer, D. J. (1994). Social cognitive correlates of preschool children’s sibling caregiving behavior. Developmental Psychology, 30, 905–911. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.905

402

Sibling Caregiving Gold, D. T. (1989). Sibling relationships in old age: A typology. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28, 37–51. doi:10.2190/VGYX-BRHN-J51V-0V39. Gold, D. T. (1990). Late-life sibling relationships: Does race affect typological distribution? The Gerontologist, 30, 741–748. doi:10.1093/geront/30.6.741 Gottman, J. M. (1997). The heart of parenting: How to raise an emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon and Schuster. Grigoryeva, A. (2017). Own gender, sibling’s gender, parent’s gender: The division of elderly parent care among adult children. American Sociological Review, 82, 116–146. doi:10.1177/0003122416686521 Hafford, C. (2010). Sibling caretaking in immigrant families: Understanding cultural practices to inform child welfare practice and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 294–203. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog plan.2009.05.003 Hepach, R. (2016). Prosocial arousal in children. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 1–6. doi:10.1111/cdep.12209 Hepach, R., Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., and Tomasello, M. (2016). Young children want to see others get the help they need. Child Development, 87, 1703–1714. doi:10.1111/cdev.12633 Hepach, R., Vaish, A., and Tomasello, M. (2017). Children’s intrinsic motivation to provide help themselves after accidentally harming others. Child Development, 88, 1251–1264. doi:10.1111/cdev.12646 Herrick, M. A., and Piccus, W. (2005). Sibling connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster care system. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 845–861. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.013 Hoetger, L., Hazen, K. P., and Brank, E. M. (2015). All in the family: A retrospective study comparing sibling bullying and peer bullying. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 103–111. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9651-0 Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Lehoux, P. M., and Rinaldi, C. M. (2001). Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development, 10, 439–454. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00174 Howe, N., Aquan-Assee, J., Bukowski, W. M., Rinaldi, C. M., and Lehoux, P. M. (2000). Sibling self-disclosure in early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 653–671. Howe, N., Della Porta, S., Recchia, H., and Ross, H. S. (2016). “Because if you don’t put the top on it, it will spill”: A longitudinal study of sibling teaching in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1832–1842. doi:10.1037/dev0000193 Howe, N., Petrakos, H., and Rinaldi, C. (1998). “All the sheeps are dead. He murdered them”: Sibling pretense, negotiation, internal state language, and relationship quality. Child Development, 69, 182–191. doi:10.1002/ icd.350f. Howe, N., and Rinaldi, C. M. (2004). ‘You be the big sister:’ Maternal-preschooler internal state discourse, perspective-taking, and sibling caretaking. Infant and Child Development, 13, 217–234. doi:10.1002/icd.350 Howe, N., and Ross, H. S. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling relationship. Developmental Psychology, 26, 160–165. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.1.160 Hunter, A. G., Pearson, J. L., Ialongo, N. S., and Kellam, S. G. (1998). Parenting alone to multiple caregivers: Child care and parenting arrangements in Black and White urban families. Family Relations, 47, 343–353. Illinois Facilities Fund. (2000). A history of federal and state child care legislation and programs for low income children in Illinois. Retrieved from www.iff.org/resources/content/3/1/documents/century_of_caring.pdf Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Neal, M. B., Ha, J., and Hammer, L. B. (2003). Redressing inequity in parent care among siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 201–212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00201.x Jenkins, J. (1992). Sibling relationships in disharmonious homes: Potential difficulties and protective effects. In F. Boer and J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 125–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Jenkins, J., and Dunn, J. (2009). Siblings within families: Levels of analysis and patterns of influence. In L. Kramer and K. J. Conger (Eds.), Siblings as agents of socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 126, 79–93. doi:10.1002/cd.258 Jenkins, J., Dunn, J., Rasbash, J., O’Connor, T. G., and Simpson, A. (2005). The mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavioral problems: Shared and non-shared family risks. Child Development, 76, 24–39. doi:10.1002/cd.258 John, O., Donohue, E., and Kentle, R. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California. Kahn, M. D., and Lewis, K. G. (1988). Siblings in therapy: Life-span and clinical issues. New York: W. W. Norton. Kennedy, D., and Kramer, L. (2008). Improving emotion regulation and sibling relationship quality: The more fun with sisters and brothers program. Family Relations, 57, 567–578. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00523.x Killoren, S. E., and Roach, A. L. (2014). Sibling conversations about dating and sexuality: Sisters as confidants, sources of support, and mentors. Family Relations, 63, 232–243. doi:10.1111/fare.12057

403

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kâğitçibaşi, Ç., Choi, S-C., and Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Cross- cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 18. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. King, M., Ruggles, S., Alexander, J. T., Flood, S., Genadek, K., Schroeder, M. B., Trampe, B., and Vick, R. (2010). Integrated Public Use Micro-data Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Kosonen, M. (1996). Siblings as providers of support and care during middle childhood: Children’s perceptions. Children and Society, 10, 267–279. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.1996.tb00595.x Kowal, A. K., and Blinn-Pike, L. (2004). Sibling influences on adolescents’ attitudes toward safe sex practices. Family Relations, 53, 377–384. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00044.x Kowal, A., and Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s understanding of parental differential treatment. Child Development, 68, 113–126. doi:10.2307/1131929 Kowal, A., Krull, J. L., and Kramer, L. (2006). Shared understanding of parental differential treatment in families. Social Development, 15, 276–295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00341.x Kramer, L. (1996). What’s real in children’s fantasy play? Fantasy play across the transition to becoming a sibling. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 329–337. Kramer, L. (2004). Experimental interventions in sibling relations. In R. D. Conger, F. O. Lorenz, and K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings (pp. 345–380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kramer, L. (2010). The essential ingredients of successful sibling relationships: An emerging framework for advancing theory and practice. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 80–86. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00122.x Kramer, L. (2014). Learning emotional understanding and regulation through sibling interaction. Early Education and Development, 25, 160–184. doi:10.1080/10409289.2014.838824 Kramer, L., and Baron, L. A. (1995). Parental perceptions of sibling relationships. Family Relations, 44, 95–103. doi:10.2307/584746 Kramer, L., and Conger, K. J. (2009). What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. In L. Kramer and K. J. Conger (Eds.), Siblings as agents of socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 126, 1–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi://10.1002/cd.253 Kramer, L., and Gottman, J. M. (1992). Becoming a sibling: “With a little help from my friends.” Developmental Psychology, 28, 685–699.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.685 Kramer, L., and Kowal, A. K. (2005). Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 503–511. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.503 Kurdick, L. A., and Fine, M. A. (1995). Mothers, fathers, stepfathers and siblings as providers of supervision, acceptance and autonomy granting to young adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 95–99. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., and Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883–894. Larson, R. W., and Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701–736. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.701 Lee, T. R., Mancini, J. A., and Maxwell, J. W. (1990). Sibling relationships in adulthood: Contact patterns and motivations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 431–440. doi:10.2307/353037 Li, Y. (2006). Sibling advocates of people with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28, 175–178. doi:10.1097/01.mrr.0000191845.65198.d7 Linares, L. O., Jimenez, J., Nesci, C., Pearson, E., Beller, S., Edwards, N., and Levin-Rector, A. (2015). Reducing sibling conflict in maltreated children placed in foster homes. Prevention Science, 16, 211–221. doi:10.1007/ s11121-014-0476-0 Lindell, A., Campione-Barr, N., and Killoren, S. (2015). Technology-mediated communication with siblings during the transition to college: Associations with relationship positivity and self-disclosure. Family Relations, 64, 563–578. doi:10.1111/fare.12133 Lu, P. C. (2007). Sibling relationships in adulthood and old age: A case study of Taiwan. Current Sociology, 55, 621–637. doi:10.1177/0011392107077646 Margolis, K., Fosco, G. M., and Stormshak, E. A. (2014). Circle of care: Extending beyond primary caregivers to examine collaborative caretaking in adolescent development. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1179–1202. doi/10.1177/0192513X14536565 Maybery, D., Ling, L., Szakacs, E., and Reupert, A. (2005). Child of a parent with a mental illness: Perspectives on need. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 4, 1–11. doi:10.5172/jamh.4.2.78 Maynard, A. E. (2002). Cultural teaching: The development of teaching skills in Maya sibling interactions. Child Development, 73, 969–982. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00450 McCarren, A. (2015). Parents in trouble again for letting kids walk alone. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/13/parents-investigated- letting-children-walk-alone/25700823/

404

Sibling Caregiving McHale, S. M., and Crouter, A. C. (1996). The family contexts of children’s sibling relationships. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 173–195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McHale, S. M., and Gamble, W. C. (1989). Sibling relationships of children with disabled and non-disabled brothers and sister. Developmental Psychology, 25, 421–429. McHale, S. M., Kim, J-Y., and Whiteman, S. D. (2006). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence. In P. Noller and J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 127–149). Hove: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., and Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 913–930. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x McMahon, T. J., and Luthar, S. S. (2007). Defining characteristics and potential consequences of caretaking burden among children living in urban poverty. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 267–281. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.2.267 Miller, B. C. (2002). Family influences on adolescent sexual and contraceptive behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 22–26. doi:10.1080/00224490209552115 Morrongiello, B. A. (2005). Caregiver supervision and child-injury risk: I. Issues in defining and measuring supervision; II. Findings and directions for future research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 30, 536–552, doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsi041 Morrongiello, B. A., MacIsaac, T., and Klemencic, N. (2007). Older siblings as supervisors: Does this influence young children’s risk of unintentional injury? Social Science and Medicine, 64, 807–817. doi:10.1016/j. socscimed.2006.10.036 Murphy, S. O. (1993). Siblings and the new baby: Changing perspectives. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 8, 277–288. Myers, S. A., and Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Relational maintenance behaviors and communication channel use among adult siblings. North American Journal of Psychology, 12, 103–116. Namkung, E. H., Greenberg, J. S., and Mailick, M. R. (2017). Well-being of sibling caregivers: Effects of kinship relationship and race. The Gerontologist, 57, 626–636. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw008 Nathans, A. B., Neff, M., Goss, C. H., Maier, R. V., and Rivara, F. P. (2000). Effects of older sibling and birth interval on the risk of childhood injury. Injury Prevention, 6, 219–222. Nuckolls, C. W. (Ed.). (1993). Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context. New York: Guilford. O’Bryant, S. L. (1988). Sibling support and older widows’ well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 173–183. doi:10.2307/352437 Orsmond, G. I., and Seltzer, M. M. (2007). Siblings of individuals with autism or Down syndrome: Effect on adult lives. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 682–696. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00954.x Otto, H. W. R., Schuitmaker, N., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Serdtse, Y., Yovsi, R., and Tomlinson, M. (2017). Infants’ social experiences in three African sociocultural contexts. Child Development, 88, 1235–1250. doi:10.1111/ cdev.12661 Patterson, G. R. (1984). Siblings: Fellow travelers in coercive family processes. In R. J. Blanchard and D. C. Blanchard (Eds.), Advances in the study of aggression (Vol. 1, pp. 173–261). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 67–107). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pollock, E. G. (2002). The childhood we have lost: When siblings were caregivers, 1900–1970. Journal of Social History, 36, 31–61. Poortman, A. R., and Voorpostel, M. (2009). Parental divorce and sibling relationships: A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 74–91. doi:10.1177/0192513X08322782 Rabain-Jamin, J., Maynard, A., and Greenfield, P. (2003). Implications of sibling caregiving for sibling relations and teaching interactions in two cultures. Ethos, 31, 204–231. doi:10.1525/eth.2003.31.2.204 Rauchschwalbe, R., Brenner, R. A., and Smith, G. S. (1997). The role of bathtub seats and rings in infant drowning deaths. Pediatrics, 100, 1–5. doi:10.1542/peds.100.4.e1 Ravindran, N., McElwain, N. L., Engle, J. A., and Kramer, L. (2015). Fostering parents’ emotion regulation through a sibling-focused experimental intervention. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 458–468. doi:10.1037/ fam0000084 Rende, R. Slomkowski, C., Lloyd-Richardson, E., and Niaura, R. (2005). Sibling effects on substance abuse in adolescence: Social contagion and genetic relatedness. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 611–618. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.611 Reupert, A., and Maybery, D. (2007a). Families affected by parental mental illness: A multi-perspective account of issues and interventions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 362–369. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.362 Reupert, A., and Maybery, D. (2007b). Strategies and issues in supporting children whose parents have a mental illness in the school system. School Psychology International, 28, 195–205. doi:10.1177/0143034307078098

405

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton Rivers, J. W., and Stoneman, Z. (2003). Sibling relationships when a child has autism: Marital stress and support coping. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 383–394. Rodrigues, M., Binnoon-Erez, N., Plamondon, A., and Jenkins, J. (2017). Behavioral risk assessment from newborn to preschool: The value of older siblings. Pediatrics, 140, 1–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-4279 Roth, K. E., Harkin, D. A., and Eng, L. A. (2014). Parental conflict during divorce as an indicator of adjustment and future relationships: A retrospective sibling study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 55, 117–138. doi:10. 1080/10502556.2013.871951 Rowe, D., and Gulley, B. (1992). Sibling effects on substance abuse and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 217–233. Rubin, K. H., and Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem-solving and social competence in children. In V. B. van Hasselt and M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development: A lifespan perspective (pp. 283–321). New York: Plenum. Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford. Seltzer, M. M., Orsmond, G. I., and Esbensen, A. (2009). Siblings of individuals with an autism spectrum disorder: Sibling relationships and wellbeing in adolescence and adulthood. Autism, 13, 59–80. doi:10.1177/ 1362361308097119 Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., and Osgood, D. W. (2008). Linkages between parents’ differential treatment, youth depressive symptoms, and sibling relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 480–494. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00495.x Shantz, C. U., and Hobart, C. J. (1989). Sibling conflict and development. In T. J. Berndt and G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 71–94). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Siddiqui, A. A., and Ross, H. S. (2004). Mediation as a method of parent intervention in children’s disputes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 147–159. Skinner, J. A., and Kowalski, R. M. (2013). Profiles of sibling bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1726– 1736. doi:10.1177/0886260512468327 Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., and Conger, R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283. doi:10.1111.1467-8624.00278 Smith, J., and Ross, H. (2007). Training parents to mediate sibling disputes affects children’s negotiation and conflict understanding. Child Development, 78, 790–805. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01033.x Song, J-H., and Volling, B. H. (2015). Coparenting and children’s temperament predict firstborns’ cooperation in the care of an infant sibling. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 130–135. doi:10.1037/fam0000052 Song, M. (2010). Does ‘race’ matter? A study of ‘mixed race’ siblings’ identifications. The Sociological Review, 58, 265–285. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01903.x Soli, A. R., McHale, S. M., and Feinberg, M. E. (2009). Risk and protective effects of sibling relationships among African American adolescents. Family Relations, 58, 578–592. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00576.x St. Clair-Christman, J. (2011). Family support and institutional support for low-income, first generation college students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC. (ED534702). St. George, D. (2015). ‘Unsubstantiated’ child neglect finding for free range parents. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-enddebate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html?utm term=.6f840acbd2c7 Stahl, D., and Stahl, D. (2017). Caretaking through art: A sibling story. Journal of the Medical Humanities, 38, 77–78. doi:10.1007/s10912-016-9407-3 Stalberg, G., Ekerwald, H., and Hultman, C. M. (2004). Siblings of patients with schizophrenia: Sibling bond, coping patterns, and fear of possible schizophrenia heredity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 446–458. doi:10.1093/ oxfordjournals.schbul.a0070091 Stauffacher, K., and DeHart, G. B. (2005). Preschoolers’ relational aggression with siblings and friends. Early Education and Development, 16, 185–206. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1602_5 Stewart, R. B. (1983). Sibling attachment relationship: Child-infant interactions in the strange situation. Developmental Psychology, 19, 192–199. Stewart, R. B., and Marvin, R. S. (1984). Sibling relations: The role of conceptual perspective-taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiving. Child Development, 55, 1322–1332. doi:10.2307/1130002 Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., and Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 210–221. Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., and Goodman, M. (1999, April). High-risk sibling relationships as a context for the development of social cognitive deficits in conduct problem children. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

406

Sibling Caregiving Stormshak, E. A., Bullock, B. M., and Falkenstein, C. A. (2009). Harnessing the power of sibling relationships as a tool for optimizing social-emotional development. In L. Kramer and K. J. Conger (Eds.), Siblings as agents of socialization: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 126, 61–77. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/CAD.257 Tancredy, C. M., and Fraley, R. C. (2006). The nature of adult twin relationships: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 78–93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.78 Teti, D. M., and Ablard, K. E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child Development, 60, 1519–1528. Tolkacheva, N., Brouse van Grounou, M. B., and van Tilburg, T. (2010). Sibling influence on care given by children to older parents. Research on Aging, 32, 739–759. doi:10.1177/0164027510383532 Tomlinson, R., and Sainsbury, C. (2004). Childhood injury prevention advice: A survey of health professionals’ responses to common scenarios. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 30, 301–204. doi:10.1111/j.13652214.2004.00436.x Tucker, C. J., Barber, B. L., and Eccles, J. S. (1997). Advice about life plans and personal problems in late adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 63–76. doi:10.1023/A:1024540228946 Tucker, C. J., McHale, S. M., and Crouter, A. C. (2001). Conditions of sibling support in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 254–271. doi:10.1037//O893-32OO. 15.2.254 Tucker, C. J., McHale, S. M., and Crouter, A. C. (2008). Links between older and younger adolescent siblings’ adjustment: The moderating role of shared activities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 152– 160. doi:10.1177/0165025407087214 Turner, C. (2015). Arrests for leaving kids home alone made every day. The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph. co.uk/news/uknews/law-and- order/11498123/Arrests-for-leaving-kids-home-alone-made-every-day.html Umaña-Taylor, A. (2011). Ethnic identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 755–774). New York: Springer. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., and Delgado, M. Y. (2005). Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512–522. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.512 Vandenbroeck, M., De Visscher, S., and Van Nuffel, K. (2008). Mothers’ search for infant child care: The dynamic relationship between availability and desirability in a continental European welfare state. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 245–258. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.002 Van Loon, L. M. A., Van De Ven, M. O. M., Van Doesum, K. T. M., Hosman, C. M. H., and Witteman, C. L. M. (2017). Parentification, stress, and problem behavior of adolescents who have a parent with mental problems. Family Process, 56, 105–125. doi:10.1111/famp.12165 Volling, B. L., Gonzalez, R., Oh, W., Song, J-H., Yu, T., Rosenberg, L., Kuo, P. X., Thomason, E., Beyers-Carlson, E., Safyer, P., and Stevenson, M. M. (Eds.). (2017). Developmental trajectories of children’s adjustment across the transition to siblinghood: Pre-birth predictors and sibling outcomes at one year. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 326, 82(3), 1–216. doi:10.1111/mono.12265 Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., and Miller, A. L. (2002). Emotion regulation in context: The jealousy complex between siblings and its relation with child and family characteristics. Child Development, 73, 581–600. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00425 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, A. J., Allen, K. R., and Connidis, I. A. (2005). Theorizing and studying sibling ties in adulthood. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth- Anderson, and D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 167–181). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wasu, S. (2017). San Tan Valley boy honored by firefighters after saving his mom. ABC News. Retrieved from www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/queen-creek/san-tan-valley-boy-honored-by-fire fighters-after-saving-his-mom Weisner, T. S. (1989). Comparing sibling relationships across cultures. In P. Zukow-Goldring (Ed.), Sibling interaction across cultures (pp. 11–25). New York: Springer-Verlag. Weisner, T. S. (2011). Socialization for parenthood in sibling caretaking societies. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, and L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial Dimensions (pp. 237–270). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Weisner, T. S., and Gallimore, R. (1977). My brother’s keeper: Child and sibling caretaking. Current Anthropology, 18, 169–190. Whiting, B. B., and Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

407

Laurie Kramer and Tessa N. Hamilton Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional and sexual trauma. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Williams, P. D. (1997). Siblings and pediatric chronic illness: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 34, 312–323. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(97)00019-9 Williams, P. D., Lorenzo, F. D., and Borja, M. (1993). Pediatric chronic illness: Effects on siblings and mothers. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal, 21, 111–121. Yi, S., Poudel, K. C., Yasuoka, J., Palmer, P. H., Yi, S., Yanagisawa, S., and Masamine, M. (2012). Sibling care, school performance, and depression among adolescent caretakers in Cambodia. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 132–136. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2012.04.002 Zukow-Goldring, P. (1989). Siblings as effective socializing agents: Evidence from central Mexico. In P. Zukow-Goldring (Ed.), Sibling interaction across cultures (pp. 79–105). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/9781-4612-3536-1_5 Zukow-Goldring, P. (1995). Sibling caregiving. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 3, pp. 177– 208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zukow-Goldring, P. (2002). Sibling caregiving. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 3, pp. 253– 286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

408

12 NONPARENTAL CAREGIVING Helen Raikes, Abbie Raikes, Jan Esteraich, Amy Encinger, Aileen S. Garcia, Sukran Ucus, and Elsa Escalante

Introduction Most parenting in the United States and worldwide is carried out by parents or relatives, but not all caregiving is conducted in that context. Here, we refer to nonparental caregiving and divide our discussion into two distinct areas: (1) nonparental caregiving that occurs in myriad childcare and early education settings during the hours parents are at work, and (2) nonparental caregiving conducted by child welfare agencies, including foster care and orphanages. In the former case, the children reside with their parents; in the latter case, this is not so. In each case, we identify the prevalence in the United States and in other parts of the world. We then turn to the forms this caregiving takes and the effects of nonparental caregiving on children’s development and, finally, we address elements that may introduce important variation. Twenty years ago, the theme of the chapter on nonparental or nonfamilial caregiving was to explore the effects of rapidly expanding nonparental caregiving due to parental employment on children’s development (Clark-Stewart and Allhusen, 2001). Emphasis was largely on the Western world. In that earlier time frame, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development was just beginning to release results from its comprehensive study of early care, a study of over 1,400 children, beginning shortly after birth and following children’s development longitudinally in their childcare and home settings through school ages (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early Childcare Research Network, 2005). That earlier review built on the knowledge base about the importance of children’s attachment, raised questions about effects of childcare/early education on children’s emotional wellbeing and parent-child interaction as a function of alterative care and separation (Clark-Stewart and Allhusen, 2001). Today, nonparental caregiving has become so prevalent in the Western world and increasingly in the rest of the world that the predominating research questions are no longer whether this form of caregiving has a detrimental effect on children’s development. Rather, central questions today focus on what forms of nonparental caregiving for working parents best support the early development of children, and what can countries, states, and communities do to build these kinds of systems? Another major theme is new for this chapter, because millions of young children are displaced from their families for various reasons including international conflicts, disease, disabilities, abuse, or are otherwise unwanted or abandoned. Thus, we also address the knowledge base about child welfare.

409

Helen Raikes et al.

The scope of the current chapter further broadened to include a knowledge base that is global, not predominantly Western. We grant that the knowledge base is still largely Western—more studies in this area are financed in the Western world—but there are perspectives and findings from international studies to inform perspectives going forward. Childcare in the developing world looks different from that in the Western world, so the questions and variable features are bound to be different. Child welfare for children who are unable to live with their families looks different from that in the Western world, so here, too, the questions and variable features may be somewhat different. Many of our theories and research frameworks are likely to be useful in both contexts, but the Child Rights Framework, more frequently utilized in an international context, can similarly inform thinking in the Western context. In this chapter, we begin with conceptual frameworks, then turn to focus on nonparental caregiving. The first half of the chapter addresses nonparental caregiving in which children reside with their parents and caregiving is provided by day by others, called childcare/early education here. In this first half, we address childcare/early education in the United States and then provide examples from other parts of the world, acknowledging that equally interesting examples could be portrayed from any number of countries. In the second half of the chapter, focus is on nonparental caregiving in which children do not live with their parents, referred to as child welfare. Again, the discussion begins with a focus on child welfare in the United States and then turns to examples from other parts of the world. For each section, the discussion begins with definitions and prevalence and effects on children; in some cases, the discussion explores variable elements. Many countries or regions have been able to measure the prevalence of childcare/early childhood education or nonresidential child welfare. The United States and some countries have child outcomes data that can be linked to that prevalence, which helps to document the possible association between prevalence of childcare/ early childhood education and child development. But in many cases, such linkages can’t be established widely. Research on variable elements (e.g., quality, dosage, access) requires sophisticated study designs and forms of measurement. When data on the links between childcare/early childhood education and child development or variable elements in childcare early education or child welfare are available and measurement systems are established, measurement is addressed within subsections of this article. In all cases, the studies and outcomes referred to pertain to children from infancy through prekindergarten, unless otherwise specified.

Theory/Framework of Nonparental Caregiving Child Right to Care Child well-being is a comprehensive concept, which encompasses a number of dimensions that include material well-being, housing and the environment, education, health, risk behaviors, and quality of school life (Bradshaw, Hoelscher, and Richardson, 2007; UNICEF, 2007a). This multidimensional concept of child well-being is guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; United Nations General Assembly, 1989) and encompasses child quality of life in a broad sense that includes child economic conditions, peer relationships, political rights, and opportunities for development. The United Nations CRC has drawn the normative framework for globally understanding, promoting, and guaranteeing child well-being (Casas, 1997). Specifically, children’s rights are identified in four main categories, including survival rights (e.g., shelter, nutrition), development rights (e.g., education, recreation, knowledge acquisition, freedom of religion), participation rights (e.g., providing for an active role in the family and society), and protection rights (e.g., protection from abuse, exploitation, child labor, and in refugee situations). CRC was augmented and expanded by subsequent United Nations efforts, through the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the General Assembly adoption of the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of 410

Nonparental Caregiving

Children and, currently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which were agreed by nations in 2015 (see Raikes, Yoshikawa, Britto, and Iruka, 2017, for relevance to developmental science). Specifically, and pertinent to the current chapter, the Sustainable Development Goal 4.2 specifies that children shall have access to quality early childhood education services, as part of the larger education goal focused on promoting learning across all ages and populations (Raikes et al., 2017). The Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (Raikes et al., 2017) present desirable orientations for policy and practice in regards to the protection and well-being of children who are deprived of parental care or who are at risk of being so. In the early years, children depend on adults for access to high-quality opportunities to support their development, through the provision of nutrition, stimulation, and protection. Families and governments have the responsibility to create enriched and healthy environments where children can grow, be cared for, and reach their potential, especially for those children who are not under parental protection and/or who are exposed to risky environments (e.g., human trafficking, displacement, poverty, armed conflict, domestic violence, migration, and other forms of extreme risk) (European Commission [EC], 2008; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2009). From this perspective, a child’s right to care may require national and transnational systems to promote child protection and welfare. These systems may operate within the framework of the law with a coherent framework of policies, procedures, and guidelines, providing a multisector approach to support the prevention of and response to protection of risks, and lead co-responsible and effective services for children (UNICEF, 2008). Additionally, experts and practitioners have observed consensus among leading agencies engaged in child protection and welfare and recommend that legislation, policies, and regulations should be systemic; consistent with the CRC, MDG, and SDG; and relevant to international and regional conventions and instruments as well as existing laws and bilateral/ multilateral agreements to facilitate cooperation and ensure the provision of services to children (Save the Children, 2009; UNICEF, 2008; World Vision International, 2011).

Ecological Systems Theory A theoretical framework frequently applied to nonparental caregiving is Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006). Ecological systems theory describes concentric, interactive contexts that influence both children and families across time. This model can be conceptualized as a set of nested systems with the child as central in what is referred to as microsystem. Influences on development include biology and social environments with the individual interacting with family/childcare/early education contexts, including the child’s family, teachers/providers, and peers. Characteristics of the neighborhood and community are referred to as the exosystem, which includes factors such as quality and structure of institutions, for example, schools, churches, and community organizations, as well as potential stressors or threats to development, such as lack of community resources. The outermost concentric circle represents the macrosystem, which includes factors such as culture, economic, and political structures, as well as policies that set the stage for nonparental caregiving. The mesosystem represents the interactions among systems that influence one another, and in the current chapter, influences from all levels are hypothesized to contribute to both the child’s development and variability in the context of nonparental caregiving.

Attachment Theory Attachment theories (Ainsworth, 1982; Bowlby, 1969) have been applied to nonparental caregiving in two ways. Attachment theory postulates that sensitive, responsive interactions primarily with the mother lead the child to form an attachment and working model that can be secure or insecure in a 411

Helen Raikes et al.

number of ways. A secure attachment with the mother has been associated with a number of important subsequent positive developments for children (Matas, Arend, and Sroufe, 1978). Applied to nonparental caregiving, first, the theory gave rise to a hypothesis that alternative caregiving would be disruptive to formation of the important mother-child attachment bond, undergirded by the assumption that maternal attachment formed the basis for all subsequent attachments. Second, attachment theory has been extended in a complementary direction by hypothesizing that children can form secondary attachments with nonparental caregivers (when caregiving is sensitive, contingent, consistent, and predictable) (Howes and Hamilton, 1992; Howes, Rodning, Galluzzo, and Myers, 1988; van IJzendoorn, Sagi, and Lambermon,1992), that these relationships provide children with secure base opportunities during the alternative caregiving periods (Howes et al.,1988), and that the attachment may be independent from the relationship with the mother (Fox, 1977). This interpretation of secondary attachment provides a theoretical justification for relationships that supplement the maternal relationship and may be compensatory (Howes et al., 1988).

Sociobiological Theory This theoretical framework postulates that adults who are genetically related to children have the greatest investment in the children’s care and well-being, due to a desire to protect and perpetuate their genetic line (Ruston, Russell, and Wells, 1984). It suggests that relatives would be more likely to provide quality caregiving than nonrelatives, which is consistent with worldwide child welfare recommendations for first placement of children when parents are unable to care for them. However, in regard to childcare/early education, in a study of family childcare (including related and nonrelated caregivers), Kontos, Howes, Shinn, and Galinsky (1995) reported lower quality care in relative care than in nonrelative care.

Cognitive and Social Stimulation Theories Undergirded by Neuroscience A number of cognitive stimulation and social stimulation theories posit that sensitive, contingent, minimally stressful stimulation that is appropriate to the child’s developmental level in nonparental environments will contribute positively to the child’s development (Dennis, 1973; Hart and Risley, 1995; Hunt, 1961). These theories build on science about rapid and malleable brain development occurring during the early years of life (Center on the Developing Child, 2007). Newer science findings suggest that children’s experiences, supplemented by nutrition and maturation, contribute to the very architecture of the brain. The mechanism appears to occur during synaptogenesis; when children are engaged in stimulating, relatively stress-free experiences, neuronal activity occurs whereby axons from neurons fire to connect with dendrites from others, thereby creating or strengthening synapses and ultimately pathways in the brain that create the physiological superstructure for learning (Champagne, Francis, Mar, and Meaney, 2003; Greenough and Black, 1992; Liu, Diario, Day, Francis, and Meaney, 2000). Other studies have shown reduced neuronal activity in emotion centers of the brain under conditions of repeated stress (e.g., abuse) or demonstrate alteration in the hypothalamuspituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Children exposed to continuous and intense stress (sometimes referred to as toxic stress) demonstrate heightened HPA activity that does not follow typical patterns of activation and resumptions to normal levels of cortisol (Caldji et al., 1998; Gunnar and Donzella, 2002). Indeed, intervention programs such as Head Start and state pre-K programs are designed to address the well-documented achievement gap (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Lee and Burkham, 2002) that low-income children and children reared in stressed environments are vulnerable to, and the expected outcome from these programs is enhanced school readiness, including both cognitive and social development (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012b). Quality childcare

412

Nonparental Caregiving

and child welfare procedures and policies are designed to reduce the stress and trauma that children in high-risk situations are exposed to.

Summary of Frameworks and Theories We have postulated five frameworks/theories to guide our discussion and to help in forming hypotheses about effects on children that could be anticipated from nonparental caregiving. First, the CRC provides a justification for nonparental caregiving and the needs and rights of the child, with implications for environments, material well-being, education, and health. The child rights framework defines what is inalterable for children’s nonparental caregiving and suggests children’s development and well-being would be compromised when any of these rights cannot be ensured. Ecological theory places the child in the context of family and concentric systems and suggests that children not consistently anchored in a series of these systems are vulnerable, as can happen to children displaced by war, famine, natural disasters and in other ways or if some systems of nurturance and care are weak or of poor quality. Attachment theory suggests hypotheses about building strong mother-child relationships and also points to the role that secondary attachments can play in ensuring the child’s sense of security when the mother is not present, and would hypothesize threats to child well-being and a host of subsequent developmental sequelae with inconsistent or insensitive care whether in childcare/early education or child welfare. Sociobiological theories postulate that family members will have the most invested in care of children, that well-being could be compromised when family systems break down, and that systems incorporating the family will be better for children’s outcomes. Finally, cognitive and social stimulation theories suggest that organized, stimulating environments and teaching curricula benefit children, particularly low-income children. The latter theories become the premise for early education intervention programs, such as Head Start in the United States. and other parts of the world, and are undergirded conceptually by understandings of early neurological development. Consistent with these theories are attempts to improve quality in programs, to focus instruction to better prepare children for school and efforts to reduce stressors and traumas in children’s lives to manageable levels.

Childcare/Early Education in the United States In this first half of this chapter, we focus on childcare and early childhood education. This is care that occurs during the daytime but where children reside with their parents some or all of the time. We address a number of questions: What is the need and prevalence of childcare and education in the United States? What forms does childcare take? What are models by which this care and education are delivered? What do we know about effects of nonparental caregiving on children’s development? What are variable elements in childcare? What are states and communities doing to affect the supply of quality care overall or to influence variable elements? What are new forms of research in this area?

Prevalence of Nonparental Childcare/Early Childhood Education Childcare/early childhood education is utilized by a large percentage of U.S. children. Again, childcare/early education as referred to as occurring during the daytime, but children reside with their parents or in their homes. Data on childcare use are collected in the U.S. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and show how many children by age are in alternative arrangements, types of arrangements, time spent in these arrangements, and distribution of facilities across the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). In 2011, 32.7 million children were in a regular childcare arrangement while their

413

Helen Raikes et al.

parents worked or pursued other activities outside the home. This figure represented 12.5 million children ages 0–4 who represented 61% of children in these age categories, and 20.2 million children ages 5–15, representing 50% of children in these age categories. Fully 88% of 0- to 4 year-oldchildren whose mothers were employed were in care, and these children spent 36 hours per week on average in care, and only 28% of 0- to 4-year-old children whose mothers are not employed spent 21 hours on average in care per week. Thus, even children whose mothers are not employed were still in care and education settings. The cost of childcare, even adjusted for inflation, nearly doubled from 1985 to 2011. Families not in poverty paid about 8% of their income on childcare, but families in poverty who make childcare payments pay about 30% of their income on childcare. Many low-income parents do not make payments for childcare due to subsidies and subsidized programs they may be eligible for. The SIPP report shows that 32% of parents make payments for childcare.

Forms of Childcare/Early Education Childcare/early education in the United States includes a patchwork of different forms of care, with different auspices and different targeted users. For example, it includes center-based care, and care provided by relatives and nonrelatives within and outside the family home. Auspices can be public, which includes Head Start and state-supported prekindergarten programs and programs for children with special needs/disabilities. States licensed childcare, and requirements for licenses vary across and within states. The childcare/early education can be private, which includes both for-profit and notfor-profit programs in centers. Some of the private programs follow particular philosophies and have their own certifications and program models (e.g., Montessori, Reggio, Waldorf ). Low-income children who do not speak English, or those with certified disabilities, are more frequently served in public programs, and children in families with more resources tend to be in private programs. However, as Bassok, Magnuson, and Weiland (2016) pointed out, public assistance is not an entitlement. Fewer than one third of federally eligible children under 6 years old receive childcare subsidies, approximately 42% of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds attend Head Start, and less than 4% of eligible children are served by Early Head Start. Public state prekindergarten programs serve about 30% of 4-year-olds nationwide and 5% of 3-year-olds in 42 states and the District of Columbia (Brookings, 2017). Still, families—and particularly those who are poor and those with infants and toddlers—struggle to find affordable, high-quality childcare for their children (Bassok et al., 2016). The most common form of childcare/early education is provided by relatives (27% of all nonparental caregiving with half of this provided by grandparents), followed by organized facilities (25%, including childcare centers, nursery schools, preschools, and Head Start programs), parents (22%, including fathers who provide care while mothers are working or mothers who take care of their children while working), other nonrelatives (13%; including in-home babysitters, neighbors, friends, and family day care), and others (13%, including schools, self-care, or no regular arrangement; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Effects on Children There is general agreement that good-quality childcare/early education provides developmental advantages for young children and is particularly important for children who are vulnerable due to poverty, for those not speaking English, or those with disabilities (Shonkoff and Bales, 2011) and who are vulnerable to opportunity/achievement gaps at or before school entry that set trajectories for school success (Duncan and Magnuson, 2011; Hair, Halle, Terry-Humen, Lavelle, and Calkins, 2006; Hart and Risley, 1995).

414

Nonparental Caregiving

In a comprehensive review of 36 studies of model demonstrations, large-scale public programs serving low-income preschool-age children including preschools, Head Start programs, and childcare, as well as home visiting programs, Barnett (1995) concluded that childcare/early education programs tend to have large, short-term advantages for children’s IQ and long-term benefits for school achievement, grade retention, placement in special education, and social adjustment. A leading review concluded that high-quality programs provide benefits for children’s development (Zaslow, 2010). The literature is consistent in showing positive effects for cognitive outcomes (Dearing, McCartney and Taylor, 2009; Tran and Weinraub, 2006) but is somewhat mixed for socioemotional development. Notably, children with greater nonparental caregiving have been found in some studies to have more reported behavior problems (McCartney et al., 2010), particularly when care was of longer duration and began early. By contrast, several studies have reported better outcomes for low-income preschool-age children in language or cognitive development (Yazejian, Bryant, Freel, and Burchinal, 2015) or socioemotional behaviors (Votruba-Drzal, Coley, and Chase-Lansdale, 2004) when care began early or was of longer duration but was in good-quality settings. Votruba-Drzal et al. (2004) found internalizing and externalizing problems decreased as number of hours in good-quality care increased, but these behavior problems increased with hours in poor quality care. Moreover, the association referred to earlier between children’s behavior problems and longer durations in childcare was largest for lowquality programs and smallest for high-quality programs (McCartney et al., 2010). These studies demonstrating good outcomes in higher quality settings suggest that understanding what goes into creating a quality setting and experience is important.

Variable Elements The discussion about childcare/early education in the United States has shifted from an emphasis on whether childcare and maternal employment has a negative effect on children to when childcare or early education has a harmful effect and, more commonly, what it takes for childcare/early education to have a positive effect on children’s development. The predominating distinguishing feature for positive outcomes associated with childcare/early education is the quality of the setting and of the experience for children in the setting. Several features in regard to quality are noteworthy: (1) there currently tends to be a generally accepted broad definition of quality in the United States, although that definition is evolving somewhat; (2) U.S. nonparental caregiving is of variable quality; and (3) although much is known about effects on children in quality environments, there continues to be considerable discussion about what it takes to make a difference for children’s development. The specific components that compose broad quality are targets for improvement in the United States, and as a result, there is a multitude of current initiatives to improve quality and ultimately outcomes for children as we discuss in the next section.

Definition of Quality Childcare/early education quality refers to the combination of structural features in programs and process features (National Institute of Child Health and Development [NICHD] Early Childcare Research Network, 2006), together with a new perspective, instructional quality (MDRC, 2017). Structural features are framework aspects of childcare/early education, whereas process quality refers to the interactions that children experience. Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips (1990) identified structural features of childcare that are regarded as necessary but not sufficient for developing quality settings and experiences. These include ratios, group size, teacher training/education, and wages. Other representative studies (Raikes et al., 2006)

415

Helen Raikes et al.

have found that combinations of structural features, referred to as assets, add up to create quality environments, demonstrating that the combination of “good things” add up to make a difference. Process quality is the central quality feature that refers to the interactions of children within programs. Warm, responsive, stimulating interactions between adults and children and facilitation of daily experiences that are stimulating and build on children’s interests have been defined as preferred processes for childcare/early education (National Institute of Child Health and Development [NICHD], Early Childcare Research Network, 2006). Process quality is often measured using structured observations, such as Environmental Rating Scales (Harms, Clifford, and Cryer, 1998), the Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1985), or domains of the Classroom Assessment Survey Scale (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre, 2008). There have been a number of studies linking structural to process quality. Positive associations have been found between observed quality and group size, adult-child ratio, and director characteristics (Whitebook et al., 1990); provider beliefs (Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, and Shinn, 1994); early childhood wages (Ghazvini and Mullis, 2002; Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, and Abbott-Shim, 2000); employee benefits (Whitebook et al., 1990); and National Association for the Education of Young Children accreditation (Bloom, 1996), in ­caregiving/early education programs serving ages infancy through prekindergarten.

Variability in U.S. Childcare/Early Childhood Quality Studies beginning in the 1990s identified deficits in U.S. childcare quality just at the time that supplies of care and education were expanding (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995; Kontos et al., 1995; Whitebook et al., 1990). Moreover, childcare for low-income children tends to be lower quality than is true for more advantaged families (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Childcare Research Network, 2005).

Newer Investigations of Variability Although there is agreement that early childhood programs can have positive impacts on children’s development and that quality is generally necessary for these positive effects to be realized, there is also concern that effects of at-scale programs, although statistically significant, are typically considerably smaller than effects found in small, carefully controlled demonstration programs (Brookings, 2017). Sometimes this discussion is referred to as “getting into the black box” of programs to better understand how to optimize environments for different groups of children and to more effectively take early childcare/early education programs to scale in communities and states. For example, a group of leading scholars identified six areas of consensus for when pre-K programs can have positive effects on children (Brookings, 2017). Among other areas of consensus, the researchers emphasized experiences that lead to rich classroom interactions, such as use of curricula known for building strong foundational skills and knowledge, and professional development and coaching that enable teachers to create engaging and organized classrooms. Newer studies have demonstrated that instruction that is targeted and focused can lead to greater effect sizes in child growth in the targeted areas, especially for low-income children. Examples include language and literacy instruction (Wasik and Hindman, 2011), math instruction (Clements and Sarama, 2008), and other areas and across areas of development (Fantuzzo, 2012; Raver et al., 2009). This innovative research is leading to newer definitions of quality or of what it takes for nonparental caregiving to make a difference. Certainly, this newer research demonstrates the dynamic nature of understanding what is most salient (or makes the biggest difference) in young children’s nonparental caregiving. Another line of research has introduced new statistical methods for understanding relations between quality and child outcomes. Modest effects for quality on child outcomes have been found 416

Nonparental Caregiving

using quality as a continuous variable, but research suggests that there may be important cut points for quality, and that for childcare/early education programs to have a positive effect on children’s development, a higher level of quality is required (Burchinal, Zaslow, and Tarullo, 2016). Indeed, positive associations between the quality of emotional support and child socioemotional outcomes were reported at higher levels of quality, but less so at lower levels of quality, and at higher levels of instructional quality for academic outcomes (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, and Mashburn, 2010). These findings were reported from an 11-state sample of classrooms. Another study with a rural sample revealed a similar association between quality at higher levels and fewer child behavioral outcomes, but this association was not found for language, literacy, or working memory outcomes (Burchinal, Vernon-Feagans, Vitiello, and Greenberg, 2014).

Efforts to Affect the Supply and Quality of Care/Early Education in the United States The abundant literature demonstrating positive outcomes for children in quality care and early education together with literature informing the field about the variable elements that compose quality have led to improved access, improved standards, innovative initiatives, and other community, state, and federal initiatives and research toward improving access and quality and particularly outcomes for children. Access to care and education has been sustained or improved through ongoing federal and state support for childcare subsidies for low-income children, through expansions of the infanttoddler programs in the Head Start suite of programs, through state pre-K programs and infant/ toddler programs, to serve low-income children and their families. Many are designed to provide children needed stimulation and support during years of most rapid brain growth and are focused on preventing the well-known achievement gap due to disparities of income. With greater clarity around what young children need in their care and education, standards have been established delineating best practices by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC; 2017), the American Academy of Pediatrics and known as Healthy Child Care (American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, 2017), and Head Start Program Performance Standards have been improved and updated with information from new research and practice (Administration for Children and Families, ACF, 2016). Nearly every U.S. state has developed early learning guidelines or standards (Scott-Little, Kagan, Frelow, and Reid, 2009). Notable among quality initiatives are state Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS; National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, 2017); most U.S. states have implemented or are developing these systems whereby states (and, in a few cases, counties) identify graduated levels of quality for programs to aspire toward and to structure quality improvements. A QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early and school-age care and education programs. These systems have been known in various ways as “star systems” and are akin to hotel ratings systems. Although these systems are still evolving, a number of studies have demonstrated that they help to drive quality improvements at the systems level (Tout, Zaslow, Halle, and Forry, 2009; Zellman and Perlman, 2008). In many states, they are augmented by tiered childcare subsidy reimbursements.

Summary of U.S. Childcare/Early Education Childcare/early education in the United States is utilized by a majority of U.S. children due to high rates of parental employment and to interests of the U.S. Federal government and state governments in making quality early childhood services available to low-income children and children otherwise at risk. A strong literature base shows positive impacts on early development that associate with quality early childhood programs regardless of type of program, and such programs undergird efforts to 417

Helen Raikes et al.

close the pervasive achievement gap due to income at school entry. Because quality is so important to the effectiveness of early education programs, most U.S. states have been vigorous in developing systems to improve quality, including Early Learning Guidelines and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. Although quality is currently known to be key to positive outcomes, research continues to refine understanding of quality features that will affect child outcomes, to further elaborate what is in the quality “black box,” and to increase the effect sizes of early childhood programs, especially for low-income children who stand to benefit from maximally effectively programs.

Childcare in Areas of the World Other Than the United States Prevalence and Forms of Care Globally, approximately 60% of women over age 15 years are employed (World Bank, 2017). The need for nonparental childcare is universal (Samman, Presler-Marshall, and Jones, 2016) and is apparent across all countries, regardless of country income levels or differences in context. There are common challenges as well: Access to care overall, together with the quality of nonparental care, are often highlighted as concerns across high-, middle-, and low-income countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015; Samman et al., 2016). However, the specific mix of types of care, issues around access, and elements of quality that are most prevalent varies by country income, region, and context. Access to early childhood education and care continues to grow in many countries, with as many as 31% of all children in low- and middle-income countries in some form of early education programs (Black et al., 2017), but with notable disparities in access based on family income. Quality of care is also markedly different across countries. For example, in some countries, nearly 60% of children under age 5 are left unattended or under the care of another child under age 10 (UNICEF, 2014), whereas in the United States, this number is estimated to be less than 2% (Samman et al., 2016). This section highlights three issues in nonparental care that are relevant across countries. First, the concept of “nonparental” care reflects an underlying assumption that parents, especially mothers, are the “natural” primary caregivers for young children, which is true in some but not all ecological contexts (Lamb and Sternberg, 1992). Cultural as well as economic priorities for women’s labor have long been understood as driving factors in how nonparental care is supplied, and these underlying forces may lead to different solutions in different settings (Lamb and Sternberg, 1992). Second, the role of government provision of nonparental care varies considerably between countries, and although related to overall country income, is not synonymous with income. Children in some parts of the world, especially Europe, have access to nearly universal systems of care that are largely government run (OECD, 2015), but others live in countries with sporadic or no availability of regulated care. Finally, the blending of early childhood education and care to provide more holistic solutions for children and families is evident in some but not all parts of the world. In many countries, there are bifurcated systems of care and education that affect children and families’ abilities to access and benefit from nonparental care. These three issues are explored in greater detail ahead.

Conceptualizations of Nonparental Care Decisions on how children should be reared reflect cultural priorities for children’s development as well as available resources to invest in young children’s development (Lamb, Sternberg, Hwang, and Broberg, 2014). In agrarian societies, for example, mothers may return to work in the fields when children are very young, thus necessitating reliance on siblings and older children as caregivers, which, in turn, encourages young children to develop patterns of behavior that make them easier to manage (LeVine, Levine, and Keefer, 1996). But because these patterns are culturally responsive, 418

Nonparental Caregiving

they can also shift in response to new demands and incentives for parental time and investment. One of these trends has been the increasing emphasis on education for young children, which has shifted attention toward preparing children for school, in line with national and global shifts in expectations for education systems (Learning Metrics Task Force, 2014). Another shift has been the decline of agrarian societies and the movement of many families to urban centers, leading to notable changes in the type of care available for children and the risks associated with caregiving by older siblings and in unsupervised environments.

State Involvement in Nonparental Caregiving The role of the state in providing nonparental caregiving has powerful implications for the type of nonparental caregiving provided, and the extent to which it is available for all children. In Europe, several countries provide universal access to nonparental caregiving for children up to primary school age, beginning when parental leave is over (OECD, 2006). However, in many parts of the world, there is little to no state involvement in childcare provision, meaning that millions of children are left in low-quality or dangerous care environments with little regulation (Samman et al., 2016). Although state involvement does not necessitate quality care, the lack of any state regulation can create systems with a mix of home-based providers, family care, and for-profit childcare settings that vary substantially in quality. Differences in quality of care have been noted across countries (Tietze, Cryer, Bairrao, Palacios, and Wetzel, 1996) that may reflect different levels of state engagement in the regulation and provision of childcare. Meta-analyses suggest that there are meaningful regional differences in the quality of childcare across countries and, notably, differences in the associations between structural and process features of measures highlight the variability in country influences on quality, both in terms of overall regulatory structures and in how quality is conceptualized and measured across countries (Vermeer, van IJzendoorn, Carcamo, and Harrison, 2016).

Early Childhood Education Children’s access to government-run and nongovernment preschool education programs has increased dramatically over the last decade, with global estimates of 67% of children 1 year below the age of primary school enrollment attending some form of pre-primary education (UNESCO, 2016). Preprimary education is now available in almost all countries, although with varying levels of government investment and oversight (Anderson, Raikes, Kosaraju, and Solano, 2017). Community-based and home-based preschools are common in many parts of the world (Rao, 2014), and can provide an important supplement and complement to formal, government-run pre-primary settings. State provision of preschool is sometimes associated with lower functioning in later life, for example, in India (Singh and Mukherjee, 2017), but sometimes with higher functioning (Rao, 2014). A key question is how to blend care and education to support child development and family functioning (OECD, 2015), especially for those most at risk of adverse outcomes due to poverty, family background, and other factors. In high-income countries, questions of blending care and education have been recognized and addressed, with many countries moving in the direction of creating more holistic and integrated models of care and education. However, in low- and middle-income countries, pre-primary education may not be a sufficient form of nonparental care, with only a few hours of education daily. Moreover, pre-primary education is available only to the highest income children, or those living in urban areas.

Effects on Children’s Development Global dialogue on young children’s development has shifted toward preparing children for school, in response to evidence on the low levels of academic achievement and stark inequities in learning 419

Helen Raikes et al.

that emerge later in life (UNICEF, 2012b). Research conducted synthesizing many studies using meta-analyses suggests that pre-primary education can have a profound and positive impact on child development (Rao, Sun, Chen, and Ip, 2017). For example, one of the largest longitudinal studies of child development, the Young Lives study, indicates that engagement in early childhood education can substantially improve children’s well-being and school functioning over time (e.g., Ethiopia; Woldehanna, 2011), findings that are consistent with results from many other parts of the world. In low-income countries in particular, any access to early childhood education can have positive impacts on children’s development and readiness for school by increasing young children’s exposure to cognitively stimulating activities and interactions (Rao et al., 2012). Nonetheless, there is a need for more research on the impact of childcare on children’s development, specifically the role of typical, nonparental care with little explicit intention to improve children’s school readiness.

Variable Elements in International Contexts Inequity in access and quality of pre-primary education is a central concern for young children in almost every country, with greater disparities in access to quality early childhood settings in some countries over others (UNESCO, 2016). However, little work has looked systematically across countries to clarify which elements of quality are important for children’s development, regardless of context. Recent efforts have attempted to identify common elements of quality across settings and found consistencies in conceptualizations of quality among researchers and experts from many parts of the world (UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution and World Bank, 2017), but these concepts have not yet been systematically evaluated for relevance across countries through empirical studies. Studies are now being initiated in several countries to examine the scientific and policy relevance of these concepts across countries and, critically, to evaluate the elements of quality in preprimary settings that are associated with child learning and development. Results from these studies will build on the small but growing body of evidence suggesting that there are, in fact, elements of quality that may promote children’s learning across contexts. For example, Montie, Zongping, and Schweinhart (2006) found that structural elements of quality showed inconsistent associations with child outcomes, but four classroom elements, including autonomy in children’s choices and time in non-whole-group settings, were predictive of quality across settings. This work, not yet replicated in many countries, suggests that there are elements of quality that may emerge as being central to children’s development across contexts. Several countries have developed models with unique elements that have been shown to promote children’s development in many ways (e.g., the Reggio Emilia approach in Italy; Edwards, 1993). Given the interest in quality pre-primary education that is emerging in many parts of the world, high-quality research is now needed to determine which elements of quality are applicable across countries and how quality in pre-primary affects children’s learning and development over time.

Summary of Childcare/Early Education in Non-U.S. Countries As is true in the United States, childcare/early education throughout the world is an important and fast-growing sector, due to maternal employment worldwide. Developed countries and some developing countries have become involved in providing access to care and in supporting quality in these efforts. However, particularly in the developing world, access to quality care and even appropriate and well-developed standards for care are inconsistent, although there is currently tremendous interest. Research on effects on children is in early stages in the developing world, but the knowledge base about programs and effects on children in the developed world provides important contributions to a knowledge base on childcare/early education. 420

Nonparental Caregiving

Child Welfare as Nonparental Caregiving in the United States The public child welfare service system in the United States is a continuum of programs and services available to children and their families, who are at risk of abuse or neglect or who have experienced abuse or neglect. Accordingly, the main goal of the child welfare system is to protect children from maltreatment by their parents or other caregivers. Child welfare systems vary from state to state in the United States, composed primarily of public agencies such as family and children’s services and other social services departments. To provide services, state or county agencies often work with private child welfare agencies which are required by law to ensure the safety, well-being, and permanent living arrangements of children. Passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), originally enacted in 1974 and most recently amended in 2010, established the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, which provides federal funding for prevention, assessment, investigation, and treatment planning/activities (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011). An essential component of child welfare service is foster care, which is temporary, 24-hour homebased care provided by an unrelated caregiver or family member other than the parent. The main goal of the child welfare system is to protect children from maltreatment by their parents or other caregivers. When parents and caregivers cannot or do not meet the safety and emotional needs of their children, the system aims to promote permanency for children initially through family preservation and reunification. They also aim to place children with other families who can meet their long-term safety, developmental, and emotional needs in a permanent, legal family (Berrick, Needell, Barth, and Jonson-Reid, 1998). Thus, the goal is to return children to their homes as soon as possible or to achieve a permanent solution with another family, such as adoption, when retuning home is not possible. However, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 shifted the emphasis from reunification to child safety, and limits were imposed on how long children remain in the foster care before parental rights are terminated. This shift allowed states to remove children from homes with chronic or severe maltreatment more quickly.

Prevalence of Placements in Child Welfare Settings in the United States An estimated 428,000 children in the United States were in foster care on a given day during the 2015 fiscal year (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017). This was the largest number since 2008, after a nationwide decrease from 2005 to 2012, at which time the number of children in the foster care system started to steadily increase (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2017). Again, foster care as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R., 2012) is the “24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians.” Children may enter the United States foster care system from infancy up to age 18, but depending on the state, children may remain in foster care until age 19, 20, or 21. Children 1–5 years old make up the largest percentage of children in foster care (33%). Not surprising, the youngest children have been found to be most vulnerable to abuse and maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS), 2017). During their first year, children are at the greatest risk of victimization and maltreatment; 24.2 per 1,000 children experienced reported maltreatment in the national population (U.S. DHHS, 2017). The primary goal for the majority of children (55%) in the U.S. foster care system is reunification with their parents or primary caregiver (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017). Other goals include adoption (25%), emancipation (4%), long-term foster care (3%), guardianship (3%), and living with other relatives (3%). Emancipation applies to minors below the age of majority and those who age out of the foster care system between the ages of 18–21 (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017). During the 2015 fiscal year, 243,060 children exited the foster care system, and nearly half (45%) of those children were reunited with their parents or primary caregivers (Child Welfare 421

Helen Raikes et al.

Information Gateway, 2017). Outcome statistics for the remaining children exiting the foster care system included 22% adopted, 9% emancipated, 9% living with a guardian, 6% living with another relative, and 2% with other outcomes (e.g., transfers to other agencies, runaways, and death; Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017).

Forms of Child Welfare in the United States Foster care providers are trained and licensed by their state of residence, and requirements of licensing and training vary from state to state. Children may be placed in foster care for a variety of reasons, including abuse or neglect, serious emotional disturbance, or disability. Placing a child in foster care occurs by a short-term voluntary agreement with the child welfare agency, helping the family to strengthen, and operating a family-based approach. Children may move among a variety of settings while in foster care; common foster care placement settings may include nonrelative or relative family foster homes, kinship care (whether payments for care are made or not made), group homes, emergency shelters, residential homes, childcare institutions, or pre-adoptive homes. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS, 2016), nonrelative family foster care homes (45%) were the primary placement settings for children in foster care, followed by relative or kinship foster family homes (30%), institutional care (8%), group homes (6%), trial home visits (5%), or pre-adoptive homes (4%); the remaining 2% of children had either run away or were in supervised independent living. The number of children living in relative foster homes is up 6% from 2006, but still does not meet the number of children residing in nonrelative family foster homes.

Family Foster Care Children in family foster care homes temporarily live with and are cared for by relative or nonrelative adults who have been approved and licensed by their state to provide shelter and care (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017). Foster parents are trained and credentialed to serve as family foster care providers. Family foster care parents volunteer to provide family living arrangements for foster children to ensure that children have a safe, stable opportunity for family and community living. Family foster care provides the support and services necessary for children who are removed or separated from their families, ideally until family reunification or adoption. Another form of family foster care is treatment foster care, also called therapeutic foster care, which provides more services and greater structure than a traditional family foster care home. Treatment foster care is often utilized as a cost-effective alternative to residential treatment facilities when children are needing extra medical, behavioral, and/or mental health supports.

Kinship Care Kinship care may take the form of informal, voluntary, or formal arrangements. Informal kinship care refers to arrangements made by parents and other family members/friends without governmental or agency involvement. Advocates of kinship care argue that placing children with relatives or kin as close as possible to the birth home, family, and community helps to provide continuity which is a critical component of a child’s well-being. However, children reported to child welfare are highly likely to live in impoverished neighborhoods, and the benefits of placement in a permanent foster setting in a less disadvantaged neighborhood may outweigh the advantages of a child being able to remain in his or her home community with kin and friends ( Jonson-Reid, 2004). During informal kinship care, parents may leave their child(ren) with a relative during an illness, if unable to care for them, or if they are sent overseas (e.g., for military duty). Legal custody remains with the parents, and they may take their children back at any time. Informal kinship care providers 422

Nonparental Caregiving

may have difficulty making decisions for children related to medical care, schooling, or accessing benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as they do not have legal custody of the child. However, most states have consent forms that provide informal kinship providers some authorization over decisions for a child, but the only assistance program typically available to informal kinship caregivers is child-only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Voluntary kinship care arrangements are like that of informal care in which children live with relatives or friends, but in this type of arrangement a child welfare agency is involved. Children may be placed with relatives by the court system, but the state does not take legal custody. Children may be placed with kin in cases of abuse or neglect by the parents, but there may be insufficient evidence for the court to remove legal custody. The child’s living arrangements will generally be determined and made among service agencies, parents, and kin. Parents may be more likely to agree to informal voluntary kinship placement to prevent child welfare agencies’ taking legal custody of their child. Formal kinship care arrangements are those in which children are placed in the legal custody of the state by the court system and the welfare agency places children with kin. Working with the family, the welfare agency makes legal decisions about the children, including medical care, housing, and school attendance. Parents may be allowed visits arranged through the welfare agency. Formal kinship care providers must be certified or approved foster parents and are afforded the same rights as nonrelative foster parents.

Institutional Care and Group Homes According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (U.S. DHHS, 2012a), institutional care is a facility which provides 24-hour childcare and/or treatment for children who have been removed or separated from their parents or guardians and require a group living arrangement. Similar to institutional care, a group home is a licensed or state-approved 24-hour care facility that provides for children in a small-group setting. Often, group homes accommodate anywhere from 7 to 12 children at a given time. Institutional or group-care facilities may include childcare institutions, residential treatment centers, or maternity homes (U.S. DHHS, 2012a).

Trial Homes Trial home placement refers to an arrangement for a child who has been in the foster care system, but is returning to a parent or guardian for a “limited and specific” amount of time (U.S. DHHS, 2012a). This placement is used as a strategy for reunification when a parent or guardian has made significant progress on their out-of-home placement plan and the child is deemed by the court to be safe in returning to their primary caregiver. The child welfare agency and court system continue to monitor progress to further develop familial strengths and coping strategies as well as assisting in utilizing community supports to keep the child from reentering the foster care system.

Pre-Adoptive Homes Pre-adoptive homes are home in which the adults in the homes intend to adopt the child who has been placed with them. The family may or may not be receiving state funding or an adoption subsidy to care for the child (U.S. DHHS, 2012a).

Effects on Children Nonparental caregiving, as is true for parental caregiving, renders children susceptible to a host of developmental outcomes. Whereas one of the ultimate goals of child welfare is to foster children’s 423

Helen Raikes et al.

well-being and change the trajectory of their development for the better, some forms of child welfare can pose potential risks to children. This section provides a brief overview of seminal work on child development in child welfare as well as U.S.-based findings on child outcomes drawn from nationally represented samples. The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW, 2001), led by the Children’s Bureau of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, was designed to examine the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of children and families who come in contact with the child welfare system. It is the first national longitudinal study of its kind, and in its baseline year, involved 6,231 children ages birth to 15 from 97 counties across the United States who were placed in out-of-home care between December 1998 and February 1999. After a year, data on child functioning were collected from teachers, caregivers, and the children themselves (e.g., Child Behavior Check List-Teacher Rating Form, Battelle Developmental Inventory, Children’s Depression Inventory). The home environment and caregiver’s well-being were also assessed. NSCAW reported that children in out-of-home care frequently have impairments in their social and cognitive functions, possibly as a result of abuse and/or neglect at home that precipitated their placement in the welfare system (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, 2001). The survey found that 28% of the children in the group scored below national means in reasoning and academic skills, and 24% of the 2- to 3-year-old group and 51% of the 4- to 18-year-old group scored higher in internalizing and externalizing behaviors compared to a normative sample. The report also found that children in nonkinship foster care were much more likely to report depression compared with children in kinship care. Unfortunately, these children continued to manifest these disadvantages whether they remained in foster care, with researchers noting that the child’s condition at the time of placement was the best predictor of child outcomes in welfare (Kerman, Wildfire, and Barth, 2002).

Negative Outcomes A report on NSCAW II Wave 3 sample composed of 4,448 children 34 months to 20 years showed that children in foster homes had higher tendencies to develop behavioral and emotional problems compared with their child welfare peers living at home with their parents or in informal kin care (Casanueva, Tueller, Smith, Dolan, and Ringeisen, 2014). The report also revealed that children living in residential programs (e.g., in-group home) were at higher risks of having behavioral and emotional problems than children in other nonparental care settings. Two studies (Chamberlain and Reid, 1998; McDonald, Allen, Westerfelt, and Piliavin, 1996) showed that compared with children in foster care, children and youth who were placed in group care were more likely to be susceptible to future life challenges, such as early and unplanned parenthood, homelessness, and conflict with the law (Kerman et al., 2002). Different findings also emerged for children who were adopted and those who stayed in foster care. Although youth who remained in foster homes were found to eventually become self-sufficient adults, children who were adopted earlier in their lives tended to have better outcomes as adults (McDonald et al., 1996). Advantages for adopted children may be attributed to the likelihood that adopted children tend to live in affluent neighborhoods, with more permanent and dedicated caregivers (Lloyd and Barth, 2011), compared with children who were continuously in foster care or even those who returned to their homes. Long-term or prolonged foster care has also been related to a multitude of developmental disadvantages, even after controlling for poverty and caregiver skills (Lloyd and Barth, 2011). Alumni of foster care also have more mental health problems in adulthood compared with participants who had never been in foster care (Lenz-Rashid, 2005). Attachment theory is essential here. As foster care placements tend to be temporary, the development of a stable child-caregiver 424

Nonparental Caregiving

relationship is disrupted (oftentimes, more than once), limiting children’s chances of having a secure base that is known to facilitate future positive outcomes. These findings suggest that (1) although the child welfare system aims to fill in the weaknesses of inept parenting and serve as a conduit to better living conditions, it may not fully achieve its intended positive effects on children, and (2) aside from children’s condition at the onset of welfare, varying characteristics and dynamics of each care context have specific pathways by which they influence developmental outcomes. With these, child welfare agencies put permanency planning goals in place. The Children’s Bureau, which oversees matters related to child welfare, provides funding to states to help facilitate the timely placement of foster children. The Bureau also provides incentives and awards to states, local agencies, and private organizations that greatly assist in moving children from foster homes to adoptive homes, as improvements in child welfare are continuously sought.

Positive Outcomes Although negative child outcomes are often associated with placement in child welfare services, nonparental care bears positive contributions to children’s development as well. For example, children who have been in foster care for 1 year were found to talk more frequently about their personal and school issues with their primary caregivers compared with their counterparts in the general population (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, 2001). High-quality, specialized intervention programs can help curb negative outcomes associated with nonparental care. Foster children who participated in Head Start scored higher in various cognitive and school readiness measures (e.g., letter/word recognition, basic math skills, spelling compared with their non-Head Start child welfare counterparts (Lipscomb, Pratt, Schmitt, Pears, and Kim, 2013). Merritt and Klein (2015) found parallel results establishing that high-quality early care and education programs can serve as a protective factor in language development, especially for children who suffer from neglect. Studies of child welfare children in quality care and education show that the quality of program and care can extend the benefits of child welfare and offset its inadequacies. It remains, however, that more studies are needed that systematically define and operationalize quality and identify the extent by which children in welfare utilize early childhood care and education programs (Klein, 2016).

Variable Factors A number of factors contribute to variability in child welfare in the United States, above and beyond variability in types of placements and time in foster care. Child welfare in the United States is complex. Problems surrounding soaring expenses from out-of-home care, serving the client populations, and managing large caseloads are dilemmas for many states, all of which can influence the services the child receives (Brooks and Webster, 1999). There is variability in family engagement in programs and with their children while children are receiving services. The involvement of child welfare services in family life may include parent education, parent engagement, counseling services regarding mental health/alcohol or drug abuse, housing, and/or childcare. In addition, many service agencies have expanded their programs to include not only biological family members, but also kinship primary caregivers and other caregivers involved in a child’s life (Altman, 2008; Brooks and Webster, 1999; Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016; Kemp, Marcenko, Hoagwood, and Vesneski, 2009). Family services also improve caregiver functioning by examining family demographic factors and determining risk levels and channeling families toward preventive and community-based services. Family services in relation to child welfare may include childcare, financial guidance, legal aid, emergency housing, food assistance, parent education and parent support groups, home visitation, transportation, job support, and mental health counseling (Rajendran and Chemtob, 2010). 425

Helen Raikes et al.

Child outcomes may be affected by the organizational climate in child welfare systems. Greater understanding is needed regarding the mechanisms that link organizational climate to child outcomes (Glisson and Green, 2011) as well as about other variable elements and children’s outcomes.

Summary of U.S. Child Welfare Child welfare in the United States involves out-of-home care for children to protect their safety and well-being, consistent with a child rights perspective. The end goal is a form of permanency in care for the child, starting with the child’s own family but also including adoption as a permanence option. Major representative studies, conducted in multiple waves, and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have identified a number of developmental deficits that children in the child welfare system are vulnerable to, likely emanating from care deficits and abuse/ neglect prompting their entry into the system initially and from challenges in forming and maintaining secure and nurturing relationships with adults. Children who achieve permanency, including those adopted, seem to fare better than those in long-term foster care, and those in residential settings such as group homes do not seem to consistently fare as well as those who are in foster homes, but it is difficult to generalize across the diverse and far-ranging circumstances that children in child welfare experience. That said, there is no doubt that children who require the protection of child welfare in the United States are also among the most vulnerable children in the country. Protective functions from intervention programs, such as Head Start, and newer efforts vary elements of care to learn more about optimizing outcomes for children.

Child Welfare in Non-U.S. Countries Next, we focus on nonparental caregiving in the international context. Throughout the world, families experience wide-ranging circumstances that result in the need for nonparental caregiving of a child, including death of one or both parents due to disease (e.g., HIV/AIDS), prolonged armed conflict, natural disasters, or displacement due to physical or mental disability, persistent poverty, political disruptions, violence and abuse, and child exploitation. Also, cultural norms and practices in some regions of the world oblige parents to send their children to other adult caregivers (usually kin) in the hopes of better educational opportunities or to provide help to family members.

Prevalence of Child Welfare in the International Context Estimating the number of children living outside of parental care worldwide is difficult. In 2012, UNICEF estimated there were 153 million children worldwide who had lost a parent (UNICEF, 2012a), 17.8 million children who had lost both parents (UNICEF, 2012a), well over 2 million children who had been placed in institutional care (UNICEF, 2009b), and in 2005, up to 100 million children on the streets (UNICEF, 2005). Other estimates project that 163 million children worldwide do not live with a biological parent (Groza, Bunkers, and Gamer, 2011; The Leiden Conference, 2012). The Convention on the Rights of the Child highlights fundamental tenets in formulating the best structures for children outside parental care. The CRC recognizes that children embedded in a family environment have the best chance of developing their full potential, with their parents and legal guardians as their primary caregivers. If a child is temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her parental connection, kinship and family care are the preferred forms of care, and the child is entitled to protection and assistance by the State, which includes assurance of appropriate alternative care (United Nations General Assembly, 1989). In 2009, the United Nations adopted a resolution delineating guidelines (hereafter, Guidelines) for alternative care for children deprived of parental care (United Nations General Assembly, 2010). 426

Nonparental Caregiving

Alternative care includes a continuum approach starting with family support and reunification, kinship care, foster care, domestic adoption, or formal institutional care. Under the Guidelines, there are two major forms of alternative care—informal and formal (Roby, 2011), which will be reviewed with focus on the child welfare systems of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Informal care is defined as a private arrangement within a family environment, whereby the child is cared for on an ongoing or indefinite basis by relatives or friends (i.e., informal kinship care), at the initiative of the child, his or her parents or other persons, and without the order of an administrative or judicial authority. Formal care is defined as all care provided in a family environment that has been arranged by an administrative body or judicial authority (i.e., foster care) as well as care in a residential environment (i.e., residential care and institutional care). The Guidelines state that the desired alternative care for children is in family-based settings, be it kin or nonkin, informal or formal (Dozier et al., 2014), with institutional care being a last resort option. Described next are the different types of informal and formal care, the prevalence of each type, and what is known about the effects of each type of care on children’s development.

Forms and Prevalence of Child Welfare in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Kinship Care For children who have lost one or both parents, informal kinship care is the most common form of alternative care in LMIC and has been documented in many regions including, but not limited to, West Africa (Gottlieb, 2004), Oceania (Barlow, 2004), Latin America (Van Vleet, 2009), and indigenous communities in North America (Strong, 2001). Kinship care encompasses the nurturance and protection of a child, full-time, by someone other than the parent and who is within the family network or has a significant prior relationship with the parents (Groza et al., 2011). The care arrangement can be informal or formal. Informal kinship care is a private arrangement between family members, not governed or monitored by an administrative body. Formal kinship care is when the familial arrangement and care is authorized or ordered by a judicial authority (e.g., formal foster family care and adoption, which will be reviewed later). In some areas in the world such as Africa, it is a normative cultural practice for children to leave their biological parents and be in the care of an extended family (Edwards, Ren, and Brown, 2015). Children may stay with the related family for a considerable time in pursuit of a better education, to become familiar with urban life, to be an apprentice, or to offer companionship care and shared labor to extended family members (Lancy, 2008). For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, kinship care of this form is a traditional system of sharing child labor and opportunities for schooling and 8–40% of children partake in this extended family care (Serra, 2009; UNICEF, 2007b). It is very difficult to determine the global prevalence of informal kinship care because it often exists without a formal tracking system and the information that is available is a patchwork of location-specific research. Of children not living with a parent in Central and Eastern Europe, 30–50% are in kinship care (Every Child, 2005; Save the Children UK, 2007). The prevalence of kinship care is much higher in other areas of the world such as Africa, especially in countries affected by AIDS, where up to 90% of children not living with a parent (living or deceased) are living with kin (Roby, 2011). The burden of parental death from AIDS is greatest in southern Africa. For example, 20% of all Zambian children were orphans in 2005, over half of them due to AIDS, leaving a population of 11.7 million to support more than 1.2 million orphans (UNICEF, 2006). Overall, in sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 12 million children have been orphaned due to HIV/AIDS and related diseases (UNICEF, 2006). In high HIV-affected countries, extended families assume responsibility for more than 90% of all orphans, with grandparents providing primary care for orphans about 40–60% of the 427

Helen Raikes et al.

time. In lower prevalence countries, the rate of grandparent care is likely to be 20% to 40% (Roby, 2011). In some cases, when both parents have died and other adult caregivers are not available, orphaned children live in a child-headed household (CHH). Global numbers of CHHs are difficult to obtain; however, some country-specific data are available. In the Rakai District of Uganda, almost 1,000 CHHs existed, with each household averaging 2.3 children, and 31% of those children were between the ages of 0 and 9 (Luzze and Ssedyabule, 2004)

Formal Foster Care Formal foster care is a form of alternative family care where children who are not able to live with their own parents or extended family are placed in a family by or with the approval of a government authority (United Nations, 2010). The foster family agrees to provide care and nurturance (temporary or long term) to the child, to foster his or her socioemotional, physical, educational, and spiritual development. Formal foster care typically involves an assessment of the foster family and sometimes includes continuing support and monitoring. Adapted care such as specialized foster family care is designed for children with special needs (e.g., a child with HIV/AIDS or psychiatric disorders), and temporary foster care is used when an emergency or crisis arises and the child requires temporary care (Groza, Bunkers, and Gamer, 2011). Higher resource countries have systems in place that provide and support foster family care. However, in LMICs (i.e., Africa and Southeast Asia), formal foster care systems do not exist or are at the initial stages of implementation (Browne et al., 2005). As a result, institutionalized care is the only option for children who have no family or community arrangements. There are no global estimates for the total number of children living in formal foster family care (Engle et al., 2011). Foster care data are available in most of the industrialized world but in few low-resource countries (Browne et al., 2005). South Africa is one of the few African countries with a strong, government-run foster care system. In 2010, there were 500,000 children in care, with a backlog of over 160,000 applications for children waiting for foster care because of limited human and financial resources (Engle et al., 2011). Many low-resource countries have begun the processes involved in creating formal foster family systems. For example, Romania began a foster family system around 2000, and Guatemala’s government-run foster care system began in 2006, although a change in political leadership in 2008 halted the consensus work on Guatemala’s goals (Engle et al., 2011).

Institutionalized Care In contrast to kinship care, institutional care is a residential home or facility where children live and are cared for by the facility’s staff, and is usually provided and regulated by the government. In most countries, nongovernmental and religious organizations also provide institutional care. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Guidelines on the Alternative Care of Children provide the rights-based framework from which specific programming elements should be included for children in institutional care. These include the right of children to assessment, case management, the integration of children with disabilities to receive fair treatment and access, the right to education, the right to play, the right to cultural identity, and the right to participate in decision-making (United Nations General Assembly, 2010). Estimating the number of children in institutional care globally is very difficult. Estimates range from over 2 million (UNICEF, 2009a, 2009c) to 8 million (Save the Children, 2009) children who reside in institutions. Accurate counts are elusive because many countries do not report the number of children in residential or institutional care. For example, in the Eastern and Southern Africa region, UNICEF found that only two of six countries had any data related to the number of children

428

Nonparental Caregiving

in institutional care and the number of institutions operating in their country (UNICEF, 2009d). For countries that provide data, these data may underestimate the overall population of children in institutional care because governments may want to appear in-line with international children’s rights. Sometimes governments may reclassify institutions to decrease their numbers. In Bulgaria, for example, in its effort to join the European Union, some institutions were classified as boarding schools (Carter, 2005). One of the most predictive factors of children entering institutional care is living in a single-­ parent household. The second is the death of one or both parents, and in Africa, this is most commonly from AIDS (Dunn and Parry-Williams, 2008). Physical or mental disability also increase children’s likelihood of institutional placement. In Central and Eastern Europe, a child with a disability is 46 times more likely to be placed in institutional care than a child without disabilities (Innocenti Research Center, 2003). Children from socially marginalized groups, ethnic minorities, and those living in a violent or abusive family are at a higher risk of institutional care (Pinhiero, 2006). Children enter institutions not only because of family circumstances but also because a system to preserve and strengthen families is nonexistent, underdeveloped, or ineffectual. Many countries lack a coherent alternative care child welfare system that includes adequate gatekeeping to redirect children to more appropriate care options (Bilson, Fox, Gotestam, and Harwin, 2003). Gaps in the continuum of care include a lack of preventative interventions such as basic family support services and assistance programs, lack of documentation and case tracking, failure to recognize children’s rights to appropriate care, and a lack of belief that institutional care should be the last option all contribute to children’s placement in institutions (Engle et al., 2011). However, when formal family foster care and strong adoption programs are nonexistent or underdeveloped, the de facto option is institutionalized care.

Effects on Children’s Development Studies of children’s developmental outcomes when in institutional care and comparisons of outcomes of children living in foster care versus institutional care are reviewed.

Kinship Care Kinship care intends to preserve contact with siblings and the extended family network and may help decrease the distress of relocation and grief of losing a parent (Roby, 2011). A large family can be beneficial because it comprises a larger pool of people who may be culturally obligated to assist the child. There is positive evidence that kinship care is advantageous to the child. One of the most clearly established findings is that degree of biological relatedness is an important predictor of the quality of care given to children in Uganda (Bishai et al., 2003). Informal kinship care is beneficial in many regards, but it can also place children at risk for exploitation (Groza et al., 2011). Living with an extended family provides no guarantee of a child’s protection or well-being. Poverty-stricken parents may place their children with wealthier relatives for an apprenticeship or educational opportunities; however, in some cases, the children are made to do long hours of menial work instead of apprenticeship or educational activity (Leinaweaver, 2014). For example, of Haitian children living in households headed by someone other than their parent(s), 16% had been placed as child servants, and 22% more were being treated as child servants even though they were relocated to attend school (Roby, 2011). Other potential risks related to kinship care include poverty due to overextension of the hosting household, which has been linked to poor outcomes in school enrollment, separate from orphan status (Ainsworth and Filmer, 2006). Health and nutrition disparities, disparate treatment within the household, lack of legal status, and psychological stress are also risks encountered within kinship care (Roby, 2011).

429

Helen Raikes et al.

Formal Foster Care/Institutional Care Evidence of the effects of formal foster care on children’s development is often based on one study in Bucharest, Romania (Fluke et al., 2012), which is also considered a test of institutional care. In this study, children were randomly assigned to a foster care system or remained in institutional care. Generally, children up to 8 years of age in foster care had better developmental outcomes when compared with those who remained in institutional care (Ghera et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2010), especially the children who were placed in foster care at younger ages (Nelson, Bos, Gunnar, and Sonuga-Barke, 2011).

Institutional Care Nonparental, residential, and institutional caregiving renders children susceptible to a host of developmental outcomes. Whereas one of the ultimate goals of child welfare is to foster children’s wellbeing and change the trajectory of their development for the better, different forms of welfare pose potential risks to children. Although much of what is known about the effects of child welfare is based on U.S. findings, there is some evidence that risks of entering a system where children are separated from their parents are compounded in countries with high rates of poverty where quality and caregiving conditions are often compromised. This section outlines the various effects of welfare on child outcomes particularly in the context of developing societies.

Effects on Socioemotional Development Children in institutional care such as orphanages have been found to experience emotional problems. Aside from the trauma that children have experienced that necessitated them to be in the welfare in the first place, some children live through other adverse circumstances while in welfare. A case in point is an orphanage in Tanzania where children received severe corporal punishment and physical maltreatment from untrained and undereducated caregivers (Hermenau et al., 2011). Sustained exposure to violence is linked to children’s greater internalizing and externalizing behaviors, particularly aggression, even after controlling for the effects of psychotherapy, in the context of sub-Saharan Africa (Hermenau, Hecker, Elbert, and Ruf-Leuschner, 2014). Moreover, these negative effects were exacerbated for children who entered the orphanage at an early age (Hermenau et al., 2014). An exception to this is an orphanage in Mexico where children demonstrated a positive selfconcept, higher self-esteem, and lower anxiety levels after a social and emotional skills intervention program was conducted (Gallegos, Rodríguez, Gómez, Rabelo, and Gutiérrez, 2012). Different child welfare systems also have different effects on children’s socioemotional development. A study in the Kurdistan region found that although there are similarities in terms of externalizing problems and symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder between orphaned and fostered children, children in the orphanage display poorer outcomes (Ahmad et al., 2005). The family structure present in foster care may serve as a protective factor for children, whereas a setup at an orphanage (e.g., if there are rigidly scheduled activities, several children placed in one room) may not be entirely conducive for children’s positive development. Children in orphanages in Egypt also have lower self-esteem and high rates of anxiety and depression (Fawzy and Fouad, 2010). This finding is attributed to how orphanages are somehow separated from the outside world, which may preclude children from establishing healthy social relationships. Similar findings in orphanages in India are supplemented in that children orphaned by AIDS exhibit more depression symptoms than children for other reasons (Kumar, Dandona, Kumar, Ramgopal, and Dandona, 2014). It is plausible that the stigma and discrimination associated with AIDS, together with possible experiences of bullying and untoward treatment from relatives, prompted differences in depression scores (Kumar et al., 2014). 430

Nonparental Caregiving

Effects on Cognitive Development The quantity and quality of cognitive stimulation also impact the development of children in welfare. Research findings are mixed. For example, a China-based study reported that children’s school grades have improved given the close supervision, support, and motivation that orphanage workers provide to children (Zhao et al., 2009). However, a comparative study conducted by Morison and Ellwood (2000) revealed that orphaned children in Romania were outscored by never-institutionalized children and early-adopted children in various cognitive measures, including the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. Aside from genetic influences, these findings can be attributed to the varying levels of stimulation children receive in orphanages versus early-adoptive versus noninstitutionalized settings. Children who experience chronic stress and early deprivation in Romanian orphanages also show long-term deficits in expressive and receptive language, concentration, and sustained attention (Chugani, Behen, Muzik, and Juha, 2001). Overall, these children score below the average range in global cognitive index.

Variable Elements Countries worldwide have some form of continuum of care for children living without their parents, ranging from informal, unregulated kinship care to formal systems such as foster family care and institutional care supported and regulated by the government to formal adoption. The composition of the continuum of nonparental childcare widely varies, particularly between high- and low-resource countries. High-resource industrialized countries are moving from informal care to predominately government-supported, formal family-based foster care (kin or nonkin), with institutional care being the option of last preference. Lower resourced countries depend more heavily on informal, kin-based arrangements for alternate family care. When there are no family options available to a child, many developing countries do not yet have child welfare systems in place that offer formalized foster care or family support systems, resulting in the only option of institutional or orphanage care. Strong evidence shows that low-quality institutional care can be detrimental to children’s development (van IJzendoorn, Luijk, and Juffer, 2007). However, the emergence of professional child welfare systems incorporating a robust continuum of care, including family fostering options, in some low- and middle-income countries suggests that reliance on institutionalization can be reduced and outcomes improved for vulnerable children (Csaky, 2009; Zeanah, Smyke, Koga, and Carlson, 2005). Nonetheless, the quality of care is important regardless of setting, and children in family or kinship contexts experiencing abuse, neglect, violence, or severe malnutrition will not necessarily experience better developmental outcomes compared with children in established and operated institutions providing high-quality services in the community (Fluke et al., 2012).

Summary of Child Welfare in Non-U.S. Countries Worldwide, many millions of children are displaced from their families with estimates ranging, but by all accounts exceed 150 million. By tenets of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by most countries in the world, these children are entitled to nonparental caregiving, although worldwide estimates of availability and adequacy of child welfare homes for these children are difficult to obtain. Kin care is the most common form of care for these children on a continuum from informal kin care to formal institutionalized care. Research on child outcomes from this system is sparse with studies of institutionalized care the most prevalent. Children in institutionalized care, with at least one exception in China, demonstrate that institutionalized children are vulnerable to compromised developmental outcomes. 431

Helen Raikes et al.

Conclusion The current chapter addresses nonparental care in two distinctly different circumstances, when parents are working but children are residing at home (referred to here as childcare/early education) and when children do not reside with their parents (referred to here as child welfare). In each case, focus is on the United States, and then the chapter takes a wider view, concentrating on at least some other countries toward a more worldwide perspective. In the latter cases, the emphasis has fallen more predominantly on low- and middle-income countries. Childcare/early education is a fast-growing sector, due to high prevalence of maternal employment in the both the United States and worldwide. In the United States, several decades of studies document the positive advantages of high-quality childcare/early education, for all young children but particularly for low-income children vulnerable to pervasive achievement gaps at school entry. Findings have led to rapid expansions of public childcare/early childhood education expenditures at both federal and state levels, and to increased efforts to further refine the characteristics of quality to augment positive outcomes. States and communities have also invested in at-scale standards and ratings systems to raise the overall quality of services. Worldwide and especially in the developing world, efforts to expand access and focus on quality are underway. Children who are displaced from their homes in the United States and worldwide are universally vulnerable, and the prevalence of children displaced worldwide is in the hundred millions, although rights to care are guaranteed through the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in most countries, but not in the United States. Child welfare systems are somewhat in place, more universally in the United States and the developed world, and less comprehensively in the developing world. Kinship systems, informal and formal, are the most prevalent ways of providing children nonparental care. Outcomes for children in the child welfare systems have ranged from dismal to less than desirable but are influenced by variable factors, such as type of care, family support, and when and how permanency of child placement in their own homes or an alternative permanent home is attained. Outcomes have been improved by supplementary early intervention program involvement. Finally, of interest is how nonparental and parental care jointly affect children’s development to paint a whole-child view of the child’s early development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Care (2005) demonstrated that the parental component carries greater variance for children’s developmental outcomes than nonparental care. However, the contribution from the nonparental component is also consequential, ideally, is complementary, and, in some cases, can be compensatory. Crucial is to eliminate nonparental care that is harmful, which is possible when that care is harsh, abusive, inconsistent, or of poor quality. Put more positively, of interest worldwide is how to build on the knowledge base so that nonparental care provides the stimulation and sensitive nurturance now well known to support the early development of children, thereby helping to optimize outcomes during periods of fastest child growth.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the assistance in investigating references of Anna Burton and Yao, graduate students, Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

References Administration for Children and Families (ACF). (2016). Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) Final rule. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-pi/ACF-PI-HS-16-04.pdf Ahmad, A., Qahar, J., Siddiq, A., Majeed, A., Rasheed, J., Jabar, F., and Knorring, A. Von. (2005). A 2-year follow-up of orphans’ competence, socioemotional problems and post-traumatic stress symptoms in traditional foster care and orphanages in Iraqi Kurdistan. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(2), 203–215.

432

Nonparental Caregiving Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books. Ainsworth, M., and Filmer, D. (2006). Inequalities in children’s schooling: AIDS, orphanhood, poverty, and gender. World Development, 34(6), 1099–1128. Altman, J. C. (2008). Engaging families in child welfare services: Worker versus client perspectives. Child Welfare, 87(3), 41–61. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). (2017). Healthy childcare: A program of the American academy of pediatrics. Retrieved from www.healthychildcare.org/eecc.html Anderson, K., Raikes, A., Kosaraju, S., and Solano, A. (2017). National early childhood care and education quality monitoring systems. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2017). 2017 Kids count data book: State trends in child well-being. Retrieved from www.aecf.org/m/resouredoc/aecf-2017kidscountdatabook.pdf Arnett, J. (1985). Caregiver interaction scale. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Barlow, K. (2004). Critiquing the ‘good enough’ mother: A perspective based on the Murik of Papua New Guinea. Ethos, 32, 514–537. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50. Bassok, D., Magnuson, K., and Weiland, C. (2016). Building a cohesive, high-quality early childhood system. In M. Hansen and J. Valant (Eds.), Memos to the president on the future of U.S. education policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Berrick, J. D., Needell, B., Barth, R. B., and Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). The tender years: Toward developmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York: Oxford University Press. Bilson, A., Fox, L., Gotestam, R., and Harwin, J. (2003). Changing minds, policies and lives: Gate keeping services for vulnerable children and families. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre and World Bank Group. Bishai, D., Brahmbhatt, H., Gray, R., Kigozi, G., Serwadda, D., Sewankambo, N., and Wawer, M. (2003). Does biological relatedness affect child survival? Demographic Research, 8, 261–278. Black, M. M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C., Andersen, C. T., DiGirolamo, A. M., Lu, C., and Devercelli, A. E. (2017). Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course. The Lancet, 389(10064), 77–90. Bloom, P. (1996). The quality of work life in NAEYC accredited and nonaccredited early childhood programs. Early Education and Development, 7(4), 301–317. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Volume 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bradley, R. H., and Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., and Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union. Journal of Social Indicators Research, 80, 133–177. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon and R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brookings. (2017). What we know about the effects of pre-k in 6 consensus statements. Retrieved from http\\ brookings.edu Brooks, D., and Webster, D. (1999). Child welfare in the United States: Policy, practice and innovations in service delivery. International Journal of Social Welfare, 8, 297–307. Browne K., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., Johnson, R., Agathonos-Georgopoulou, H., Anaut, M., Herczog, M., et al. (2005). Mapping the number and characteristics of children under three in institutions across Europe at risk of harm. European Commission Daphne Programme Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs in Collaboration with WHO Regional Office for Europe and The University Of Birmingham, First Revision. Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., and Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between childcare quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 166–176. Burchinal, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., Vitiello, V., and Greenberg, M. (2014). Thresholds in the association between childcare quality and child outcomes in rural preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(1), 41–51. Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., and Tarullo, L. (2016). Quality thresholds, features and dosage in early care and education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. In Monographs of the society for research in child development, Vol. 81. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

433

Helen Raikes et al. Caldji, C., Tannenbaum, B., Sharma, S., Francis, D., Plotsky, P., and Meaney, M. (1998). Maternal care during infancy regulates the development of neural systems mediating the expression of fearfulness in the rat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 95(9), 5335–5340. Carter, R. (2005). Family matters: A study of institutional childcare in central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. London: Every Child. Casanueva, C., Tueller, S., Smith, K., Dolan, M., and Ringeisen. (2014). NSCAW II Wave 3 Tables. OPRE Report #2013–43, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Casas, F. (1997). Children’s rights and children’s quality of life: Conceptual and practical issues, Social Indicators Research, 42, 283–298. Center on the Developing Child. (2007). A science-based framework for early childhood policy. Retrieved from www. developingchild.harvard.edu. Chamberlain, P., and Reid, J. B. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 66, 624–633. Champagne, F., Francis, D., Mar, A., and Meaney, M. (2003). Variations in maternal care in the rat as a mediating influence for the effects of environment on development. Physiology and Behavior, 79, 359–371. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). About CAPTA: A legislative history. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016, December). Kinship caregivers and the child welfare system. Retrieved from www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-kinshi/ Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Foster care statistics 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Chugani, H. T., Behen, M. E., Muzik, O., and Juha, C. (2001). Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: A study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans. NeuroImage, 14, 1290–1301. Clements, D., and Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educaitonal Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494. Clark-Stewart, K. A., and Allhusen, V. D. (2001). Nonparental caregiving. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., p. 215–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Code of Federal Regulations (C.R.F.). (2012). Subchapter G—Administration on children, youth and families, foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance, and child and family services. Title 45, pt. 1355.20. Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title45-vol4/pdf/CFR-2012-title45-vol4-part1355.pdf Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in childcare centers: Public report. Denver: University of Colorado. Csáky, C. (2009). Keeping children out of harmful institutions: Why we should be investing in family-based care. Save the Children, 3. Dearing, E., McCartney, K., and Taylor, B. A. (2009). Does higher quality early childcare promote low-income children’s math and reading achievement in middle childhood? Child Development, 80(5), 1329–1349. Dennis, W. (1973). Children of the crèche. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Dozier, M., Kaufman, J., Kobak, R., O’Connor, T. G., Sagi-Schwartz, A., Scott, S., and Zeanah, C. H. (2014). Consensus statement on group care for children and adolescents: A statement of policy of the American Orthopsychiatric Association. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(3), 219. Duncan, G. J., and Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and impact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. In G. Duncan and R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children (6th ed., pp. 47–70). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Dunn, A., and Parry-Williams, J. (2008). Alternative care for children in Southern Africa: Progress, challenges and future directions. New York: UNICEF. Edwards, C. (1993). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 355 Chestnut Street, Norwood, NJ 07648 (hardcopy: ISBN-0-89391-927-6, $54.95; paperback: ISBN-0-89391-933-0, $24.95). Edwards, C., Ren, L., and Brown, J. (2015). Early contexts of learning: Family and community socialization during infancy and toddlerhood. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engle, P. L., Groza, V. K., Groark, C. J., Greenberg, A., Bunkers, K. M., and Muhamedrahimov, R. J. (2011). VIII. The situation for children without parental care and strategies for policy change. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(4), 190–222. European Commission (EC). (2008). Report on child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Brussels: European Union.

434

Nonparental Caregiving Every Child. (2005). Family matters: A study of institutional care in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. London: Author. Fantuzzo, J. (2012). A model of generating across domain learning experiences through intentional, systematic and “intense enough” integrated curricula. Presentation at the 2012 Head Start Research Conference, Washington, DC. Fawzy, N., and Fouad, A. (2010). Psychosocial and developmental status of orphanage children: Epidemiological study. Current Psychiatry, 7(2), 41–48. Fluke, J. D., Goldman, P. S., Shriberg, J., Hillis, S. D., Yun, K., Allison, S., and Light, E. (2012). Systems, strategies, and interventions for sustainable long-term care and protection of children with a history of living outside of family care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36(10), 722–731. Fox, N. (1977). Attachment of kibbutz infants to mother and metapelet. Child Development, 48, 1228–1239. Gallegos, J., Rodríguez, A., Gómez, G., Rabelo, M., and Gutiérrez, M. F. (2012). The FRIENDS for life program for mexican girls living in an orphanage: A pilot study. Behaviour Change, 29(1), 1–14. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., and Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family childcare and relative care: Highlights of findings. New York: Families and Work Institute. Ghazvini, A., and Mullis, R. L. (2002). Center-based care for young children: Examining predictors of quality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 112–125. Ghera, M. M., Marshall, P. J., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., Nelson, C. A., Smyke, A. T., and Guthrie, D. (2009). The effects of foster care intervention on socially deprived institutionalized children’s attention and positive affect: Results from the BEIP study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(3), 246–253. Glisson, C., and Green, P. D. (2011). Organizational climate, services and outcomes in child welfare systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35, 582–591. Gottlieb, A. (2004). The afterlife is where we come from: The culture of infancy in West Africa. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Greenough, W., and Black, J. (1992). Induction of brain structure by experience: Substrates for cognitive development. In M. Gunnar and C. Nelson (Eds.), Developmental behavior neuroscience, Volume 24 (pp. 155–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Groza, V. K., Bunkers, K. M., and Gamer, G. N. (2011). Ideal components and current characteristics of alternative care options for children outside of parental care in low-resource countries. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(4), 163–189. Gunnar, M., and Donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of the cortisol levels in early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 199–220. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., and Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale-revised. New York: Teachers College Press. Hart, B., and Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., and Calkins, J. (2006). Children’s school readiness in the ECLSK: Predictors to academic, health, and social outcomes in the first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 431–454. Hermenau, K., Hecker, T., Elbert, T., and Ruf-Leuschner, M. (2014). Maltreatment and mental health in institutional care—Comparing early and late institutionalized children in Tanzania. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(2), 102–110. Hermenau, K., Hecker, T., Ruf, M., Schauer, E., Elbert, T., and Schauer, M. (2011). Childhood adversity, mental ill-health and aggressive behavior in an African orphanage: Changes in response to trauma-focused therapy and the implementation of a new instructional system. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 5(1), 29. Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D. C., and Myers, L. (1988). Attachment and childcare: Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 403–416. Howes, C., and Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with caregivers: Mothers and childcare teachers. Child Development, 63, 859–866. Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald Press. Innocenti Research Center. (2003). Children in institutions: The beginning of the end? Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Centre. Jonson-Reid, M. (2004). Child welfare services and delinquency: The need to know more. Special Issue: Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Improved Coordination and Integration. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ ovidweb.cgi?T=JSandPAGE=referenceandD=psyc4andNEWS=NandAN=2004-11874-004 Johnson, D. E., Guthrie, D., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., and Nelson, C. A. (2010). Growth and associations between auxology, caregiving environment, and cognition in socially deprived

435

Helen Raikes et al. Romanian children randomized to foster vs ongoing institutional care. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164(6), 507–516. Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Hoagwood, K., and Vesneski, W. (2009). Engaging parents in child welfare services: Bridging family needs and child welfare mandates. Child Welfare, 88(1), 101–126. Kerman, B., Wildfire, J., and Barth, R. P. (2002). Outcomes for young adults who experienced foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(5), 319–344. Klein, Sacha (2016). Promising evidence regarding the benefits of early care and education for children in the child welfare system, OPRE Report # 2016–68, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., and Galinsky, E. (1995). Quality in family childcare and relative care. New York: Teachers College Press. Kumar, S. P., Dandona, R., Kumar, G. A., Ramgopal, S., and Dandona, L. (2014). Depression among AIDSorphaned children higher than among other orphaned children in southern India. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 8(1), 13. Lamb, M. E., and Sternberg, K. J. (1992). Sociocultural perspectives on nonparental childcare. Childcare in context: Cross-cultural perspectives, 1–23. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hwang, C. P., and Broberg, A. G. (2014). Childcare in context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Psychology Press. Lancy, D. (2008). The anthropology of childhood: Cherubs, chattel, changelings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Learning Metrics Task Force (LMTF). (2014). Toward universal learning: Recommendations from the learning metrics task force. Montreal, PQ/Washington, DC, UNESCO Institute for Statistics/Brookings Institution. www. brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/09/learning-metrics-task-force-universal-learning Lee, V. E., and Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Leiden Conference. (2012). The development and care of institutionally reared children: The Leiden conference on the development and care of children without permanent parents. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 174–180. Leinaweaver, J. (2014). Informal kinship-based fostering around the world: Anthropological findings. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 131–136. Lenz-Rashid, S. (2005). Employment experiences of homeless young adults: Are they different for youth with a history of foster care? Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 235–259. LeVine, R. A., Levine, S., and Keefer, C. H. (1996). Childcare and culture: Lessons from Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipscomb, S. T., Pratt, M., Schmitt, S. A., Pears, K. C., and Kim, H. K. (2013). School readiness in children living in non-parental care: Impacts of Head Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 28–37. Liu, D., Diario, J., Day, J., Francis, D., and Meaney, M. (2000). Maternal care, hippocampal synaptogenesis and cognitive development in rates. Nature Neuroscience, 3(8), 799–806. Lloyd, E. C., and Barth, R. P. (2011). Developmental outcomes after five years for foster children returned home, remaining in care, or adopted. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1383–1391. Luzze, F., and Ssedyabule, D. (2004). The nature of child-headed households in Rakai district, Uganda. Kampala: Lutheran World Federation. Matas, L., Arend, R., and Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556. McCartney, K., Burchinal, M., Clark-Stewart, A., Bub, K. L., Owen, M. T., and Belsky, J. (2010). Testing a series of causal propositions relating time in childcare to children’s externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1–17. McDonald, T. P., Allen, R. I., Westerfelt, A., and Piliavin, I. (1996). Assessing the long-term effects of foster care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. MDRC. (2017). Variations in implementation of quality interventions. Unpublished memorandum. Washington, DC: Author. Merritt, D. H., and Klein, S. (2015). Do early care and education services improve language development for maltreated children? Evidence from a national child welfare sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 39, 185–196. Montie, J. E., Zongping, X., and Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries: Cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 313–331. Morison, S. J., and Ellwood, A. L. (2000). Resiliency in the aftermath of deprivation: A second look at the development of Romanian orphanage children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(4), 717–737. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2017). Accreditation standards and criteria. Retrieved from www.naeyc.org/academy/standardsandcriteria

436

Nonparental Caregiving National Center on Quality Assurance. (2017). QRIS resource guide. Retrieved from https://qrisguide.acf.hhs. gov/index.cfm?do=qrisabout National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Childcare Research Network. (2005). Childcare and child development. New York: Guilford. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Early Childcare Research Network. (2006). The NICHD study of early childcare and youth development—Findings for children up to age 4½ years. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nelson, C. A., Bos, K., Gunnar, M. R., and Sonuga-Barke, E. J. (2011). The neurobiological toll of early human deprivation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(4), 127–146. OECD (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264035461-en. OECD (2009). Doing better for children. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en. Phillips, D. A., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., and Abbot-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in childcare centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 475–496. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., and Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual, Pre-K. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Pinhiero, P. S. (2006). World report on violence against children. Geneva: United Nations Secretary-General’s Report on Violence against Children. Raikes, A., Yoshikawa, Britto, P. R., and Iruka. (2017). Children, youth and developmental science in the 2015–2030 global sustainable development goals. Social Policy Report, 30(3). Raikes, H., Torquati, J., Hegland, S., Raikes, H. A., Scott, J., Messner, L., Peterson, C., Thornburg, K., Houf, B., and Scott, S. (2006). Studying the culture of quality early education and care: A cumulative approach to measuring characteristics of the workforce and relations to quality in four Midwestern states. In M. Zaslow and I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Rajendran, K., and Chemtob, C. M. (2010). Factors associated with service use among immigrants in the child welfare system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 317–323. Rao, N. (2014). Early childhood development and cognitive development in developing countries: A rigorous literature review. London, UK: Department for International Development. Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A., and Engle, P. L. (2012). Is something better than nothing? An evaluation of early childhood programs in Cambodia. Child Development, 83(3), 864–876. Rao, N., Sun, J., Chen, E. E., and Ip, P. (2017). Effectiveness of early childhood interventions in promoting cognitive development in developing countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hong Kong Journal of Paediatrics (New Series), 22(1), 14–25. Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grinning, C., Zhai, F., Metzger, M. W., and Solomon, B. (2009). Targeting children’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 302–316. Roby, J. L. (2011). Children in informal alternative care (Discussion Paper). New York: UNICEF Child Protection Section. Ruston, J. P., Russell, R. J. H., and Wells, P. A. (1984). Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selection. Behavior Genetics, 14(3), 179–193. Samman, E., Presler-Marshall, E., Jones, N., Bhatkal, T., Melamed, C., Stavropoulou, M., and Wallace, J. (2016). Women’s work: Mothers, children and the global childcare crisis, a summary. Retrieved from https://bernardvanleer. org/app/uploads/2016/07/Early-Childhood-Matters-2016_12.pdf Save the Children. (2009). Institutional care: The last resort. Advocacy brief. London: Author. Save the Children UK. (2007). Kinship care: Providing positive and safe options for children living away from home. London: Author. Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., Frelow, V., and Reid, J. (2009). Infant-toddler early learning guidelines: The content states have addressed and implications for programs serving children with disabilities. Infants and Young Children, 22, 87–99. Serra, R. (2009). Child fostering in Africa: When labor and schooling motives may coexist. Journal of Development Economics, 88(1), 157–170. Shonkoff, J. P., and Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82(1), 17–32. Singh, R., and Mukherjee, P. (2017). Comparison of the effects of government and private preschool education on the developmental outcomes of children: Evidence from Young Lives India. Working Paper 167, Oxford, U.K.: Young Lives.

437

Helen Raikes et al. Strong, P. T. (2001). To forget their tongue, their name, and their whole relation: Captivity, extra-tribal adoption, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. In S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (Eds.), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies (pp. 468–493). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrão, J., Palacios, J., and Wetzel, G. (1996). Comparisons of observed process quality in early child care and education programs in five countries. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(4), 447–475. Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Halle, T., and Forry, N. (2009). Issues for the next decade of quality rating and improvement systems. OPRE Brief #3, #2009-14. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Tran, H., and Weinraub, M. (2006). Childcare effects in context: Quality, stability, and multiplicity in nonmaternal childcare arrangements in the first 15 months of life. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 566–582. UNESCO. (2016). EFA global monitoring report: Education for people and planet: creating sustainable futures for all. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002457/245752e.pdf UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution, and the World Bank (2017). Overview MELQO: Measuring early learning quality outcomes. Paris: UNESCO. UNICEF. (2005). Exploited and invisible. State of the world’s children. New York: UNICEF. UNICEF. (2006). Africa’s orphaned and vulnerable generations: Children affected by AIDS. New York: UNICEF. UNICEF. (2007a). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, UNICEF, Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre UNICEF. (2007b). The state of the world’s children: Child survival (Vol. 8). New York. UNICEF. (2008). UNICEF child protection strategy. United Nations Economic and Social Council, E/ICEF/ 2008/5. New York. UNICEF. (2009a). Children and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: UNICEF’s response in Indonesia (2005–2008). New York: Author. UNICEF. (2009b). Thematic report 2009: Child protection against violence, exploitation, and abuse. New York: Author. UNICEF. (2009c). Progress for children: A report card on child protection, No. 8. New York: Author. UNICEF. (2009d). Regional proposal for improving alternative care for vulnerable children. Nairobi, Kenya: UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Office. UNICEF. (2012a). Child info. Retrieved from www.childinfo.org/hiv aids orphanestimates.php UNICEF. (2012b). School readiness: A conceptual framework. New York: United Children’s Fund. UNICEF. (2014). The state of the world’s children 2014 in numbers: Every child counts. Revealing disparities, advancing children’s rights. New York: United Children’s Fund. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty Series 1577, 3. United Nations General Assembly. (1989, November 17). Adoption of a convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: United Nations. United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council (2010). Guidelines for the alternative care of children. Retrieved from www.unicef.org/protection/files/100407-UNGA-Res-64-142.en.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Childcare: An important part of American life. Retrieved from www.census.gov/library/ visualizations/2013/comm/child_care.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families. (2001). National survey of child and adolescent well-being: One year in foster care report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012a). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system (AFCARS): Guide to an AFCARS assessment review. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012b). Advisory committee on head start research and evaluation: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2017). Child maltreatment 2015. Retrieved from www.acf. hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). The AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2015 estimates as of June 2016. Retrieved from www.acf/hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport23.pdf van IJzendoorn, M. H., Sagi, A., and Lambermon, M. W. E. (1992). The multiple caretaker paradox: Data from Holland and Israel. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives (pp. 5–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. van IJzendoorn, M. H., Luijk, M. P. C. M., and Juffer, F. (2007). Detrimental effects on cognitive development of growing up in children’s homes: A meta-analysis on IQ in orphanages. Unpublished paper. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

438

Nonparental Caregiving Van Vleet, K. E. (2009). “We Had Already Come to Love Her”: Adoption at the Margins of the Bolivian State. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 14(1), 20–43. Vermeer, H. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Cárcamo, R. A., and Harrison, L. J. (2016). Quality of child care using the environment rating scales: A meta-analysis of international studies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(1), 33–60. Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., and Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2004). Low-income children’s development: Direct and moderated effects. Child Development, 75(1), 296–312. Yazejian, N., Bryant, D., Freel, K., and the Educare Learning Network Investigative Team. (2015). High-quality early education: Age of entry and time in care differences in student outcomes for English-only and dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 23–39. Wasik, B. A., and Hindman, A. H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and pre-literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers through teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 455–469. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. A. (1990). Who cares? Childcare teachers and the quality of care in America (Final Report of the National Childcare Staffing Study). Oakland, CA: Childcare Employee Project. Woldehanna, T. (2011). The effects of early childhood education attendance on cognitive development: Evidence from urban Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Economics, 20(1), World Bank. (2017). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS. World Vision International. (2011). The Handbook for Development Programmes. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/Handbook_for_Development_Programmes.pdf. Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., and Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76(5), 1015–1028. Zellman, G. L., and Perlman, M. (2008). Childcare quality rating and improvement systems in five pioneering states: Implementation issues and lessons learned. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation. Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L., and Burchinal, M. (2010). Quality dosage thresholds and features in early childhood settings A review of the literature (No. cdea2df43cdf4b10bb74af4189cbab8d). Mathematica Policy Research. Zhao, Q., Li, X., Kaljee, L. M., Fang, X., Stanton, B., and Zhang, L. (2009). AIDS orphanages in China: Reality and challenges. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 23(4), 297–303.

439

PART II

Becoming and Being a Parent

13 INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF PARENTING David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

Introduction It is often assumed that parenting is passed down through the generations; that is, all things being equal, parents treat their children the way their parents treated them. Despite the intuitive appeal of hypotheses about intergenerational (IG) continuity or stability in parenting, rigorously evaluating these questions is surprisingly difficult. Equally challenging are tests of critical corollaries of these hypotheses, including questions about which parenting behaviors are transmitted and when and how this occurs. Such information will guide prevention development as it offers clues regarding IG discontinuity or instability in parenting and for identifying for whom and under what circumstances such shifts occur (Belsky, Conger, and Capaldi, 2009). That is, the field may use research findings to answer both how individuals with adverse or suboptimal parenting histories can be assisted in providing a healthier rearing environment for the next generation and, relatedly, how individuals who experienced high-quality parenting can retain positive capacities for rearing their own children. Until recently, the majority of data available to address these questions was not adequate for the task. In their review of the IG maltreatment literature—a subset of IG parenting research that was an early focus of interest—Thornberry, Knight, and Lovegrove (2012) lamented the methodologically weak evidence base and noted that studies with weaker designs have reported the strongest effects. To address the biases of retrospective reports of parenting experienced in the family of origin and to increase understanding of the transmission of parenting, research teams and funders have invested in a small number of prospective IG studies across the last 30 years. These studies have followed cohorts of youth (identified as “generation two” or G2) and their parents (G1) as G2 developed from childhood to adulthood, and then assessed the generation three (G3) offspring of G2, often across similar developmental periods. Drawing on these studies, this chapter focuses on cross-generation transmission of parenting directed toward children (e.g., warm, supportive behavior, discipline). Some parent behavior (e.g., substance use, intimate partner violence) that is not directed toward the child nevertheless affects children’s behaviors, including their later parenting (Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, and Hawkins, 2009; Camacho, Ehrensaft, and Cohen, 2011; Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, and Owen, 2012). However, these parental behaviors are outside the scope of this chapter except when shown to mediate or moderate IG parenting transmission. Additionally, applying the terminology described by Bornstein, Putnick, and Esposito (2017) to IG studies, this chapter primarily concerns stability and instability in parenting across generations, as captured by correlations between parents’ and children’s parenting

443

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

behaviors (i.e., similarities in rank ordering across generations). Except where noted, IG continuity and ­discontinuity—which denote similarities and differences in mean levels of behaviors across two or more generations—have not been tested in this field. This chapter is organized as follows. First is a review and discussion of historical factors that may affect IG associations in parenting and how they have been studied. Second, theoretical perspectives guiding IG research are reviewed. The third and most detailed section pertains to empirical findings on IG associations in parenting, mechanisms (mediators) of stability, and factors (moderators) that attenuate IG stability or are associated with instability, including a special focus on IG transmission issues pertaining to mothers and fathers. Given the significant limitations of retrospective studies of parenting and the strengths and advantages of fully prospective IG designs, the present review is primarily focused on the findings from these latter studies. As such, a fourth section of this chapter details the many strengths, limitations, challenges, and promises of prospective IG designs, including examples from the Oregon Youth Study (OYS; of G1 and at-risk G2 boys) initiated in 1984, and OYS-Three-Generational Study (OYS-3GS of G2 and G3) initiated in the early 1990s. The chapter concludes with a discussion of promising future directions for theory and research.

Historical Considerations in Intergenerational Parenting Research There are long-standing beliefs that aggression and abuse experienced from parents in the family of origin are the cause of similar parental behavior toward children in the family of procreation (Garbarino and Gilliam, 1980; Thornberry and Henry, 2013). Until relatively recently, IG transmission of other aspects of parenting (e.g., positive parenting; Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, and Owen, 2009) were less of a focus. A key historical change affecting studies of IG transmission of abusive parental behaviors is that views regarding physical discipline and the acceptability of specific types of physical discipline have changed, as has the prevalence of such discipline. For example, physical discipline with an object (e.g., a cane or paddle) was relatively common in the United States (where most three-generational studies are based) both at home and in schools (where it is still expressly permitted in 15 states; see Clark, 2017) yet may be considered abusive behavior by many. As discussed in Capaldi, Kerr, and Tiberio (2017), in the late 1960s, 94% of parents viewed spanking as an acceptable form of regular discipline (Straus and Mathur, 1996), whereas by the 1990s, acceptability had fallen to 61% of parents of young children (Yankelvich, 2000). Furthermore, in some times and places, it was relatively normative to give young children considerable freedom to roam the streets, which may now be considered neglectful. The prevalence of some of these parental behaviors has thus changed over time. Such secular shifts in norms and attitudes resulting in changes in the prevalence of parenting behaviors across cohorts should be taken into consideration when examining IG continuity and stability of parenting practices using prospective developmental data. A second major secular change affecting parenting is the increased participation of mothers in the workforce. In 2016, 67.9% of married mothers with children under age 18 years were working or looking for work—defined as labor force participation (United States Department of Labor, 2017). The participation rate for mothers with children under 6 years of age was 64.7%. The proportion of working mothers who had children under 18 years of age increased by close to 50% between 1975 and 2015, whereas that of mothers of children under 6 years of age increased by 64%. Thus, there has been a large change in the situation of mothers, which incidentally coincides with the time period covered by several IG studies (e.g., in the OYS-3GS, G2 sons were born around 1975). Along with this change, there has been increased involvement of fathers in caring for children, increased interest in fathering among researchers, and an emphasis on the importance of coparenting (Cabrera and Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; McHale and Sirotkin, 2019; Palkovitz, Fagen, and Hull, 2013; Parke and Cookston, 2019). 444

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

Numerous other historical changes also have affected the contexts and consequences of parenting, including economic variations, both nationally and regionally. For example, boys in OYS-3GS G2 were born around 1975, when the timber industry—a major employer in the area where the families lived—was strong in Oregon. However, as discussed by Mapes (2012), employment in that sector experienced a major drop during the deep recession of the early 1980s and again following new environmental restrictions on logging in federal forests in 1990. These employment changes caused considerable economic hardship for OYS families. Similar kinds of economic shifts have influenced the parenting contexts in other times, regions, and cohorts, including those sampled by other prospective IG studies (e.g., G2 from the Family Transitions Project; Neppl, Conger, Scaramella, and Ontai, 2009). Beyond the economic circumstances, other contextual changes affecting parenting and its consequences include changes in the acceptability and availability of substance use—specifically, decreases for tobacco and increases for marijuana (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer, and Kleiman, 2012; Cerdá et al., 2017; Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, and Schulenberg, 2017). Additionally, teen pregnancy and birth rates have decreased due, in part, to increases in contraceptive use (Santelli and Melnikas, 2010). Such changes may have an impact on the real and perceived “stakes” of parental monitoring, for example, and thus how different generations approach parenting. Also impacting modern parenting is the rise in parents’ and children’s media exposure and use of social media and electronic communication devices. These present parenting challenges—such as parental distraction from children’s needs, reliance on devices to occupy or mollify children, balancing “screen time” with physical and social activity, and supervision (e.g., monitoring sites visited, being aware of cyberbullying; Barr, 2019; Radesky et al., 2016; Sanders, Parent, Forehand, and Breslend, 2016). On the positive side, such technology also increases possibilities for parental monitoring and involvement, such as checking on a child’s physical location from afar, tracking homework completion on school websites, or texting to keep in touch when teens are away from home. Despite these secular changes, many of the core concepts and skills related to parenting may be fundamentally similar. For example, parental involvement is a core concept and may occur via several modes including in-person and electronic communication. A historical issue that relates to IG research approaches rather than to parenting itself is that most studies of cross-generation associations in parenting conducted prior to the past 20 years relied on adults’ retrospective reporting of the parenting they experienced in their family of origin, rather than assessment at the time it occurred. Retrospective reporting is prone to recall and reporting bias, particularly among those who have depression or other psychopathology, and is subject to rationalization of poor behavior (Capaldi, 1996; Patten, 2003; Thornberry, 2009). For example, parents may rationalize that they are not abusive toward their children in comparison to how harshly they were treated as a child. These issues were compounded by the fact that it was usually the same person who reported on their parents’ behavior toward them in childhood and their parenting of their own children in the family of procreation. More recently, a limited number (due to costs and other challenges of long-term longitudinal studies) of prospective three-generational studies have offered more rigorous designs. Although many IG study teams have focused primarily on transmission of risk for problems such as substance abuse (Bailey et al., 2009; Henry and Augustyn, 2017; Kerr, Tiberio, and Capaldi, 2015), they also have used their powerful methodologies to include examination of IG parenting processes.

Theoretical Explanations of Intergenerational Associations Genetic and Other Biological Theories There are several potential biological mechanisms of IG parenting transmission. In terms of genetic influences, twin studies indicate that both warmth/responsiveness and control dimensions of 445

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

parenting are heritable, with the former yielding higher heritability estimates (Oliver, Trzaskowski, and Plomin, 2014). An alternative conceptualization of these dimensions found that it was the negative forms of each dimension (e.g., hostility and physical discipline) that are more heritable than the positive forms (e.g., closeness and firm/calm discipline; Oliver et al., 2014). Research on molecular genetics indicates the inheritance of behavior is more complex biologically than initially supposed (Plomin and Davis, 2009), and most traits and behavior tendencies are affected by multiple genes and by genotype-environment transactions or interactions (Plomin and Davis, 2009). For example, Beaver and Belsky (2012) found prospective associations between negative parenting experienced by adolescents and the stress they later felt when parenting their own children were stronger for those with more alleles thought to confer plasticity or susceptibility to environmental influences. These findings are consistent with Ellis and colleagues’ (Ellis et al., 2011) discussion of differential sensitivity models and the notion that children differ neurobiologically in their responsiveness to both nurturing and deleterious caregiving practices. Thus, differential susceptibility factors are relevant to the strength of IG parenting transmission. Several types of gene-environment associations that have been elaborated (Knafo and Jaffee, 2013; Scarr and McCartney, 1983) are relevant to IG parenting transfer. Transmission of parenting can occur, in part, because G1 parents pass on heritable traits to G2 that are associated with the formation of particular rearing environments in the current and subsequent generation (passive gene-environment correlation). Evocative gene-environment correlation occurs if heritable child characteristics elicit particular parenting responses that impact development and adjustment (e.g., poor inhibitory control, negative affect, antisocial behavior, social competence) into adolescence and early adulthood. Such characteristics or aspects of adjustment are, in turn, known to be key predictors of later parenting and indeed are primary mechanisms of IG parenting transfer (Neppl et al., 2009). In general, prospective IG parenting studies have integrated genetic and biological endophenotype measurements into their models only to a limited degree (Masarik et al., 2014); however, they have been influenced by these theories and evidence. For example, several IG studies have considered whether G3 temperament or other characteristics predict the parenting that G2 enacts with them or helps explain or disrupt G1-G2 parenting transmission (Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009; Scaramella and Conger, 2003; Tiberio et al., 2016). There also is support for nongenetic biological mechanisms of IG parenting transmission. Mothers’ childhood maltreatment experiences are associated with pre- and postnatal differences in development of the brain and other systems in their offspring that may contribute to IG stability of maltreatment (see Buss et al., 2017; Moog et al., 2017). Additionally, endocrine-based pathways may be involved in the IG transmission of parenting. For example, Bos (2017) noted that insensitive caregiving may lead to epigenetic alterations of genes related to the expression of oxytocin. Decreased sensitivity to oxytocin may have impacts on children’s capacities for empathy and emotion regulation that, in turn, are relevant to their social development and ultimately their responsive caregiving of the next generation. Bos (2017) also reviewed evidence that harsh parenting hastens puberty, and earlier testosterone surges are related to disinhibition and poor impulse control that, after the transition to parenthood, are associated with insensitive parenting. In light of developing theory regarding these pathways, it will be important to adapt further the models and measurement approaches of IG parenting studies to include both biologic and social influences and their interfaces.

Attachment Theory Turning to psychological theories, attachment theory indicates parenting behaviors that contribute to insecure, secure, and disorganized attachment are transmitted across generations. For example, children whose parents are unresponsive, rejecting, or abusive may become insecurely attached to them (Cummings and Warmuth, 2019; Egeland and Sroufe, 1981; Schneider-Rosen and Cicchetti, 446

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

1984) and develop an insecure attachment representation that is maintained into adulthood (van IJzendoorn, 1995). If they have not resolved this insecure attachment by the time they become parents—the theory goes—they will be more likely to enact similar behaviors they have internalized (unresponsive, rejecting, abusive) toward their own offspring (Main and Goldwyn, 1984). Although there is limited fully prospective research on this topic, at least one such study has reported an IG association in observed disorganized attachment (Raby, Steele, Carlson, and Sroufe, 2015). Regarding positive attachments, it is thought that children who experienced sensitive parenting can develop into parents with secure (autonomous) attachment representations. Such parents promote secure attachment in their own children by more quickly and accurately detecting and responding to attachment signals, thus perpetuating these parenting behaviors across generations. Despite the persistence and appeal of this model, meta-analyses (van IJzendoorn, 1995; Verhage et al., 2016) indicate that although there are cross-generation similarities in attachment, sensitive parenting does not adequately explain them, which also calls into question the theory that attachment explains IG stability in these parenting behaviors.

Social Learning Theory The predominant, although not mutually exclusive, theory regarding IG associations in parenting is social learning theory. In terms of direct pathways, social learning theory indicates that children acquire parenting behaviors from their parents through modeling and social reinforcement. Then, when individuals become parents, they generalize from their childhood behavioral learning histories, or they recall explicit episodic memories of how they were treated by their parents, and enact similar behaviors with their own children (Garbarino and Gilliam, 1980; Patterson, 1982). For example, for one parent, the learned repertoire of how to deal with problematic child behavior might be to scold and spank, whereas for another parent, it might involve structuring the situation to avoid problem behavior (e.g., providing coloring books and crayons so their child will not be bored in a restaurant). Social learning theory also predicts indirect transmission pathways. Specifically, the IG transfer of harsh and negative parenting may occur via coercive relationship dynamics such as parents’ and children’s mutual reinforcement and escalation of each other’s aversive behaviors (Snyder, 2016). These experiences socialize children to use aggressive methods to get their way in a variety of situations outside the home and may lead them in adulthood to recreate high-conflict family contexts (Rothenberg, Hussong, and Chassin, 2016) and repeat coercive processes with their own children (Dishion and Patterson, 2016; Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, and Smith, 2003). Thus, tests of social learning models of IG parenting transmission often consider the development of stable G2 characteristics that are negative (e.g., antisocial behavior, depression) or positive (e.g., social competence, educational attainment) as conduits linking negative or positive parenting across generations (Neppl et al., 2009; Patterson, 1998; Rothenberg, Hussong, and Chassin, 2017).

Contextual Stability Stability in contextual factors across generations also contributes to stability in parenting. Family Transitions Project researchers (Conger and Donnellan, 2007; Neppl, Senia, and Donnellan, 2016; Schofield et al., 2011) have elucidated how stressors related to socioeconomic status (SES) are contextual factors that impact family functioning and perpetuate parenting across generations. They posit a dynamic, interactionist model of SES influences on development (social causation) and individual characteristics affecting SES (social selection). For example, Schofield and colleagues (2011) found that positive characteristics (e.g., social competence) of G2 in adolescence predicted their later SES, parenting, and family characteristics that were related to the positive development of G3. Similarly, Bailey et al. (2009) found IG associations between G1-G2 and G2-G3 families’ 447

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

sociodemographic risks (unmarried parent, low education, high neighborhood disorganization, and poverty), even accounting for IG stability in harsh parenting and externalizing. Such models highlight how IG stability in social context, individual adjustment, and parenting are intertwined.

Integrating Theories of IG Transmission: Dynamic Developmental Systems Approach An overarching theoretical approach, the Dynamic Developmental Systems (DDS) model is based in a life‑course perspective and focuses particularly on social influences across the life span—­including parental influences—but encompasses the interplay and continuous feedback of influences at multiple system levels—including individual characteristics (e.g., temperament/personality; Ganiban, Ulbricht, Saudino, Reiss, and Neiderhiser, 2011), contextual factors, and biological as well as social influences (Capaldi, Kim, and Pears, 2009; Dishion, Andrews, and Crosby, 1995; Dishion and Owen, 2002; Poulin, Kiesner, Pedersen, and Dishion, 2011). The DDS approach (Capaldi, Kerr, and Tiberio, in press) builds on developmental-contextual and life-span approaches that emphasize the interaction between the individual’s prior dispositions and learning and the environments that she or her selects or in which she or he is placed (Cairns and Cairns, 1995; Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, and Yoerger, 2001; Caspi and Elder, 1988; Coie et al., 1993; Dishion and Patterson, 1997; Hetherington and Baltes, 1988; Rutter, 1989). Building on the tradition of life-span theories, the DDS approach accounts for (1) systems (including intraindividual) and their interfaces; (2) social interaction units of critical importance at differing developmental stages, including parent-child, child-peer, and romantic-partner dyads; (3) the importance of social influence on behavioral outcomes, including (a) the developmental risk that each member of the dyad (or group) brings to the interaction and their developmental stage and (b) social influence specific to the outcome behavior of interest (e.g., the influence of a partner’s parenting and risk behaviors on a parent’s behaviors); and (4) the importance of stability and change in risk contexts at all developmental stages. The DDS model also encompasses biologic systems, although assessment of these factors in most IG studies is indirect (e.g., temperament, neurocognitive testing, pubertal timing). Further integration of biological hypotheses and measurement in IG studies is needed. A key aspect of the DDS approach that has been applied to IG studies of interrelated adolescent problem behaviors (delinquency, substance abuse, school failure, and health-risking sexual behaviors) is the importance of both general and outcome-specific systems and risks (Capaldi, Stoolmiller, Kim, and Yoerger, 2009; Kendler, Gardner, and Dick, 2011; Zucker, Boyd, and Howard, 1995)—for example, deviant peer affiliation is a general risk factor for a range of problem behavior outcomes, whereas parental tobacco use may confer some risk that is specific to child tobacco use. This framework also can be applied to IG parenting transmission. For example, stabilities in a host of negative parenting behaviors from G1 to G2 may occur through impacts on G2 adolescent behavioral maladjustment (a general pathway involving a general outcome and mediator), whereas the IG transmission of physical discipline practices may occur, in part, through the transfer of beliefs about spanking (a specific pathway).

Central Issues in Intergenerational Parenting Transmission These theoretical foundations inform work on three primary issues regarding IG associations in parenting. First, a major research focus concerns a descriptive understanding of IG transmission of parenting and answers: (1) To what extent are there IG similarities in parenting behaviors? and (2) Through what processes or mechanisms is parenting transmitted? A second focus considers factors that strengthen, nullify, or even reverse associations between the parenting enacted in adjacent generations. This interest in moderation emerged because initial findings from prospective studies 448

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

indicated IG associations were relatively modest and likely subject to considerable moderation, and because identifying moderators of IG parenting transmission should have implications for health promotion (sustaining positive parenting) and prevention (disrupting negative parenting). Third, identifying differences between mothers and fathers in terms of the previous questions is a central focus of IG research. That is, what experiences in the families of origin and procreation (including partners’ parenting) influence their parenting?

Descriptive Understanding of Intergenerational Parenting Transmission A number of rigorous studies using diverse samples and measurement strategies (see Conger, Belsky, and Capaldi, 2009) support significant associations between the parenting enacted by G1 toward G2 and that shown later by G2 parents toward G3. Before reviewing the domains of parenting for which there is evidence of IG stability and the mechanisms by which it occurs, we briefly discuss transmission pathways IG parenting researchers typically consider.

Types of Transmission Pathways SPURIOUS ASSOCIATIONS SECONDARY TO OTHER TRANSMITTED FACTORS

As shown in Figure 13.1 path A, parenting behaviors may be an expression of G1 traits that are heritable or otherwise transmitted to G2 parents, who, in turn, express these traits in similar parenting behaviors. For example, if poor parenting is primarily a reflection of depression within each generation and depression is heritable, then parenting in each generation may not be causally connected. Similarly, as depicted in Figure 13.1 path B, child characteristics (e.g., poor inhibitory control) that are partially heritable may elicit similar parenting behaviors (e.g., harsh and coercive) in each generation. Furthermore, these paths are not mutually exclusive and could work in concert (e.g., fussy toddlers may be more likely to evoke harsh parenting from depressed parents). Thus, it is reasonable to ask whether the apparent transmission of parenting may simply reflect the transmission of other conditions. As such, IG parenting studies routinely include controls such as antisocial behavior in each generation (Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009), child IQ, and family SES (Kovan, Chung, and Sroufe, 2009; Shaffer, Burt, Obradovic, Herbers, and Masten, 2009), and positive and negative child dispositional characteristics (Neppl et al., 2009).

G1 Adult Characteristics

G2 Adult Characteristics

A

G2 Parenting

G1 Parenting G2 Child Characteristics

G3 Child Characteristics

B

Figure 13.1 Spurious correlations between parenting in two generations

449

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi DIRECT TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS INCLUDING SPECIFIC AND GENERAL ASPECTS OF PARENTING

As shown in Figure 13.2 path A, direct IG transmission routes may apply to specific aspects of parents’ behaviors, knowledge, or beliefs that are learned and modeled. For example, a father may recall being spanked as a boy when he told a lie, and may spank his child in a similar situation. Much transmission, however, is expected to involve learning general approaches or styles of parenting that are applied in various parent-child interactions that transcend context and developmental stage. Thus, G1 positive affect and interest during a discussion with a G2 adolescent may stem from stable parent-child relationship qualities that for G2 adults become manifest in their warm responsiveness with a G3 toddler during a challenging clean-up task. Similarly, G1 parental monitoring of their G2 teens’ physical whereabouts might be expected to be associated with G2 parents’ monitoring of G3’s social behavior online. Many IG studies have examined the transmission of a cluster (e.g., a latent factor) of related parenting behaviors (Figure 13.2, path B) such as the warm-responsive-stimulating parenting considered by Belsky, Jaffee, Sligo, Woodward, and Silva (2005). Some parenting behaviors (e.g., spanking) may be partially transmitted via a general pattern of parenting (e.g., mood-dependent discipline) and partly via more specific transmission pathway (e.g., explicit memories, cultural beliefs). A relevant concept here is the degree to which IG parenting associations show homotypic or heterotypic stability. The concept has been applied to the expectation that G1 antisocial behavior might be associated with G2 antisocial behavior (homotypic) as well as G2 harsh parenting (heterotypic) outcomes (Thornberry, 2016). The idea can also be applied to the IG transfer of particular forms of parenting. For example, if G1 spanking is associated with G2 spanking (homotypic) and poor G2 monitoring (heterotypic), this latter pathway would be suggestive of indirect rather than direct (modeled or recollected) mechanisms. Relatedly, Neppl et al. (2009) found G1-G2 stabilities in harsh and positive parenting that were distinct from one another (i.e., homotypic). They did not find evidence that, for example, G1 harsh parenting was negatively associated with G2 positive parenting, which might have indicated stability across heterotypic behaviors. Such findings suggest differential mechanisms of IG transmission in addition to supporting the validity of the measures and constructs in question (i.e., harsh parenting is not just the absence or reverse of positive parenting). INDIRECT OR MEDIATED TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS

The parenting that adults experienced in childhood influences their adjustment (e.g., social competence, depression, conduct problems), life course histories (e.g., arrest, premature transition to parenthood, advanced education), and contextual stress and support (e.g., socioeconomic status, peer relationships, intimate relationship conflict). As shown in Panel A of Figure 13.3, these biopsychosocial consequences of parenting experienced in the family of origin may be potent determinants of the parenting they enact in the family of procreation. Thus, an important thrust of IG transmission research has concerned indirect transmission mechanisms by which G2 characteristics and ­experiences—typically measured in adolescence—partially or fully mediate the link between their

A

X Y

G1 Parenting

B

X G2 Parenting

Y Z

Z

Figure 13.2 Transmission of specific (A) and general (B) parenting behaviors

450

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

G2 Positive Adjustment G2 Parenting

G1 Parenting G2 Maladjustment

3a: Mediation:

G1 Parenting

G2 Parenting

G1 Moderators

G2 Moderators

G3 Moderators

3b: Moderation: Figure 13.3 Mediation and moderation of intergenerational transmission of parenting

parents’ behavior toward them and their later parenting of G3. In the next section, findings on the IG transmission of aspects of parenting are reviewed, followed by consideration of mechanisms of stability.

Research Findings on Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF NEGATIVE PARENTING

Studies of IG transmission of negative aspects of parenting have ranged from examining family conflict and harsh and inconsistent discipline to clearly abusive and destructive behaviors. The operational definitions or assessments of family conflict and poor or harsh discipline tend to be similar (e.g., anger and shouting, although conflict is assessed for “family members” and discipline is assessed for parents); thus, findings from these studies are reviewed within the same section. Studies of harsh discipline also have similarities to studies of abusive parenting, particularly as practical difficulties in collecting information on abuse—which typically must be reported to authorities—has led some researchers to focus on behaviors below thresholds considered abusive to minors. Overall, there is evidence for transmission of the many forms of negative parenting. Several studies have used multi-informant and multi-method designs to study negative parenting. Bailey et al. (2009) found modest IG stability in harsh parenting based on G1 behaviors with G2 early teens (mean age of 13 years) and G2 parenting of G3 (mean age of 9 years). Capaldi, Pears, Kerr, and Owen (2008) examined IG transmission of poor discipline (e.g., mood-dependent discipline, 451

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

poor follow-through, spanking). They found that G1 mothers’ and fathers’ poor discipline of G2 boys during late childhood showed a modest association with G2 men’s poor and harsh discipline of G3 at ages 2–3 years. A direct effect remained even after accounting for several risks in the G2 family of procreation (G2 substance use and antisocial behavior, early fatherhood, lower SES, and G2 mothers’ poor and harsh discipline), many of which were predicted by G1 poor parenting. A small number of studies have examined observed rather than reported parental behavior. In one study, angry aggressive parenting during structured parent-child interactions was assessed in two generations (Conger, Schofield, and Neppl, 2012), and a moderate association of such parental behavior was found between G1 behavior toward G2 (during G2 adolescence) and G2 behavior toward G3 (when G3 was preschool age). Similarly, Hops, Davis, Leve, and Sheeber (2003) found a prospective IG association between observed G1 (in late adolescence for G2) and G2 (in early childhood for G3) aggressive parenting (defined as disapproving, threatening, argumentative statements, and aversive affect during discussion, play, and clean-up tasks). Work on family conflict also is relevant to IG transmission of negative parenting. Rothenberg et al. (2016) examined IG stability in high-conflict family environments (including parent-child conflict), using a prospective design, where G1-G2 conflict was assessed when G2 was age 14 years on average and G2-G3 conflict when G3 was age 12 years on average. Both parents and children at each time point completed a family conflict scale (e.g., We fought a lot in our family). Conflict was associated across generations overall, but was stronger for G2 women and not significant for G2 men. The IG transmission of the most extreme, negative forms of parental disengagement (neglect) or of angry and punitive parenting (physical and emotional maltreatment) has been studied in several prospective studies (Thornberry and Henry, 2013). Pears and Capaldi (2001) found that if one or both G1 parents self-reported a childhood physical maltreatment history (e.g., injuries from discipline), then the G2 men were in early adulthood more likely to report having experienced physical maltreatment from their parents in childhood. The authors ruled out a number of mechanisms, as the IG association was not fully mediated by G2 difficult characteristics in early childhood or childhood SES, or G1 early transition to motherhood, psychopathology, or consistent discipline. Additionally, G1 parents who were most severely maltreated (physical acts and multiple injuries) showed the highest level of maltreatment of G2, whereas moderately severely maltreated G1 parents (physical acts and one injury) did not differ from less severely maltreated or non-maltreated G1 parents in their physical maltreatment of G2. Widom (1989) did not find support for the IG cycle of abusive violence hypothesis in their study of adults who, according to official records, had been physically maltreated or neglected prior to age 11 years; these individuals were no more likely to be arrested for child abuse or neglect in adulthood than were other adults. However, Thornberry et al. (2012) noted that arrests have limitations as an indicator for testing IG continuity in maltreatment because child maltreatment is typically managed through child welfare referral rather than through arrest. Their later study (Thornberry and Henry, 2013) utilized records of substantiated incidents of maltreatment and found that such abuse and neglect of G2 through age 17 years indeed predicted G2 perpetration by early adulthood (age 33 years). In general, however, it is rather difficult to draw specific conclusions about IG associations in parenting from the cycle of maltreatment literature that focuses on official incidents of maltreatment. Such studies often collapse across neglect and different forms of abuse, including sexual abuse, because they co-occur and are too infrequently observed in community-based, cross-generational samples of a moderate size to be examined separately. Also, whereas neglect and physical maltreatment may be considered as the extreme ends of parenting continua (e.g., that “neglect” includes inadequate supervision and less than fully conscientious care), sexual abuse is qualitatively different and not considered parenting. In a study that distinguished among types of maltreatment, Widom, Czaja, and DuMont (2015) examined documented maltreatment that the G2 individuals in their long-term study had 452

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

experienced in childhood and later perpetrated against their children (G3). Neglected G2 children were more likely in adulthood than controls to have a child protective service reported case for neglect of G3 (17.8% versus 9.5%), failure to provide (8.8% versus 3.6%), or lack of supervision (14.7% versus 8.2%) and to self-report neglect (42.7% versus 29%). In contrast, physically maltreated G2 were not significantly more likely than controls to have a physical-abuse report toward G3 (5.6% versus 5.4%) or to self-report this behavior (31.7% versus 23.9%). Additionally, there were not significant differences between these G2 physically maltreated or neglect groups relative to controls on G3 reported physical maltreatment or neglect. Overall, there is substantial evidence of cross-generation transmission of negative parenting, from conflictual to abusive or maltreating. As discussed by Thornberry et al. (2012) in their review, most studies of IG transmission of maltreatment have significant design flaws, many of which would be remedied using prospective data. In addition, further work is needed on the role of mothers and fathers in IG transmission of negative parenting and maltreatment—as well as on specific forms of maltreatment, including physical maltreatment, neglect, and emotional and psychological maltreatment. MEDIATORS OF IG TRANSMISSION OF NEGATIVE PARENTING

Several IG studies began by examining social learning pathways linking antisocial behavior across generations via poor parenting (Patterson, 1998). These examinations provided groundwork for IG parenting research on whether the development of antisocial behavior at least partially mediates the association of experiencing harsh or poor parenting in the family of origin and using such parental tactics toward offspring in the family of procreation. Most studies support this model (Belsky et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2003), with some important exceptions (Bailey et al., 2009). After finding evidence of IG transmission of harsh and positive parenting, Neppl et al. (2009) considered whether the transmission might be explained by the tendencies of children with positive or negative dispositional characteristics to elicit supportive or harsh parenting practices, respectively. Although there were effects of G3 characteristics on G2 parenting, Neppl et al. found these characteristics did not fully account for the G1-G2 parenting associations. Similarly, Bailey and colleagues (2009) did not find G1-G2 stability in harsh parenting to be better explained by G1 contextual variables such as parental violence or sociodemographic risk that co-occurred with their harsh parenting. In Hops and colleagues’ (2003) study of observed aggressive parenting, G1 to G2 associations were fully mediated by G2 aggressive behavior in adolescence. Similarly, Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, and Owen (2003) found that associations between G1 poor parenting when G2 boys were ages 9–12 years and G2 fathers’ poor parenting of G3 during early childhood (mean of 22 months) were partially mediated through higher levels of G2 antisocial behavior during adolescence, although a direct parenting path remained. Extending this model, Capaldi et al. (2008) examined factors in G2 men’s families of procreation that were associated with their antisocial behavior and that might have influences on their poor and harsh parenting. In addition to the persistence of a direct influence from G1 poor and harsh parenting, it was G2 partners who had clear and independent influences on G2 men’s parenting. Specifically, G2 mothers’ antisocial behavior and poor parenting were uniquely associated with G2 men’s parenting. Although mediation was not explicitly tested, the study highlights the potential importance of assortative partnering in the perpetuation of poor parenting across generations. Rothenberg and colleagues (2016) also examined adolescent problem behavior as a mechanism of IG stability in family conflict as well as partner influences. G2 adolescent girls’ externalizing behaviors mediated associations between high-conflict family environments in G1 and G2. In addition, G2 externalizing at older ages (20 and 26 years) did not contribute to the indirect effects linking the two generations. However, in a separate model, adult G2 externalizing symptoms of either the target G2 parent (followed since childhood) or their G2 partner were found to perpetuate family 453

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

conflict across generations. Thus, even though the childhood histories of G2 partners are not directly observed in most IG studies, the life course consequences of these experiences for the G2-G3 family of procreation may be evident. Substance use and depression are further individual risk mechanisms that may contribute to similarities in parenting across generations. With regard to the former, Bailey et al. (2013) tested three alternative hypotheses regarding the association of adult drug use disorder and poor parenting: First, that early adult substance use disrupts the transition to adulthood, resulting in poor adult functioning and parenting practices; second, that relatively stable individual characteristics predict both substance use and poor parenting; and, third, that experience of poor parenting during adolescence may predict both later substance use problems and poor parenting. Findings supported the second hypothesis, namely, that parent negative emotionality accounts for the association between early adult drug use disorder and poor parenting. Limited support was found for the disrupted transition to adulthood hypothesis, and the adolescent family process model was not supported. The findings suggest that the contextual factor of substance use may not be causal of IG associations in parenting, but rather an additional outcome of antisocial traits. However, further tests of such well-defined competing hypotheses regarding the origins of IG associations in parenting are needed. Regarding depression as an IG parenting transmission mechanism, associations in symptoms across three generations have been documented (Pettit, Olino, Roberts, Seeley, and Lewinsohn, 2008), and both mothers’ and fathers’ symptoms are associated with more negative and less positive parenting (Wilson and Durbin, 2010). In particular, parents’ capacities for warmth, responsiveness, and involvement may be undermined by depression, whereas irritability and withdrawal may be modeled as behavioral responses to conflict. Thus, there are good reasons to expect (although little research on whether) depression is a mechanism of IG parenting transmission. In one of the only prospective IG studies of this issue, Rothenberg, Hussong, et al. (2017) found that associations of G1-G2 family conflict with G2-G3 conflict were partially mediated by G2’s intervening depressive symptoms (and independent of the externalizing pathway they reported in Rothenberg et al., 2016). More specifically, G1-G2 family conflict predicted G2 depressive symptoms in adolescence and young adulthood that, in turn, predicted conflict in the G2-G3 family of procreation. In contrast, Pears and Capaldi (2001) found that G1 parents who recollected they had been abused and who had the highest levels of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) scores were less likely to be abusive toward G2 boys than were other G1 parents. The authors speculated that parents who are more affected by depression and PTSD may be more withdrawn and, therefore, less likely to repeat the behaviors their own parents had directed toward them. Taken together, these two studies raise the possibility that the mediating (or moderating) role of depression may depend on its developmental timing and severity. In models pertinent to both antisocial behavior and depression, Berlin, Appleyard, and Dodge (2011) reported that mothers’ reports of being physically abused in childhood were associated with increased risk to offspring of being maltreated (according to county records). The association from mothers’ abuse histories was not explained by their histories of neglect or controls for maternal ethnicity, education, age, and income. Instead, it was fully mediated by mothers’ aggressive responses to hypothetical vignettes about ambiguous/provocative interpersonal events. In a separate model, the association was partially mediated by mothers’ social isolation. Thus, Berlin and colleagues’ (2011) work suggested experiencing childhood physical abuse may put mothers at risk for seriously abusing their own children by contributing to mothers’ social isolation and a tendency toward hostile attributions and aggressive behavior in general. Finally, another process linking poor parenting across generations may be the cumulative contextual risks individuals bring to the family of procreation. For example, in a study of multiple potential mediators, Capaldi and colleagues (2008) found that G1 poor parenting of G2 fathers during late childhood was associated with a number of family risks to G3 development—including G2 parents’ premature transition to parenthood, low SES, and higher rates of antisocial and substance use 454

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

behaviors among G2 men and their partners. Some of these risks were associated with G2 fathers’ poor and harsh parenting during G3 early childhood but did not mediate the significant associations between G1 and G2 in these negative parenting behaviors. In summary, most studies are consistent with the pattern that negative parenting experiences in the family of origin contribute to the development of broad forms of behavioral and emotional maladjustment by adolescence and associated contextual risks into adulthood that, in turn, lead to the repetition of negative parenting in the family of formation. INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF POSITIVE PARENTING

A number of studies have documented G1-G2 stability in positive aspects of parenting and also examined the positive aspects of G2 development and adjustment that might help explain IG transmission (Chen and Kaplan, 2001; Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009; Shaffer et al., 2009). Specific forms of positive parenting such as warmth and monitoring have been examined separately (Bailey et al., 2009) or in the aggregate (Chen and Kaplan, 2001; Kovan et al., 2009). Additionally, some studies have modeled positive parenting separately from negative parenting (Bailey et al., 2009; Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009), and other studies have examined both aspects simultaneously (Belsky et al., 2005; Neppl et al., 2009). In an early prospective study of positive parenting, Chen and Kaplan (2001) found associations between seventh graders’ perceptions of being parented well (e.g., parental acceptance, consistent discipline) and their enactment of constructive parenting (e.g., monitoring, communication, affection, positive discipline) with their own children approximately 20 years later. Next, examining relationship-centered parenting constructs in a large Finnish sample, Savelieva, Pulkki-Råback, et al. (2017) found that G1 parents’ reports of warmth, enjoyment, and acceptance of their G2 children were associated with similar G2 reports 32 years later regarding G3. Shaffer and colleagues (2009) found IG associations in parenting quality, which included positive expressed emotion, closeness, consistent rules in G1 parenting of G2 adolescents, and parental involvement, efficacy, and competence in G2 parenting of G3. A potential limitation of the previous studies was the examination of parenting of G2 or G3 individuals whose ages ranged quite broadly (e.g., ages 1–31 years in Savelieva, Pulkki-Råback, et al., 2017). Bailey et al. (2009) narrowed this age range in their focus on the critical construct of parental monitoring and found significant IG associations. Still, however, whereas monitoring of G2 was measured at ages 13–14 years, their monitoring of G3 was measured at ages 6–14 years, a developmental span across which monitoring may have very different meanings and consequences (e.g., direct supervision of children at home versus tracking and awareness of teens’ associates and whereabouts). Other studies examined IG associations in aggregate measures of positive parenting of G2 and G3 at narrower child age ranges. First, Belsky and colleagues (Belsky et al., 2005; Belsky, Hancox, Sligo, and Poulton, 2012) were perhaps most developmentally specific when they examined influences on positive (warm-sensitive-stimulating) parenting by G2 parents toward their G3 3-year-olds. A number of G1 parenting behaviors when G2 children were in early childhood, middle childhood, and early adolescence were considered as predictors of G2 parenting during observed structured interactions with their G3 children. Accounting for G3 positive and negative behaviors, they found that G2 mothers’—but not fathers’—positive parenting was associated with similar parenting that they had received at different developmental periods in childhood. For example, lower G1 authoritarianism in early childhood, a more positive family climate in middle childhood, and stronger attachment in early adolescence each uniquely predicted G2 warm-sensitive-stimulating parenting. Second, despite a small sample size, Kovan et al. (2009) reported a robust association between G1 and G2 positive parenting when G2 and G3 were ages 24 months. They observed parenting including parental 455

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

support, structure, positivity, and low hostility during a challenging laboratory task. Of note, and in contrast to Belsky and colleagues’ (2012) work, G2 parenting of G3 was predicted by G1’s parenting of G2 in early childhood but not in G2’s early adolescence even at the univariate level. Third, Kerr, Capaldi, et al. (2009) found that interrelated forms of G1 “constructive” parenting—including consistent, confident, warm, involved parenting and monitoring—experienced by G2 boys at the ages of 9–12 years predicted their use of the developmentally analogous dimensions of parenting with G3 at ages 2–3 years and also at 5–7 years. Fourth, Neppl et al. (2009) examined IG associations in observed positive parenting behaviors (communication skills, active listening, and confident positivity) during structured parent—child interactions for G1 to G2 during adolescence and for G2 to G3 at preschool age. The IG association was significant, albeit low in magnitude. In contrast, Chassin, Presson, Todd, Rose, and Sherman (1998) found limited evidence of IG influences on positive parenting. G2 mothers’ (as adolescents) reports of G1 support were associated with G2 mothers’ consistent discipline according to self- and G3 children’s reports and, in adjusted models, to G2 mothers’ self-reported support with G3. Additionally, G1 strictness did not predict G2 support or consistent discipline. Overall, however, prospective studies using a variety of designs have generally supported IG associations in positive parenting. MEDIATORS OF POSITIVE PARENTING TRANSMISSION

With few exceptions (Raby, Lawler, et al., 2015; Savelieva, Pulkki-Råback, et al., 2017), IG associations in positive parenting have been found to be partially mediated by the intervening development of G2 education and social competence in adolescence (Chen and Kaplan, 2001; Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009; Neppl et al., 2009; Raby, Lawler, et al., 2015). Specifically, Chen and Kaplan (2001) found support for a model by which good parenting experiences in the family of origin predicted the enactment of constructive parenting in the family of procreation directly—perhaps via role-specific learning—as well as indirectly by engendering in early adulthood good interpersonal relationships with friends and family and engagement in conventional social institutions (e.g., education, professional, civic). Of note, positive adjustment pathways were not better explained by negative ones as young adult psychological disturbances did not mediate IG transfer of positive parenting. Kerr, Capaldi, et al. (2009) measured G1 positive parenting during late childhood for G2 and G2 parenting at two points in the early and middle childhood of G3. They found that the influence of G1 positive parenting on G2 fathers’ early parenting of G3 was largely explained by G2 positive adjustment during adolescence, including their academic skills, positive peer relationships, and self-esteem. This route to IG transmission also was independent of an adolescent problem behavior pathway. That is, although G1 positive parenting discouraged G2 antisocial behavior in adolescence, such G2 behaviors did not contribute to predictions of G2 men’s later positive parenting and did not mediate IG transfer of positive parenting. Thus, positive parenting promotes healthy adolescent adjustment, and it is these qualities—rather than simply the absence of behavior problems—that appear to be linked with positive parenting of the next generation. Another important finding from Kerr, Capaldi, et al. (2009) was that after accounting for effects of G1 positive parenting on G2 positive adolescent adjustment and parenting in early childhood for G3, G1 parenting had direct effects on G2 parenting during middle childhood for G3. Thus, parenting experiences in the family of origin may influence early parenting indirectly by setting the stage for adults’ successful launch into the parent role (e.g., education, interpersonal skill, self-efficacy), but then again during later phases of offspring development through additional mechanisms. In contrast to tests of broad positive adjustment mechanisms of IG transmission, several studies have considered more specific factors. Three of these concerned the formation of positive social relationships as a bridge between positive parenting in the families of origin and procreation. Chen,

456

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

Liu, and Kaplan (2008) highlighted G2 marital satisfaction as a mediating factor linking G2 constructive parenting experiences in early adolescence and enactment of similar behaviors during middle adulthood with G3. Next, Raby, Lawler, et al. (2015) found that G1 mothers’ observed sensitive parenting of G2 across ages 3–42 months predicted age-32-years reports by G2 of their positive parenting beliefs and behaviors with G3 (range of ages). They then found support for a developmental sequence by which social competence first with peers and then with romantic partners mediated these IG associations. Next, Shaffer et al. (2009) found that the G1 parenting quality experienced by G2 in adolescence predicted G2 parenting quality with G3 (across broad ages), in part by engendering greater G2 social competence in emerging adulthood. Thus, Shaffer and colleagues’ (2009) findings are consistent with the notion that G1 parenting quality improves the general interpersonal functioning of adolescents and emerging adults. These pathways may reflect social learning mechanisms: For example, parents model and reinforce prosocial and reciprocal relationships behaviors with their child in the home that generalize to other contexts (e.g., peer relationships), are elaborated across development and in intimate and other relationships (Chen et al., 2008; Raby, Lawler, et al., 2015), and eventually extend to parenting of the next generation. Another study specified education-related mediational processes, rather than aggregating education with other factors. Neppl et al. (2009) found that G2 adult academic attainment partially mediated IG stability in positive parenting, thus isolating education as an important social adjustment pathway through which the IG transfer of positive parenting may occur. Raby, Lawler, et al. (2015) did not present formal analyses of G2 educational attainment as a mediator of links between G1 maternal sensitivity and G2 positive parenting. However, the primary IG association and the indirect pathways via social competence with peers and partners remained significant when it was controlled, suggesting education was not a powerful mediator in this study. G2 personality factors also have been tested as mediators of IG associations in positive parenting. Shaffer and colleagues (2009) ruled out a mediation pathway involving “conduct and constraint” and the possibility that general rule following and conscientiousness, rather than social competence, might be the stronger explanation for IG stability in parenting quality. Shaffer and colleagues’ findings dovetail with Kerr and colleagues’ (2009) conclusion that an antisocial behavior pathway did not mediate G1-G2 positive parenting transmission. Savelieva, Pulkki-Råback, et al. (2017) also tested G2 character and temperamental traits as mechanisms by which positive parenting may be transferred across generations. They found that G2 character traits of self-directedness and cooperativeness mediated associations between G1 and G2 parents’ warmth toward their child, whereas G2 temperament traits (e.g., harm avoidance) did not. Many of the previous studies also tested whether G1-G2 associations in positive parenting might be explained by other factors that would suggest spurious rather than causal associations. However, the predictive path from G1 to G2 parenting of 2-year-olds reported by Kovan and colleagues (2009), for example, was not better explained by various controls, such as G1 and G2 IQ, life stress, and SES. Likewise, several IG studies have considered child characteristics as drivers rather than outcomes of parenting. For example, Belsky et al. (2005) controlled for the significant effects of G3 positive and negative behaviors on G2 positive parenting during structured tasks when examining effects from G1 parenting. In Neppl and colleagues’ (2009) study of G1-G2 positive parenting and mediation by G2 academic attainment, they controlled both for significant effects of adolescent G2 academic achievement on G1 parenting and of G3 positive behaviors on G2 parenting. Kerr, Capaldi, et al. (2009) did not find G3 early difficult temperament to predict later G2 parenting beyond stability from G1 to G2 parenting, whereas earlier G2 parenting did predict later G3 behavior. Similarly, Shaffer et al. (2009) found G1 parenting of G2 during emerging or early adulthood predicted G2 parenting of G3, and G1 parenting was not found to be driven by G2 social competence at earlier stages (i.e., adolescence or emerging adulthood).

457

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi ISSUE-SPECIFIC PARENTING

Few studies have considered parenting that pertains to a particular issue as opposed to general parenting styles. Chassin and colleagues (1998) examined G2 girls’ reports of G1’s general parenting practices (strictness and support) in relation to the G2 girls’ later smoking-specific parenting practices to deter their own G3 children’s smoking (e.g., use of induction/discussion or punishment). They found no direct effects, but there was indirect evidence for the transmission of smoking-specific parenting practices, as G2 adolescent girls who perceived G1 opposition to their smoking were more likely as mothers to discourage smoking by G3 through discussion and punishment. To date, there are few examples of issue-specific socialization from prospective IG studies. However, several studies have continued for long enough to now include sizeable G3 cohorts of adolescents, and current funding sources for these projects prioritize understanding of drug abuse and sexual health risks (Bailey et al., 2016; Capaldi et al., 2017). Thus, the IG literature on parenting behaviors related to substance use and sexual health is expected to grow. This concludes the review of the first set of critical issues in IG research, namely, that there is consistent evidence from multiple prospective IG studies for modest stability between the positive and negative parenting individuals experienced in childhood and those similar behaviors they enact with their own children. The transmission of harsh, abusive, and otherwise negative parenting is partially explained by significant behavioral and emotional maladjustment including delinquent behavior and depressive symptoms during adolescence; this maladjustment is likely to put the individual at risk for premature transition to parenthood, selection of a compromised partner, and the perpetuation of problematic interpersonal behaviors (e.g., coercive processes) that generalize to relationships with intimate partners, coparents, and children. In contrast to and largely independent of the problem behavior pathways, positive parenting also shows modest stability across generations. These linkages, in contrast, are partially explained by the tendency of positive parenting to engender educational involvement and success, social competence and positive relationships, and a sense of self-efficacy that, in turn, support successful transition to adulthood, family formation, and the challenging job of parenting.

Instability or Moderation of Intergenerational Transmission A second central issue in descriptive research on the IG transmission of parenting concerns the characteristics, contexts, or other conditions under which transfer is consistent, stronger, weaker, absent, or even reversed; that is, what are the moderators of IG parenting transmission? As noted earlier, IG associations in parenting have been modest—perhaps surprisingly so, given the prevailing popular view that the question of similarity in parenting across generations is a foregone conclusion. This observation led to both speculation that IG associations may be stronger for some people and circumstances than for others and a hope that identification of such moderating factors could inform health promotion and problem prevention. In the following section, we identify domains of moderation that have been studied most often. As shown in Panel B of Figure 13.3, these factors may be characteristics of family members or contexts in any of the three generations (e.g., G1 gender; G3 temperament). More difficult to depict is that some factors could involve additive or synergistic qualities of multiple people; for example, interactions involving both G2 and G3 gender. Readers may notice that some factors that were examined as mediators in the studies reviewed previously have also been considered as moderators. For example, Chen and colleagues (2008) examined whether G1 positive parenting leads to G2 similar behaviors, in part by enhancing the likelihood of adult marital satisfaction (mediation), whereas Thornberry, Henry, Smith, and Ireland (2013) posited that the association between a child victimization history and the later perpetration of child maltreatment may be disrupted for those with a satisfying intimate relationship (moderation). These distinctions stem from different theoretical models and may have different implications. 458

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting MODERATION BY G3 CHARACTERISTICS AND G2-G3 PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP FACTORS

Consistent with gene-environment interaction models, children’s early behaviors may provoke certain reactions in parents (Ganiban et al., 2011). The IG parenting literature builds on this idea by suggesting child behavioral difficulties may activate poor parenting based on extant learning histories from childhood, rather than provoking such behaviors de novo. Consistent with this view, Scaramella and Conger (2003) found G1-G2 stability in hostile parenting behaviors when G3 were more emotionally reactive and negative but not when they were less so. Given that G1 hostile parenting was not associated with G3 reactivity, these findings are convincing regarding the potential importance of child characteristics in perpetuating or severing IG links in poor parenting. One might speculate that child characteristics interfere with the development of a secure attachment that otherwise protects parents from repeating negative parenting tactics learned in childhood. Thornberry and colleagues (2013) found that among G2 participants maltreated as children or adolescents, G2’s attachment to G3 and satisfaction with the parenting role protected against G2 maltreatment perpetration. However, attachment and satisfaction did not break the cycle of maltreatment, as these factors did not moderate the association between maltreatment victimization and later perpetration. MODERATION BY G2 PARTNER OR COPARENT BEHAVIORS AND QUALITIES

In addition to research suggesting G2 parenting is associated with that of their partners’ parenting and antisocial behavior (Capaldi et al., 2008), partner behaviors and qualities appear to moderate IG stability in parenting. In a meta-analysis of five studies using retro- and prospective designs, Schofield, Lee, and Merrick (2013) found not only IG associations in child maltreatment risk, but also a critical factor that could break the link—a safe, stable, nurturing relationship in the lives of G2. Such relationships, which included, but were not limited to, support from an intimate partner, generally reduced the association between G2 experience and perpetration of maltreatment. For example, Conger, Schofield, Neppl, and Merrick (2013) found that IG stability in G2 harsh parenting was moderated by their spouse’s relationship with them. In contrast, among G2 adults who had a substantiated record of maltreatment in childhood or adolescence, better intimate partner relationship satisfaction decreased the likelihood of perpetration but—unlike Conger and colleagues’ (2013) study—did not moderate between prior experience of victimization and later perpetration (Thornberry et al., 2013). Regarding positive parenting, Bouchard (2012) found that G2 men’s marital status strengthened IG stability between the G1 physical affection they recalled receiving and their own parental engagement with G3. Apart from relationship factors, characteristics of G2 partners or coparents have been found to attenuate IG parenting stability. Rothenberg and colleagues (2016; Rothenberg, Hussong, et al., 2017) considered partners’ problems when testing G2 externalizing behaviors and depressive symptoms as mechanisms linking conflict in the families of origin and procreation. They found that family conflict was perpetuated across generations if either the focal G2 parent (initial target followed since childhood) or their G2 partner had significant externalizing symptoms (Rothenberg et al., 2016). In contrast, they did not find that IG stability in family conflict was contingent on partners’ depressive symptoms (Rothenberg, Hussong, et al., 2017). G2 spouse’s observed relationship quality, warmth, and positivity with the G3 child also has been found to moderate IG stability in G1-G2 harsh parenting (Conger et al., 2012). Specifically, high levels of these G2 partner parenting behaviors reduced the IG association, indicating an ameliorating effect of positive parenting by the partner on IG transmission of conflict or harsh parenting. Taken together, being in a partnership is associated with the amelioration or instability of negative parenting across generations particularly if the partnership is satisfying, the partner provides warmth to the coparent, and the child and is not behaviorally maladjusted. In terms of preventive 459

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

implications, resources directed at enhancing parents’ intimate relationships may have multiple positive and protective effects, such as directly influencing positive parenting, thus enhancing its IG stability and interfering with the re-enactment of negative tactics learned in the family of origin. Additionally, positively altering the life course of adolescents has the potential to improve their future functioning as parents, their partner’s functioning as a parent even if they were mistreated and, ultimately, their offspring’s adjustment. MODERATION BY G2 PARENTS’ AGE

Older G2 age may confer a greater capacity for self-reflection, psychological maturity, and readiness to assume adult roles (e.g., putting children’s needs ahead of one’s own, value of generativity; Dollahite and Hawkins, 1998) that may disrupt IG stability in negative parenting. However, older age also may be confounded with contextual advantages that come from delaying childbearing in favor of educational and professional investment. Relatedly, younger G2 age may reflect a premature transition to parenthood, which is confounded with antisocial behavior and related contextual risks (Pears, Pierce, Kim, Capaldi, and Owen, 2005) that may impact parenting. For example, important differences were reported between adolescent mothers and adult mothers (i.e., different families) on infant and dyadic attachment characteristics (Bailey, Tarabulsy, Moran, Pederson, and Bento, 2017). Specifically, most (61%) adolescent mother-infant dyads included unresolved maternal trauma, insensitive interactive behavior, and disorganized infant attachment, whereas most (59%) adult mother-infant dyads were characterized by maternal autonomy and sensitive behavior and secure infant attachment. The authors concluded that maternal age is an important influence on the perpetuation of maladaptive attachment patterns across generations. Regarding fathers, Capaldi and colleagues (2003) did not examine age at first fatherhood as a moderator of IG stability in poor parenting via G2 adolescents’ antisocial behavior, yet noted that G2 men who had become fathers at a younger age had higher levels of antisocial behavior than other G2 participants. Thus, G2 parents’ age must be carefully conceptualized and modeled using proper controls to guard against spurious effects. At least three IG parenting studies have directly examined moderation by G2 age. Belsky et al. (2012) did not find G2 age to moderate IG associations in positive parenting, but recommended it be examined as a moderator in other prospective studies. In Shaffer and colleagues’ (2009) study, G2 parents who were older when G3 were born had experienced higher quality G1 parenting in adolescence, had higher social competence in emerging adulthood, and later enacted higher quality parenting with G3 relative to younger G2 parents. Still, the mediating pathways (of G1-G2 parenting associations via G2 social competence) remained similar regardless of G2 age at the birth of G3. Finally, Raby, Lawler, et al. (2015) did not find G2 age at the birth of their first child to moderate a mediational model involving the IG transmission of positive parenting through the formation of social competence with peers and romantic partners. MODERATION BY G2 PARENTING BELIEFS, COPING, AND SELF-CONTROL

Several studies have examined whether IG stability in parenting depends on parents’ characteristics in adulthood. Reporting null findings, Schofield, Conger, and Conger (2017) did not find G2 beliefs about parenting, problem-solving, and active coping to moderate stability in harsh parenting. Also, Savelieva, Pulkki-Råback, et al. (2017) did not find G2 character or temperament traits—such as persistence, harm avoidance, novelty seeking, cooperativeness—to moderate associations between G1 and G2 warmth and acceptance toward their offspring. Other studies have supported such moderation, however. Schofield, Conger, and Neppl (2014) found G1 mothers’ positive parenting (observed warmth, positive assertiveness, and prosocial behavior during a discussion task) of G2 in early adolescence predicted G2 parenting (parallel constructs 460

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

observed during a puzzle task) of G3 in early childhood. Furthermore, the association was weaker and nonsignificant for G2 parents with stronger parenting beliefs or higher levels of active coping and was larger for G2 parents low on such factors. The authors reasoned that stronger beliefs about the efficacy and importance of parenting for shaping child development may substantially influence whether parents emulate the parenting they experienced in childhood. Furthermore, they concluded that parents who were better able to cope with stress and negative affect would be more likely than others to continue to enact strategic and reasoned parenting in trying times rather than reactive or harsh parenting strategies. The authors also offered an alternative interpretation that positive parenting experiences can “make up for” weaker beliefs about the importance of parenting or reduced coping abilities, such that parenting experiences moderate associations between personal beliefs/ capacities and positive parenting. In a subsequent study with a similar premise but a focus on negative parenting, Schofield et al. (2017) examined moderators of the associations G1 maternal harsh parenting (including observed criticism, rejection, hostility, physical attack) during G2 late adolescence had with G2 tendencies to engage in similarly deleterious behavior with G3 in early childhood, including analogous harshness observed during a puzzle task. The authors found that stability in harsh parenting was substantially weakened for G2 who 1) had more self-control in adolescence (parent reported) and who, in adulthood, had a partner who 2) communicated with her or him more positively and 3) had a warmer relationship with G3. Their innovative follow-up analysis identified the simultaneous effect for parents with high levels of all three protective factors. The authors discovered not just instability but a reversal of the association between G1 and G2 harsh parenting; that is, a negative correlation. Taken together, these two studies have clear prevention implications as they identify modifiable individual and relationship characteristics that may permit parents to make productive use of the positive parenting abilities they acquired in childhood and to shed destructive ones. MODERATION BY PARENTS’ CHILDHOOD HISTORIES

Rothenberg, Solis, Hussong, and Chassin (2017) found that family conflict in G2 adults’ families of procreation may be especially deleterious to adult and G3 child functioning if G2 experienced conflict in the family of origin. They speculated that in such cases, G2 adults may not be able to turn to G1 for support in managing current conflict. G1 parents may have never modeled adaptive coping or may exacerbate G2-G3 struggles by continuing to engage in high-conflict behaviors themselves (i.e., as grandparents in the present). The study by Kerr, Capaldi, et al. (2009) may provide the flip side of this finding for family conflict by showing that G1 parenting may contribute to G2 parenting success initially and be a source of continued support. Specifically, G1 constructive parenting had unique impacts on G2 parenting beyond many other salient proximal influences, including beyond the stability in G2 parenting from early to middle childhood. The authors surmised that these findings could reflect prior learning and positive life course outcomes that support constructive parenting and also continued support from G1 (i.e., as a grandparent). Indeed, a different study found that G1-G2 relationship quality in adolescence predicts G1 supportive involvement as a grandparent in the family life of G3 (assistance in rearing G3 and frequency of contact with G2; Barnett, Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, and Conger, 2010). Pears and Capaldi (2001) found evidence for three kinds of moderation of associations between G1 parents’ and G2 men’s recollected childhood abuse histories. First, G1 parents who had been seriously abused and exhibited poor discipline were more likely to be abusive toward G2 than those who were not seriously abused or did not show poor discipline. The authors suggested that being abusive may be indicative of being an especially unskilled and ineffective parent (Burgess and Youngblade, 1988; Greenwald, Bank, Reid, and Knutson, 1997; Knutson and Bower, 1994; Zaidi, Knutson, and Mehm, 1989). Furthermore, Pears and Capaldi argued that the stress and frustration of parenting may 461

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

be especially likely to culminate in maltreatment of the next generation if a parent has both weak discipline skills and a childhood history of maltreatment. Second, G1 parents who had been abused and who had the highest levels of depression and PTSD scores actually were less likely to maltreat G2 boys than were other G1 parents (G2 girls were not studied in this sample). The authors speculated that parents who are more affected by depression and PTSD may be more withdrawn and, therefore, less likely to repeat the confrontational negative behaviors their own parents had directed toward them. Third, the severity of parents’ histories of maltreatment appeared to moderate the association. Specifically, only the most severely physically maltreated G1 parents showed greater maltreatment of G2; less severely maltreated G1 parents did not differ from one another or from non-maltreated G1 parents in their physical maltreatment of G2. ETHNIC GROUP MODERATION

Few studies have examined ethnicity as a moderator of IG associations, even though parenting beliefs, practices, and styles differ across countries and cultures, and the need to develop and test cultural adaptations of parenting interventions is recognized (Baumann et al., 2015; Lansford and Deater-Deckard, 2012). Shaffer et al. (2009) found that IG associations in parenting quality were invariant across G2 ethnic minority status. Rothenberg et al. (2016) included only families with a Latino or European American G1 parent and did not find group differences in family conflict, but did not compare the groups on the IG pathways. As cultural homogeneity is an important limitation of several IG studies’ samples (Capaldi et al., 2017; Scaramella and Conger, 2003; Savelieva, PulkkiRåback et al., 2017), considering ethnic differences in parenting transmission is a promising direction for cross-study collaborations. DIFFERENCES IN IG STABILITY BY G2 AND G3 DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE

Although IG associations between G1 and G2 parenting certainly depend on G3 age, this idea has rarely been explicitly evaluated. Logically, some parenting behaviors simply cannot be manifest until children are old enough to elicit or require them. For example, monitoring of children’s whereabouts and peer associates is centrally important to protect against antisocial behavior and associated healthrisking behaviors (substance abuse and unprotected sex) in adolescence, but is not a relevant parenting construct until children are old enough to have a degree of agency and independence. Thus, researchers cannot begin to observe whether G1 parenting is associated with such G2 monitoring until perhaps late childhood for G3. The influences of G1 parenting behaviors on G2 parenting also may be evident at different times in G3 development because they occurred for G2 through different formative and learning pathways. For example, some parental influences on G2 parenting with G3 may have begun when G1-G2 formed a strong attachment in infancy, whereas others are explained because G1 modeled or communicated beliefs about good parenting during G2’s early adolescence. Another perspective on this issue is that adults develop and adapt in the parental role in parallel with their children’s development (see Bornstein, 2015). As children mature, their developmental tasks and struggles present new challenges to the skills and relational capacities of parents for which their own family of origin experiences may or may not have prepared them. Methodologically, we might expect models to reveal whether G1 parenting behaviors that occurred in different G2 developmental stages were equally predictive of G2 parenting of G3. Belsky and colleagues (2005, 2012) found effects of parenting experiences during multiple periods of G2 girls’ development (e.g., lower G1 authoritarianism in early childhood, positive family climate in middle childhood, stronger attachment in early adolescence) on G2 mothers’ positive parenting of G3. Some aspects of G1 parenting may show IG stability only from G1 to G2, if G2 experienced 462

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

them within a particular developmental window. For example, Thornberry and Henry (2013) found that IG associations between G2 maltreatment victimization and later perpetration (again, including not just the extremes of harsh or disengaged parenting but also sexual abuse) only held for G2 maltreatment experiences that occurred in adolescence (age 12 years and older) and not when these experiences were limited to childhood. In contrast, Kovan et al. (2009) found that G2 parenting of G3 was predicted by G1’s parenting of G2 in early childhood but not in early adolescence even at the univariate level. Shaffer et al. (2009) examined G1 parenting into far later stages of G2 development than is typical, including emerging adulthood and early adulthood. Although they did not test the unique effects of parenting experienced at these different stages on G2 parenting, their models appeared more consistent with stability in G1 parenting quality from childhood and had a cumulative positive influence on G2 as they matured, which culminated in G2’s parenting quality with G3. Consistent with the notion that G2 parenting experiences come to bear at different times in G3 development would be models of whether G1 parenting behaviors predict G2 parenting both earlier in G3 development and again later in development, independent of stability in G2 parenting over time. This is one interpretation for Kerr and colleagues’ (2009) finding that G1 constructive parenting of G2 at ages 9–12 years uniquely predicted G2 parenting of G3 at ages 5–7 years after accounting for prediction to G2 parenting at ages 2–3 years. Of note, G1 influences on G2 positive parenting of G3 at ages 2–3 years were explained by G2 positive adjustment in adolescence, whereas the G1 associations with G2 parenting at later ages (when G3 were ages 5–7 years) were not. In general, further understanding is needed of how IG stability in parenting depends on the developmental timing of G2 experiences and the developmental stage of G3. These questions of developmental moderation of IG transmission require further study, as the answers may be informative regarding the optimal timing of prevention and promotion efforts. SUMMARY OF MODERATING INFLUENCES

It is encouraging that a number of IG studies have identified moderating influences on IG transmission of parenting. However, considerably more work needs to be done in this area to understand such influences adequately. Also notable is that although several studies have identified factors that attenuate IG transmission, only one research group (Schofield et al., 2017) of which we are aware has actually demonstrated reversals of IG stability—that is, circumstances under which parents who experienced relatively higher levels of harsh parenting in childhood actually enact relatively lower harsh parenting with their own children. The theoretical models reviewed earlier and by Schofield et al. (2017) may guide further discovery of the mechanisms for such reversals.

Intergenerational Stability in Parenting for Mothers and Fathers A third central issue in IG parenting transmission theory and research concerns differences between mothers and fathers in the processes described earlier (associations, mechanisms, and attenuating factors). It should be acknowledged that there is a diverse array of parenting and coparenting arrangements (e.g., parent and grandparent, single parent, same-sex coparents) that unfortunately have not been examined in prospective IG studies. Overall, despite some historical change, mothers and fathers often show different levels of involvement and of specific parenting behaviors. For example, mothers usually take a larger share of daily care than do fathers (Raley, Bianchi, and Wang, 2012). Men and women may view mothers as the parenting experts in families and consider fathers’ parenting role to be primarily a supportive one (Patterson, 1980). This set of beliefs and modeled behaviors that reflect parental gender roles may influence the gender socialization of children. Relatedly, fathers’ parenting also may be more sensitive to the opinions and behaviors of partners compared with mothers’ parenting (Simons, Beaman, 463

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

Conger, and Chao, 1993). Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Melby (1990) reported that mothers’ beliefs about the impact of parenting were associated with fathers’ parenting behaviors, whereas his beliefs did not relate to her parenting. Capaldi et al. (2008) found that G2 mothers’ poor and harsh discipline practices directly affected those of the father. Thus, if fathers’ parenting is more open to influence than that of mothers, it may be less likely to show IG stability. In addition, there are clear gender differences in the rates of behavioral and emotional problems. For example, beginning in adolescence, women show higher levels of depressive symptoms than men (Dekker et al., 2007) and men show higher levels of antisocial behavior than women (Eaton et al., 2012). As already discussed, these problems and symptoms are important mechanisms of IG parenting transmission in adolescence and may moderate transmission in adulthood. As mothers more often play a primary role in caregiving than fathers (Raley et al., 2012), their problem behaviors such as depression and substance use during their child’s development may have a larger impact on their parenting and their children’s risk behaviors than that of fathers (Capaldi, Tiberio, Kerr, and Pears, 2016). Conversely, given the negative life course consequences of early delinquency and substance use (Thornberry, Krohn, and Freeman-Gallant, 2006) and boys’ higher rates of such behaviors (Baillargeon et al., 2007; Casper, Belanolf, and Offer, 1996; Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, and Schulenberg, 2014; Keenan and Shaw, 1997; Loeber and Hay, 1994), fathers’ problem behavior during their own adolescence may contribute more to poor parenting and family risk than that of mothers. Attachment researchers also have indicated that the role of fathers needs to be better ­understood— including the weaker association between their attachment representation in adulthood and their children’s attachment, and how attachment experiences with multiple people (e.g., mother and father) are integrated in a “uniform attachment representation” (van IJzendoorn, 1995). Given the number of individuals potentially involved in prospective IG studies (e.g., G1 and G2 mothers and fathers, and G3 sons and daughters), there is a rather dizzying array of gender-related research questions that could be asked. For example, are some aspects of G2 fathers’ parenting of their sons (such as involvement) more influenced by G1 fathers’ parenting of them, whereas other aspects (such as warmth) are more influenced by G2 partners’ behaviors? To date, however, most research on IG parenting transmission and its mechanisms concerns moderation by G2 parent gender and ignores gender in G1 and G3, often due to sampling constraints or statistical power. Despite some convincing theoretical reasons to expect G2 parent gender differences in the extent of IG parenting transmission, findings on the presence or extent of such differences have been mixed. For example, model invariance or lack of moderation by G2 gender has been reported for parenting quality (Shaffer et al., 2009), observed angry and aggressive parenting (Conger et al., 2012), and positive parenting (Raby, Lawler, et al., 2015). However, other studies support that IG transmission of diverse forms of parenting is contingent on G2 gender—and primarily find stronger effects for mothers. Specifically, Belsky et al. (2009, 2012) found evidence for IG parenting stability in warmsensitive-stimulating parenting only for G2 mothers, not fathers. Likewise, Thornberry et al. (2003) reported that G1 emotional closeness and consistent discipline of G2 was only likely to be repeated with G3 for G2 mothers, not fathers. In terms of negative parenting, Rothenberg et al. (2016) found associations between G1-G2 and G2-G3 high-conflict family environments (which probably include parent-child conflict, although measures did not isolate this feature), but only for G2 women. Not all studies indicate IG transfer is specific to mothers, however. Savelieva, Keltikangas-Järvinen, et al. (2017) reported stronger transmission of G1 mothers’ to G2 parents’ warmth toward their child for G2 fathers than for G2 mothers. Furthermore, IG associations in harsh and positive parenting have been supported for G2 fathers in OYS-3GS (Capaldi et al., 2003, 2008; Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009). There also is no consensus on whether the mechanisms of IG parenting transmission differ for mother and fathers. Thornberry et al. (2003) speculated that IG stability in parenting occurs directly for women but occur because of (or are mediated by) delinquency in men. However, OYS-3GS findings for constructive parenting (Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009) did not support this pattern for 464

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

fathers; rather, there was a direct transmission of constructive parenting and no significant additive or mediating effect from adolescent antisocial behavior. Reports by Rothenberg and colleagues (2016; Rothenberg, Hussong, et al., 2017) are seemingly at odds with both studies. That is, in contrast to Thornberry’s prediction, G2 mothers’ externalizing symptoms in adolescence—and, in another paper, their depressive symptoms in adolescence through young adulthood—mediated IG stability in family conflict; and in contrast to OYS-3GS findings, Rothenberg found no significant stability for G2 fathers. Finally, in the Raby, Lawler, et al. (2015) study of positive parenting, there were not G2 gender differences in the mediating links involving social competence with peers and romantic partners. Overall, the apparent contradictions in this literature likely reflect methodological differences (different outcomes, measures, and developmental timing) rather than inconsistent findings. Replications will be especially valuable.

Classical and Modern Research on Intergenerational Parenting Transmission Classical research on IG parenting issues was very limited, mainly focusing on IG associations in maltreatment, and primarily via retrospective reports or prospectively via court records (Widom, 1989). In this section, a number of design characteristics are discussed that are either required or desirable to meet fully contemporary criteria of an IG study (see also Thornberry, 2016; Thornberry et al., 2012).

Strengths and Characteristics of Contemporary IG Studies Rigorous IG parenting studies share a number of design features. In particular, they require strong measurement of parent behavior (in both G1 and G2) toward the child by parents who have some meaningful contact with them (unless only genetic main effects are of interest). Strong IG parenting studies also require a prospective design for G2 (since childhood and/or adolescence) and G3, and reports from different agents in the two generations. The first criterion is that measurement of parenting behavior should be sensitive to a number of key considerations, including the parenting behavior of interest (e.g., warmth and support versus maltreatment) and the child’s developmental stage—both throughout G2’s and G3’s assessment. Ideally, measures of parenting that do not also tap other constructs will permit stronger conclusions. For example, family conflict may include harsh parenting of a child but also a number of dimensions including interparental conflict or children’s irritability, rather than parenting per se. Measures also need to change with child age to be developmentally appropriate and relevant. For example, parental warmth may be assessed by observations of parental behavior during a play task or a simple learning task in early childhood, but could include child reports of parental warmth during adolescence. Ideally, measures selected will allow for testing alternative hypotheses regarding direct, mediated, and moderated transmission. As is true for other longitudinal work, multi-method (e.g., direct observation, parent report) and multi-agent (e.g., parent, child, peer, teacher) assessments (Patterson and Bank, 1986) enhance validity and permit IG and mediator analyses that rule out some methodological confounds. Achieving and maintaining this methodological rigor is challenging while keeping assessments manageable for the participants. The second criterion is having prospective rather than retrospective measurement of parenting. Having parents report on their recent behavior, rather than the parenting they enacted (for G1) or experienced (for G2) 10–20 years ago, will minimize a number of errors related to memory and bias. For example, G1 recollections of how they parented G2 in childhood may be tainted by G2 antisocial behavior in adulthood (Hardt and Rutter, 2004; e.g., “I was too permissive with him.”). Likewise, G2 parents’ current depression may contribute to selective recall of negative and unsupportive parenting they received from G1. As such, prospective measurement of parenting, as well as 465

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

of antecedent factors (e.g., G1 SES) that rule out spurious IG associations, allows greater confidence with regard to the temporal ordering of G1 predictors and G2 outcomes and can address mediators and moderators (e.g., G2 education) that illuminate mechanisms and conditions of transmission. This confidence, in turn, permits researchers to make inferences about temporal sequences of events, a condition of causation. The third desirable design feature for IG studies of parenting is the use of different agents or methods to report on parenting in each generation. This approach prevents informant bias from inflating IG associations in parenting. For example, a correlation would be overestimated if ongoing depressive symptoms negatively biased both G2 boys’ self-reported parenting experiences and in adulthood their reports of their own parenting of G3. IG researchers use many approaches to minimize this problem. For example, in Capaldi et al. (2003), G1’s reported harsh parenting of G2 was examined in relation to G2’s reports of similar parenting with G3; Chassin and colleagues (1998) tested G2 adolescents’ reports of G1 parenting in relation to G3 children’s reports of G2 parenting; and in Shofield et al. (2014), observers rated G1 parenting on a puzzle task with G2 youth and then different observers rated G2 adults’ parenting with G3 youth on an analogous task. Another research group (Berlin et al., 2011) related G2 mothers’ retrospective reports of being physically abused or neglected by G1 parents to county records of alleged or substantiated neglect or abuse of G3. Given that the perpetrator was unknown, the researchers noted that they could only infer IG stability in the likelihood of childhood maltreatment, rather than parental transmission. It might appear that examining official records of maltreatment might be a strong and unbiased approach for testing stability in the most severe forms of harsh or disengaged parenting. However, Widom et al. (2015) raised the issue that a “surveillance or detection bias” may impact parents if their own childhood maltreatment histories were reported and documented, thus inflating such IG associations. Incidentally, whereas multi-method and multi-informant measurement designs are advantageous for most studies, there are special advantages to incorporating reports by other G3 caregivers in studies of IG parenting (Thornberry, 2016). In addition to the use of other caregivers’ reports to avoid informant bias, other parents or caregivers of G3 may contribute to genetically informed analyses, are important concurrent influences on G2 parents, and, as corroborated by Schofield et al. (2013), are a likely source of IG resilience. Although not necessary for testing IG associations in parenting, other methodological characteristics are valuable for answering critical questions in this field or opening up fruitful directions for inquiry. Some or all of these characteristics are shared by most IG studies that meet the previous criteria. First, studies that measure the same parenting constructs in each generation and use the same measures to do so will more accurately estimate some IG associations. Using different methods or measures with each generation can indicate an association that is robust to different measurement but also can complicate interpretation—for example, Berlin and colleagues (2011) found associations between mothers’ and children’s maltreatment experiences but noted that they risked “comparing apples to oranges,” given their measurement of severe parental discipline and abuse in one generation versus maltreatment or suspicion significant enough to trigger a report to child welfare in the other, and use of different methods (self-report versus official records; adult retrospection versus contemporaneous documentation). Relatedly, using different measures of parenting in each generation may permit testing of IG stability (correlation; similarity in rank ordering) but may preclude examination of continuity (i.e., means, counts, or other indices may not be comparable). Second, estimates of stability and continuity are enhanced if parenting is measured at the same points in development for G2 and G3 (Conger et al., 2009), because genetic expression and social context differ by children’s developmental stage as do the demands of parenting and the relevance of certain features of parenting to child adjustment (e.g., warmth with an infant; monitoring with an adolescent). In many studies, the G3 were not yet old enough to have reached the age G2 was at the 466

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

parenting assessment (Kerr, Capaldi, et al., 2009), and in other studies G3 offspring were recruited and assessed according to calendar year rather than age, resulting in wide variability in G3 age at a given assessment (Shaffer et al., 2009). A third valuable methodological feature of IG studies is repeated measurements of parenting over the development of G2 and G3. Having such data permits tests of critical issues such as whether IG associations in parenting generalize beyond specific developmental periods, tests of developmentally sensitive moderators (e.g., G3 toddlers’ inhibitory control) or mediators, and examination of bidirectional parent-child effects over time. Fourth, following multiple G3 children can be advantageous in terms of generalizability and capacity to examine differential associations across generations related to child and contextual characteristics. A problem with including only firstborn children is that they may differ in important ways from later born children (Fergusson, Horwood, and Boden, 2006), and thus may not be representative of the third generation. Additionally, among parents with multiple children, a significant proportion are by different partners—on the basis of estimates of Americans in their 40s, approximately 23% of fathers and 28% of mothers have offspring with different partners (Guzzo, 2014)—and this is more common among more disadvantaged parents (e.g., more often unintended pregnancies by younger, unmarried parents). Thus, including such families will contribute to representativeness. Finally, an incidental advantage of studies that began by following a cohort that included boys and then recruited their offspring is that such samples have greater father participation than is typical in the field (Phares, Fields, Kamboukos, and Lopez, 2005), perhaps particularly among fathers who are less involved in their children’s lives and who have children with multiple partners. Thornberry (2016) noted that there is a tradeoff to investing resources in retaining uninvolved parents (who are more often fathers), as they do not contribute to parenting measures and are dropped from most analyses. However, including uninvolved parents permits analysis of parent-child contact as a moderator of IG effects. In some cases, an involved coparent may be a critical source of support or an alternative parenting model (Schofield et al., 2017). In other cases, such as with highly antisocial fathers ( Jaffee, Moffitt, Caspi, and Taylor, 2003), their absence may be beneficial, although the benefits could vary by child and father age. For example, absence may be beneficial in early childhood if fathers are still involved in higher levels of substance use and criminal activity. However, their presence could be advantageous during G3 adolescence, when fathers’ problem behaviors are more likely to have desisted and they may become instrumental in parenting and family financial support. Such questions remain to be tested.

Limitations and Challenges of Intergenerational Studies Although IG studies have great potential for unbiased testing of questions of stability and continuity in parenting, there also are a number of design and inferential challenges. An overarching challenge noted by Thornberry (2016) is that most IG studies began as longitudinal studies that were innovative for their time, but may have involved a set of design decisions that may not be optimal for addressing current questions. Several limitations are discussed, using the OYS-3GS study as an example when appropriate. To that end, the study’s design is summarized next. The Three-Generational Study (3GS) originated from the Oregon Youth Study (OYS) of G2 boys (n = 206, or 74% of those eligible) recruited in 1983–1985 at ages 9–10 years from entire fourth grade classes in school districts with higher than average delinquency rates in a midsized Pacific Northwestern metropolitan area (Capaldi and Patterson, 1989). Families were representative of the area at the time; boys were primarily European American (90%) and families generally had low SES (e.g., median annual income of $15,000; Hollingshead, 1975). G2 boys were followed to middle adulthood with retention rates (excluding five who have died) of 89% or higher at each assessment from age 9 to 40 years. The ongoing 3GS began with recruitment of the OYS men’s G3 467

David C. R. Kerr and Deborah M. Capaldi

children and the children’s G2 mothers. Originally, all G3 biological and stepchildren were eligible for the study, but due to budget limitations, recruitment was limited to the first two biological G3 children per G2 partner of G2 fathers (thus, some G2 fathers have multiple G3 children born to different G2 mothers). G2 fathers’ and mothers’ mean age at the birth of their first biological child was 23.9 and 22.6 years, respectively. Most (93%) G3 who were eligible enrolled; nonparticipants were primarily children with whom the G2 father had no contact and could not locate. Sample retention is strong (90% of invited G3 on 3GS); the 22 children who no longer participate were adopted out of the family or cannot be located due to moving, parent study withdrawal, or parent death. Data have been collected from 305 biological offspring (and 27 stepchildren) of G2 OYS men to date, and retrospective data were collected on G2 mothers’ families of origin. The G3 sample is 74% European American, and