1

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & McFadden, K. E. (In Press). Fathers from low-income

backgrounds: Myths and evidence. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The Role of the Father in

Child Development (5th

Edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Fathers from Low-Income Backgrounds: Myths and Evidence

This chapter is focused on the experiences of low-income fathers who, like all

fathers, experience the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood, yet do so within contexts

of significant challenge and constraint. Because low-income fathers by definition live

near or below poverty thresholds, they struggle to provide their children with necessary

resources (such as housing, food, clothing, medical coverage). They typically reside in

under-resourced neighborhoods with high rates of concentrated poverty and few

education and employment opportunities. They are at best stably employed in low-wage

work, or at worst unemployed, with many experiencing inconsistent employment without

benefits. Many have not attained a high school diploma, and few have attended any

college; thus, their prospects for future employment remain bleak. Over time, these

challenges take a toll on both father-child and mother-father relationships: low-income

fathers are less likely to be formally identified as a child‟s father, less likely to be married

to the mother of their children, and less likely to reside with their children than men from

more resourced households.

Nonetheless, these broad-sweeping statistics tend to mask the true heterogeneity

of men who are otherwise grouped together as “low income”. In the United States, low-

income fathers live in both urban and rural communities; they are from Black, White,

2

Asian, Latino, Native American, and mixed ethnic and racial backgrounds; they are

immigrant and native born; they are younger and older; some reside with their children

and others do not; and they vary substantially in the extent to which they are involved in

their children‟s lives and how they express that involvement. In short, the diversity that

characterizes low-income fathers mirrors that of U.S. fathers more generally.

However in contrast to these similarities, the majority of popular narratives

surrounding low-income fathers rarely highlight this heterogeneity. A main reason for

this limitation is due to the challenges of studying low-income fathers (especially non-

resident fathers), who are difficult to recruit into large scale research studies and thus

least likely to be represented in research findings (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999;

McAdoo, 1993). Thus, knowledge about low-income fathers lags behind research on

fathers more generally, and has often led to “filling in the blanks” about the

characteristics, behaviors, and influences of these men. Consequently, portrayals of low-

income fathers in the popular press, media and public at large are often over simplified,

and there exist long-lasting myths about these men that are remarkably resistant to

contradictory evidence. Examples of such myths include views that low-income fathers

are “deadbeat dads” who do not care about their children and are uninvolved or absent;

that low-income fathers who have been raised by deadbeat dads will become deadbeat

dads themselves; and that low-income fathers reject social institutions such as marriage

and family.

Myths about low-income fathers, in many ways, can also be found in the research

literature. Oftentimes, researchers get caught up in theoretical frameworks or politically

correct positions about fatherhood, which may or may not be rooted in empirical

3

evidence. This is particularly true in the literature on low-income fathers. For example,

some researchers have responded to the statistics of low marital rates, low father

residency rates, and high rates of father absence in low-income families by advancing

arguments that may actually undermine the importance of fathers in children‟s

development. These arguments include discourse on the benefits of blended families, the

notion that “social fathers” can replace biological fathers, and the idea that absentee

fathers have a benign effect on children as long as family members are supportive and

household income is sufficient. These claims risk leading to double standards whereby

low levels of father involvement and absenteeism are viewed as the accepted norm for

some children (e.g., those living in poor communities) but not for others (e.g., those in

more resourced communities).

The goals in this chapter are therefore to challenge certain myths that prevail

about low-income fathers, both in the popular media and scholarly literature. We describe

and refute four prominent characterizations of low-income fathers as: (1) non-essential,

(2) deadbeat, (3) perpetuators of their own childhood histories; and (4) dissenters of

marriage. In doing so, we highlight the heterogeneity that characterizes low-income

fathers and stress the ways that low-income fathers are both unique and similar to fathers

more broadly. We draw on our own research with low-income fathers (where relevant) to

support these points, and end with a discussion of the various pathways through which

low-income fathers are found to influence their children‟s development.

The Non-Essential Father

Surprisingly, one of the most prominent myths about low-income fathers is that

they are unnecessary. Although few researchers explicitly state that fathers don‟t matter

4

for children, this idea implicitly underlies much discourse about low-income fathers. The

argument goes something like this: children from low-income families will do just fine,

whether or not their fathers are around, as long as they are in a supportive home

environment, or receive the necessary resources from other sources, or have someone else

who functions “like a father” to them. In short, such claims seem to suggest that children

in father-absent households (as defined by fathers having little or no contact with their

children) are at no more risk than children with present fathers. This perspective is

advanced in Silverstein and Auerbach‟s (1999) deconstruction of the essential father,

whereby they note that children need “at least one responsible, caretaking adult” but this

individual does not have to be male or female, does not have to live within a heterosexual

family structure, and does have to be a biological parent of the child. Following the

publication of this article, the popular media soon pounced on the idea that “fathers don‟t

matter” (see Chavez, 1999; Jaccoby, 1999), and presented an overly simplified version of

the complex points laid forth by Silverstein and Auerbach. In particular, Silverstein and

Auerbach stressed that the practical and emotional demands of parenthood make meeting

children‟s needs highly difficult for the vast majority of single parents, and that although

positive child outcomes are possible in single parent families, under most circumstances

they are not probable. These observations highlight the statistical distinction between

“main effects” versus interactions or “moderation”. That is, although there exist factors

that may moderate or buffer the risks associated with absent fathers, the risks that

accompany father absence persist for the majority of children (McLanahan & Sandefur,

1994).

5

Father Don‟t Matter in Certain Cultural Contexts

A part of the non-essential father argument is the idea that fathers do not matter as

much in certain cultural contexts, such as in communities where father absence is

prevalent (which often tends to be low-income communities). However, research on the

fertility patterns of Caribbean men suggests otherwise (Roopnarine, 2002). Both

ethnographic and quantitative research in various cultural groups of the Caribbean

indicates that many Caribbean men procreate in a series of transitory unions before

permanently settling in to family and marriage. Thus, many children in the Caribbean

reside in households where their fathers are minimally involved, whereas others reap the

psychological, emotional, and financial benefits of present fathers. Comparisons of

children fathered with initial partners versus those fathered in later unions (when fathers

settle down and remain with their children and partners) indicate that children of

transitory unions face elevated risks in social, emotional and cognitive development

compared to children born into the later, father-stable households (Evans & Davies, 1997;

Leo-Rhynie, 1997; Roopnarine, 2002). For example, many children born into early

transitory unions experience less sensitive and nurturing engagements with their fathers.

In studies of young, low-income Caribbean parents, fathers‟ interactions with their

children were characterized by low levels of the types of behaviors that support cognitive

development, such as encouraging exploratory play or offering positive emotional

support and praise (Leo-Rhynie, 1997; Payne & Furnham, 1992; Wint & Brown, 1988).

Furthermore in the case of early union Caribbean children, their interactions with non-

biological fathers are typically more agonistic than those between children and their

biological fathers (Flinn, 1992; Roopnarine, 2002). Finally, in low-income Caribbean

6

societies, children born into later more permanent unions are simply more likely to have a

biological father in the home, which often results in better household resources and

thereby increases the likelihood of positive health and behavioral outcomes in children

(Roopnarine, 2002). Thus, despite relatively high levels of father absence in Caribbean

communities, children are by no means “buffered” from the adverse effects of absent or

uninvolved fathers just because others around them are living in comparable

circumstances.

Similar cultural arguments have been applied to Black communities in the U.S.

When fathers are absent or don‟t provide for children, grandparents and other family

members often “pick up the slack” and substitute for a lack of father involvement by

providing resources or engaging in the caretaking of children (Dornbusch, Carlsmith,

Bushwall, Ritter, Leiderman, Hastorf & Gross, 1985; Stack, 1974). Again, however, this

research tends to emphasize statistical moderation, by describing the conditions under

which low-income children without involved fathers fare as well as those with involved

fathers. While some children in low-income, father-absent homes are bolstered by extra

family support, many children in low-income, single parent households do not receive

substantial monetary or in-kind familial contributions. Furthermore, lower rates of

negative outcomes such as school drop-out and teenage pregnancy are found in

households where adolescents live with a step-father in comparison to teens who live in

single-parent or mother-grandmother homes (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). As such,

arguments founded on statistical moderation virtually ignore the generalized benefits of

positive father involvement that cut across racial and ethnic lines.

7

In our work on father involvement during children‟s first years of life we have

investigated father involvement in low-income White, Black and Latino households (e.g.,

Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, & Cabrera, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon,

Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004; Tamis-LeMonda, Yoshikawa, & Kahana-Kalman, in press).

Across all studies, positive father involvement, reflected in the frequencies and quality of

father engagements with their children, uniformly predicts the language and cognitive

development of children from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. Others also find that

positive father involvement relates to children‟s outcomes similarly when ethnic and

racial groups are compared (Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999; Dubowitz, Black, Cox, Kerr,

Litrownik, Radhakrishna, English, Schneider, & Runyan, 2001; Evans & Davies, 1997;

Leo-Rhynie, 1997).

Family Resources, not Fathers Per Se, are what Matters

Another argument that reflects the position of the non-essential father is that

“economic disadvantage” not “father absence per se” accounts for the adverse outcomes

of children with absent fathers. The modus operandi of proponents of this idea is to

“control for” the economic conditions of households with and without involved and/or

resident fathers, and ask whether father effects diminish when these financial indicators

are co-varied. If associations between father absence and children‟s outcomes attenuate

after these controls, it is regarded as evidence that children are fine without fathers, as

long as the family is compensated for the economic loss associated with father absence.

For instance, longitudinal studies of teenage parenthood find that situations in which

fathers remain in the household over time, financial stability is more probable and as such

children are less likely be subjected to the pervasive effects of poverty (Apfel & Seitz,

8

1996; Furstenberg & Harris, 1993; Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987).

Findings from such studies have at times been interpreted as evidence that after

controlling for increases in household income, father presence is not uniquely associated

with additional benefits to child outcomes.

Such conclusions are problematic on two levels. First, father presence is

confounded with increases in household income such that although the variables may be

statistically separated, due to their co-occurrence they cannot be theoretically decoupled.

A major contribution of fathers is often the financial investments they make in their

families. In other words, claims that fathers do not matter above and beyond their

financial provisioning is akin to assertions that it was not the actual players on the 1999

U.S. Women‟s soccer team who were responsible for winning the World Cup, but rather

their goal scoring and defensive tactics that explained the outcome. If possible to control

for goals scored and goals defended the U.S team no longer would have won. The same

erroneous logic is evident when researchers consider a father‟s economic assistance to the

household as falling outside the purview of a father‟s influence on children‟s

development. In low-income households, financial resources are especially important to

children‟s well-being and development, and the lack thereof can exert a major toll on the

family. Thus, to the extent that involved fathers are more likely to contribute to

household resources, and resources in low-income households are already low, a core

pathway through which low-income fathers matter is their financial contributions.

Secondly, claims that fathers do not make a difference in children‟s outcomes

above and beyond economic provisioning are based on studies that leave other

dimensions of father involvement unmeasured. Father presence or absence is a static and

9

often uninformative measure of fathers‟ actual involvement with children, and in the

event that some present fathers may have a positive influence on children (e.g. through

cognitively stimulating play) while other present fathers may have a negative influence

on children (e.g. through the effects of domestic violence), the benefits of positive father

involvement would wash out when dichotomous measures of father absence/presence are

examined. That may be one reason that studies using father presence as a measure of

paternal influence in multivariate models have not predicted children‟s developmental

outcomes (e.g., Crockett, Eggebeen, & Hawkins, 1993; Mott, 1993; Furstenberg & Harris,

1993). Yet other studies of low-income families that examine the quality of the father-

child interactions have demonstrated strong associations with children‟s cognitive and

language outcomes while similarly finding a lack of association between fathers‟ sheer

presence and these same outcomes (e.g., Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999; Shannon,

Tamis-LeMonda, London, & Cabrera, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, &

Lamb, 2004).

Summary

Scholarship seeking to “deconstruct the essential father theory” (Silverstein &

Auerbach, 1999) has often been dangerously co-opted by the popular media to support

claims that fathers don‟t matter and that children who grow up in single parent

households fare equally well as children who grow up with positively involved fathers.

Such claims are refuted by countless empirical studies that show that children who

experience absent fathers are more likely to confront an array of risks that compromise

their well-being. Moreover, the ideas that fathers only matter in certain cultural contexts

and that economic context rather than fathers per se matter are equally flawed. Rather,

10

there are numerous benefits associated with positive father involvement, including

financial support, and these benefits cut across socioeconomic, ethnic and racial lines.

Deadbeat Dads

A second and related myth that has often been used in the characterization of low-

income fathers is that of the “deadbeat dad”. The term “deadbeat dad” originated as a

colloquial rendering of the official status of non-custodial parents who were non-

compliant with, or behind on, court ordered child support payments (Bartfeld & Meyer,

1994; Garfinkel, McLanahan, Meyer, & Selzer, 1998). This term soon came to

encompass a father‟s lack of other human or social capital investments in their children;

thus, “deadbeat dads” were also fathers who did not spend time with or “weren‟t there”

for their children (e.g., Argys, Peters, & Waldman, 2001; Bartfeld & Meyer, 1994;

Cherlin & Griffin, 1998). Over time, the term “deadbeat dad” was further generalized to

men who did not reside with their children, based on the assumption that non-residency

reflected a lack of involvement. Consequently, because low-income fathers are

disproportionately non-resident, they were more likely to be referred to as “deadbeat

dads” (Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994).

Researchers have since challenged this narrow characterization of low-income

fathers as deadbeat (Argys, Peters, & Waldman, 2001; Bartfeld & Meyer, 1994; Cherlin

& Griffin, 1998; Mincy & Sorensen, 1998), and have sought to more accurately

document the levels and forms of father involvement in these men. Such work confirmed

that the vast majority of low-income fathers, both resident and non-resident, are involved

with children in numerous ways (Cabrera, Ryan, Shannon, Brooks-Gunn, Vogel, Raikes,

Tamis-LeMonda & Cohen, 2004).

11

Large-scale studies, for example, indicate that of the 20% of American children

who live in mother-headed households, the majority (about 87%) have regular contact

with their fathers (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2005;

Flanagan & West, 2004; McLanahan, Garfinkel, Reichman, & Teitler, 2001). Statistics

such as these suggest that although many low-income fathers may not reside with their

children, they are present in their children‟s lives in ways that remain understudied. Little

is known about non-resident fathers‟ involvement because it is often difficult for

researchers to locate or contact these men, although what is known suggests that the

majority of children from low-income families do see their non-resident biological

fathers (Mincy & Oliver, 2003; Phares, 1996). While many of these men may have

trouble making pre-determined child support payments, they can not be assumed to be

absent from their children‟s lives. In fact, many are very involved.

In our own research in the Early Head Start evaluation study, we found that both

resident and non-resident low-income fathers are highly accessible to their children as

well as involved in all aspects of raising them. According to maternal reports, nearly 90%

of fathers were present at the birth of their infants, and voiced a commitment to remain

involved in their children‟s lives (Shannon, Cabrera, Bradley, Tamis-LeMonda, & Lamb,

in press). Over 80% of these low-income dads remained involved in children‟s lives by

two years of age, and while these dads may not have always been able to provide

financially for their children, they expressed the goal of “being there” for their children

physically and emotionally (Cabrera et al., 2004; Summers, Raikes, Butler, Spicer, Pan,

Shaw, et al., 1999). Although marriage and residency both ensure that children are

consistently in contact with their fathers, over 90% of non-resident fathers managed to

12

see their children a few times a week if they were in romantic relationships with the

mothers of their children (Cabrera, et al., 2004). Even 90% of non-resident fathers who

considered themselves just friends with children‟s mothers had contact with their children

at least once over the prior three-month period.

Moreover, the majority of fathers reported engaging in a variety of activities with

their infants and young children, such as feeding, bathing, and play, and also displayed

responsibility through taking children to the doctor, caring for them when they were sick,

and so forth (Cabrera et al., 2004). Most fathers reported engaging in these behaviors on a

regular basis (i.e., daily or weekly), and mothers‟ reports of fathers‟ activities confirmed

these estimates. Further, when fathers were observed at play with their children, they

were rated as frequently engaging in supportive behaviors, and rarely displayed

controlling or harsh behaviors (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, & Cabrera, 2006; Tamis-

LeMonda, et al., 2004). When the outcomes of these positive father behaviors were

examined, fathers‟ supportive behaviors (based on a summary score of cognitive regard,

sensitivity, and warmth) predicted children‟s cognitive and language outcomes (Shannon

et al., 2002; Tamis-LeMonda, et al., 2004), and did so after controlling for the quality of

mother-child interactions and a range of demographics (e.g., father work status, education)

(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Moreover, in low-income families, fathers‟ involvement,

parenting satisfaction, and employment predicted lower rates of child behavior problems

above and beyond mothers‟ age, education and parenting satisfaction, further

demonstrating that father involvement plays a unique role in positive child development

(Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999).

Methodological Challenges to Reaching Non-Involved Fathers

13

Of course, research findings on the involvement of low-income fathers are not

without limitations. Most centrally, data are based on descriptions of father involvement

in a select group of fathers -- those who were nominated for study participation by the

mothers of their children (who are typically asked to provide contact information for

fathers) and who themselves agreed to participate. Many studies on fathers rely on

mothers for contact information on fathers. Many mothers are hesitant to provide such

information to researchers, particularly when mother-father relationships are conflicted or

complicated; in other situations mothers may be unaware of fathers‟ whereabouts.

One example of the selection bias in studies with low-income men is seen in the

Early Head Start national evaluation father study. Researchers asked mothers for

permission to contact the fathers of the target children. This was done to respect mothers‟

parental rights, particularly in light of the fact that many men were non-custodial fathers

and did not reside with their children. This request resulted in approximately 80% of

fathers being identified for study participation. Of this pool of fathers, approximately

70% agreed to study participation, but even fewer ended up actually being seen due to

scheduling and other difficulties. Thus, of the group of all potential biological fathers,

only about half were actually studied at any given assessment. This selection bias means

that findings are likely skewed to reflect positive father involvement since the accounts of

fathers who are no longer in children‟s lives are not represented. While this research

shows that, nonetheless, overwhelming numbers of low-income fathers remain involved

in their children‟s lives over time, it is highly likely that non-participating fathers may be

less involved with their children and may be more likely to resemble the “deadbeat dads”

portrayed in the popular press.

14

A major challenge therefore, is to move beyond studies of low-income fathers that

omit the voices of fathers who no longer see their children. Even exploratory studies on

small numbers of presumed “deadbeat dads” promise to lend new insights into the

experiences of fathers who are no longer involved with their children and the reasons for

their lack of involvement. Although studying such fathers poses a significant challenge,

and large-scale work with hard to reach low-income fathers is lacking, a handful of

qualitative studies have yielded information on the experiences and perceptions of low-

income fathers who no longer see their children and/or no longer provide for them. As

one example, Nelson, Clampet-Lundquist, and Edin (2002) interviewed 40 noncustodial,

low-income African American fathers in the Philadelphia area and found that although

most of these men “welcomed the opportunity to become fathers” and “were determined

to embrace the responsibilities [of fathering]”, they also found it difficult to live up to

their intentions for a variety of reasons. A number of obstacles associated with economic

disadvantage contributed to men‟s inability to fulfill their fathering responsibilities,

including substance abuse, incarceration, and difficulties finding and sustaining stable

employment. The lack of job opportunities many of these men faced led some to pursue

alternative forms of income, which often resulted in incarceration and other barriers to

continued involvement with their children (Jarret, Roy, & Burton, 2002).

Reflections of Presumed “Deadbeat”, Non-Involved Fathers

In our own qualitative research, we also interviewed a small group of fathers who

no longer saw their children in efforts to learn more about the circumstances leading to

their “absenteeism”. This work is based on in-depth two-to-three hour interviews with a

handful of fathers of pre-school aged children who had been in our studies at earlier

15

waves and yet had not had any contact with their children for at least a year (Tamis-

LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, McFadden, Jolley, & Tarkow, 2006). Although these

fathers were not necessarily representative of “no longer involved low-income fathers” at

large, their personal reflections provided valuable information about the experiences of

these rarely studied men.

Two overarching themes were common to the stories of the low-income men who

no longer saw their children: (1) Perceptions of maternal “gatekeeping” (Allen &

Hawkins, 1999; Fagan & Barnett, 2003); and (2) Intentions for future reunification with

their children. Moreover, underlying both these themes was evidence of the obstacles

posed by men‟s low-income status, in terms of why they felt that the mothers of their

children were gate-keeping and why they felt unable to yet unite with their children.

Regarding the first theme, virtually all fathers spoke of the barriers created by the

mothers of their children, who were viewed as preventing fathers from having access to

their children. This finding accords with the observations of others (e.g., Nelson,

Clampet-Lundquist & Edin, 2002): that one of the greatest barriers to fathers remaining

involved with their children after their romantic relationships with children‟s mothers had

ended was negotiating with their former partners about seeing their children. For the most

part, their relationships with the mothers of their children were both complex and

contentious, and fathers expressed a sense of futility in their ability to negotiate co-

parenthood with their children‟s mothers. They uniformly perceived themselves as being

excluded from making important decisions in their children‟s lives. Moreover, fathers

described mothers‟ gate-keeping as an abrupt and sudden change that was either

16

unexpected or else deemed to be unfair. These perceptions are illustrated in the following

statements made by two fathers in our qualitative study:

She was really mad, she was like I never wanna see you ever again, you

know what I mean? Your daughter, you can just forget about your

daughter. Then she just hung up on me, and then that‟s it, that‟s when

everything started. Boom, I haven‟t seen my daughter since then.

She sent both of her daughters to Jamaica. They don‟t even live in the

country… I didn‟t even know she had already planned to do this in

advance. She didn‟t tell me and umm, she had already got her passports,

but she didn‟t tell me she was about to do this situation. So I like found

out the day that they was leaving.

Regarding the second theme, all fathers spoke passionately about their hopes and

plans to someday reunite with their children. These plans were expressed as deeply

rooted needs to be part of their children‟s lives, although in most cases the conflicted

relationships with their ex- partners had engendered obstacles to consistent father-child

relationships. According to fathers, mothers simply did not facilitate father-child

visitation or else actively sought to keep fathers and children apart. At least in their minds,

fathers remained fervently attached to a desire to one day be there for their children, as

reflected in the following statements:

I wanna see my kid and if I knew where my kid was I would go pick her up.

You know what I mean? I would not leave her and never go see her…I

would never just forget about my daughter and just and just disappear.

I feel that on my heart and my life, I need them here with me…I want to do

everything for my kids. I don‟t …I‟m focused on a future, you know? I

really want them.

Nonetheless, despite fathers‟ firm desires to reunite with their children, they did

not have a well formulated plan as to how to move forward, and they were not typically

making special efforts to regain their parental rights through the legal system. In light of

their enormous commitment to their children (at least as expressed to us), why were these

17

men not actively pursuing seeing their children? Here it seems that their low-income

status was a fundamental obstacle to moving forward. For example, many fathers noted

that they first had to achieve certain goals before they could reunite with their children.

These fathers felt they would resume their involvement with their children “as soon as”

their housing or employment conditions became more stable, at which point their

children would be able to stay with them.

The master plan is I‟m in the process of buying a home right now. It‟s the

first step to a much greater goal I‟ve set for myself, which is to have him

just, just have him with me. Raise him up. You know, in the meantime I‟m

missing like the many you know precious time right now with him and, and

it hurts.

Although this father dreamt of one day being a consistent figure in his child‟s life,

and recognized the material requirements that would accompany such a responsibility, he

had not yet come close to working out the complicated negotiations with his child‟s

mother (and custodial parent) that would be necessary to make such a situation happen

(though the child now lives with his mother in New York, this father lives in Florida, and

would have to bargain for an out-of-state co-parenting arrangement). Fathers ardently

held on to admirable intentions that were not always coupled with plausible ways to

navigate the co-parenting relationship or their economic circumstances so as to achieve

their dreams of someday being there for their children.

These interviews reveal the dynamic trajectories that father involvement can take

by illustrating the reality of low-income fathers moving in and out of their children‟s

lives in response to challenges in their own lives (Jarret, Roy, & Burton, 2002). Men

remain fathers for a lifetime, and although they may often be unable to fulfill their

responsibilities as fathers at certain point in developmental time, it is still possible that

18

they will later become involved under more stable life conditions, and it appears that

many such men hold on to such dreams of the future.

Summary

In summary, although the term “deadbeat dad” originally referred to fathers who

were not meeting their full financial obligations to their children, the term has also been

applied fathers who are not involved with their children in other ways (e.g., time).

However, regardless of definition, the pervasive characterization of low-income fathers

as deadbeat has been invalidated by studies that find the majority of low-income fathers

to be highly accessible to their children and involved in a range of activities with them,

ranging from bathing and feeding to play and reading. Moreover, relatively high rates of

father involvement are also displayed by fathers who do not reside with their children,

although the quality of the mother-father relationship can alter these patterns. Non-

resident fathers who are in a romantic relationship with the mothers of their children are

more likely to see their children and remain involved than those who are not. When

fathers do not maintain at least a friendly relationship with mothers, rates of contact with

children can decline rapidly.

Finally, more research is needed on fathers who no longer see their children, so as

to understand their perceptions of the barriers to sustained involvement. Recent

qualitative research indicates that fathers who are not involved with their children hope to

be reunited with them in the future and, at least in part, blame the mothers of their

children for their current circumstances. Nonetheless, their goals of reunification do not

include clear steps about to how to move forward, and without such a plan their absence

continues to the possible detriment of themselves and their children.

19

Dads Stuck in their Histories

A third myth that permeates the popular and scholarly literatures is the idea that

low-income fathers will follow in the footsteps of their own fathers. This idea is largely

grounded in attachment theory, which posits that an individual‟s history of attachment-

related experiences plays a major part in later childrearing behaviors (Bowlby, 1969/1982;

Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Bowlby and his followers hypothesized that early

attachment relationships are translated into later social functioning through an

individual‟s development of a fairly stable mental model of the self in relationships

(termed an “internal working model”; Bowlby, 1969/1982; 1973; Benoit & Parker, 1994;

Main et al., 1985; Sagi et al., 1994). The hypothesized links between an individual‟s

childhood experiences and current parenting are referred to as “the intergenerational

transmission of parenting” (Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Main et al., 1985; Ricks, 1985; van

IJzendoorn, 1992).

In many ways, the assumption that early attachment histories are linearly linked to

current parenting styles may create unspoken expectations for low-income men who may

be more likely to have experienced inconsistent fathering in their own childhoods than

men from more resourced backgrounds. In contrast, research that emphasizes possibilities

for flexibility and adaptation in internal working models speaks to the potential of fathers

to both overcome and even benefit from their past negative relationships (Carlson, Sroufe,

& Egeland, 2004; Paley, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 1999; Pearson, Cohn, Cowan &

Cowan, 1994; Phelps, Belsky, & Crnic, 1998; Rohner, 1986). Indeed, links between

fathers‟ childhood histories to current fathering are not straightforward. Many times, men

obtain strength from their own adverse experiences, and seek to rectify these through

20

positive relationships with their own children (Baruch & Barnett, 1986; Volling & Belsky,

1992).

Our own research on father involvement indicates that although low-income

fathers‟ childhood relationships with their fathers predict patterns of father engagement

with their infants (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, & Margolin, 2006), these associations are

modest in size, and moderated by a host of other factors, including the quality of the

mother-father relationship, fathers‟ mental health, income, education, and age (Shannon

et al., 2006; McFadden, Tamis-LeMonda, Howard, Shannon, & Cabrera, 2009).

For example, in a recent study of 501 low-income fathers of 2-year olds, various

associations between childhood histories and current father involvement emerged. Men

with positive recollections of their early relationships with their fathers were not by

default “highly involved” with their own children, just as men with negative recollections

of their early relationships with their fathers were not automatically low on father

involvement. Rather, men‟s current involvement with their children reflected the

interplay between past and current experiences. For example, men who reported positive

relationships with their fathers, positive current relationships, relatively higher incomes

(within an otherwise low-income range), higher education, etc., were highly involved

with their children, whereas fathers with positive histories but low scores on these same

measures displayed low involvement with their children on measures of financial

provisioning, time with child, social involvement, and caregiving. Similarly, men who

had poor childhood relationships with their fathers and difficult current circumstances

were low on involvement with their children, whereas negative histories coupled with

21

positive current circumstances resulted in men being highly involved with their children

(McFadden, Tamis-LeMonda, Howard, Shannon, & Cabrera, 2009).

The positive side of this work indicates that low-income fathers who perceive

rejection from their fathers in their own childhoods are not doomed to reject their own

children. Rather, many men who perceive their fathers as uninvolved or rejecting during

childhood express high motivation to remain involved in their children's lives, and are

able to follow through on these aspirations, as measured by the time they spend with

children as well as their involvement in the everyday care of and play with their children.

Of special interest in our work is the group of low-income men who were able to

overcome the risks associated with having a poor relationship with their own fathers.

Through in-depth interviews with a subset of these men we learned about their

unwavering commitment to reverse the negative patterns of their own childhoods. These

men were dedicated to remaining invested in their children‟s lives, and actively avoided

becoming the types of fathers their fathers had been. They did not want their own

children to think of them as they thought of their fathers, as evidenced in the following

quotes by Latino and African American fathers:

I don‟t wanna have my son growin‟ up how I think of my father…. Don‟t

like „him, can‟t stand him, I hate him, he can just die, I use to jus‟ think

that, n‟ like he could die I won‟t even go to his funeral. I won‟t even cry. I

won‟t even care. They don‟ even got to tell me…That‟s how I use to think.

You know what I mean? I don‟t want my son growin‟ up thinkin‟ that way

about me. I want RJ to be proud of me.

My father was never there for me. You know, umm, I‟m just doing the

opposite of what my father did- was be there for my children. Especially

for my boys, „cause I never had a male figure around in my life.

22

Additionally, these men were well aware of the challenges associated with being

low-income, and they expressed desires to shelter their own children from those risks and

experiences. Broken homes, street-life, and sporadic visitation rights were viewed as

experiences to avoid at all costs:

I didn‟t wanna have kids like he had in the street „cause me going through

what I went through I don‟t want none of my kids to go through anything,

anything like that. You know the emotional drama and you know the

broken home…It‟s nothing better than having two parents together. You

know raising one child. You know, it‟s the greatest.

„Cause like you know I wouldn‟t wanna be the type that‟s livin‟

somewhere else and come and get my kids, like you know every now and

then or you know every weekend or every other week. You know things like

that and not being there on a daily basis cause, you know, I‟m really not

getting‟ to know them. You know not being there so it‟s like I‟d rather be

there for them every single day. You know me you know I‟m always there

for them. It‟s not like they have to call me and say “okay come by you

know come by on the weekend”.

In general, the expressed sentiments of these fathers align with findings obtained

with middle-income fathers. Specifically, many low-income men with rejecting histories

appear to have learned from their own experiences and are attempting to compensate for

their own fathers‟ lack of involvement by being more engaged with their own children

(Baruch & Barnett, 1986; Volling & Belsky, 1992).

Summary

Although men from low-income families are more likely to have experienced

“absent” fathers than men from middle-income backgrounds, it is simplistic to assume

that these patterns of engagement will be replayed in their current fathering. Low-income

men are aware of the barriers of poverty, and many are also acutely sensitive to their own

23

feelings of rejection from their fathers when they were children. These feelings often

translate to a great desire to be better role models for their own children than their fathers

had been to them. A shared goal of many of these men is to protect their children from

the dangers of the streets and the experiences of single-parenthood by being there for

their children both emotionally and financially.

Dissenters of Marriage

A final myth surrounding low-income fathers is the idea that these men do not

value marriage. Proponents of marriage promotion initiatives describe a “crisis of the

family” and cite declining marriage rates as evidence that low-income parents no longer

value the traditional family form (e.g. Haskins, McLanahan, & Donahue, 2005). Indeed,

this logic is based on the exponential increase in out-of-wedlock births over the past 50

years (4% to 33%) (Heuveline & Timberlake, 2004; Ventura & Bachrach, 2000), which

tend to be highest among poor minority parents, especially those from African American

backgrounds (Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005; Ventura & Bachrach, 2000).

Even when these births occur within cohabiting relationships, the likelihood that low-

income parents will establish a household together or get married appears to vary by

race/ethnicity and economic factors, as for example low-income African-American

mothers are less likely to marry than low-income White mothers (Edin, 2000; Gibson-

Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005; Lichter, McLaughlin, Kephart, & Landry, 1992;

Manning & Smock, 1995).

These statistics have left the impression that low-income parents, and particularly

the fathers who have seemingly abandoned these unions, do not value marriage and

customary family formation. Some of this work is based on interviews with mothers

24

about their views and choices regarding family formation. For example, one study of

low-income Black and White mothers demonstrated that single White mothers tended to

have more positive views of marriage than Black mothers (Edin, 2000).

In contrast, little information on low-income fathers‟ views about marriage has

been generated (Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005). Some research suggests that

difficulties finding and sustaining employment and the risks and realities of incarceration

make many low-income men “unmarriageable” (Lichter, LeClere, & McLaughlin, 1991;

Lichter et al., 1992; Manning & Smock, 1995; Wilson, 1996; Edin, 2000; DeParle, 2004),

yet most conclude that this explanation does not come close to accounting for the

variance in parent‟s transition into marriage by socio-economic status and race (Lichter,

et al., 1991; Lichter et al., 1992; Manning & Smock, 1995). Consequently, the lack of

data on the views of low-income men regarding marriage stands the risk of leading to

erroneous conclusions about the relatively low rates of marriage in low-income families.

The Value of Marriage

In our own qualitative work with low-income fathers in the New York City area,

we sought to gain insight into what these men actually think about marriage and family

formation. We interviewed 22 low-income Latino and Black fathers of preschoolers using

in-depth, open-ended probes that asked men about their relationships to their children,

partners, life circumstances, and views on marriage (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera,

McFadden, Jolley, & Tarkow, 2006). These men had been in our studies of fathering

since their infants‟ births, and were therefore particularly forthcoming about their views

on marriage and families given their history of study participation. Somewhat

unexpectedly, nearly all men (88%) expressed positive views toward marriage and

25

discussed the benefits afforded by marriage, even though only 27% of the men in the

study were actually married. Thus, men‟s marital status was not associated with their

expressed evaluations of the institution of marriage.

The overwhelming majority of fathers talked about the comfort and benefits that

marriage offers in facing life issues with a partner or as a team. They talked of the

“beauty” of marriage, shared responsibilities within marriage, the lifelong commitment of

marriage, and a general sense that marriage is the “right thing to do”. These sentiments

are exemplified in the quotes below, each by a different father, yet each sharing common

themes around teamwork, intimacy, and the beauty and rightness of marriage:

It‟s a team that you always have somebody by your side that understands

how you feel and that‟s going to feel the pain that you feel. And that when

you go through something, your significant other is going to go through it

with you.

It‟s like working as a team really, that‟s your team. Any problems any

hurdles that you have in life you work on it together. I mean a husband

and wife would combine, like we‟re one person. Marriage is a beautiful

thing and things are usually good in marriages unless you wasn‟t ready or

unless you really not compatible with that person.

Not being alone, you know, coming home, if you had a bad day talking to

someone, you know? Having somebody there. You don‟t want to open your

door and it‟s an empty house. You know what I mean? You got no one to

talk to so, you know, I believe just having somebody there for you that you

could talk to at any time. And helping out and sharing the responsibilities

bills or whatever. So that‟s a good thing.

The growin‟ together, you know. Experiencing certain things with that

particular person. Someone that you‟re gonna spend the rest of your life

with.

We‟re not married but if it were up to me, we would be because that‟s a

way a family should be. It‟s the right thing to do.

It shows you know it‟s just the way of life. I mean you get with someone,

you marry, you have a family. Plus it keeps you more committed. If you‟re

not married, ain‟t know what‟s gonna happen. But when you married it‟s

26

more like a commitment. You know what I mean? Something‟s still there.

It keeps the tradition that‟s one. Second of all that was again they

[children] start learning by marriage. They know that their parents were

married, and it was like real love. And it‟s, it‟s the right way. It‟s the

family way.

I think that‟s the right thing to do. It‟s good to grow old with somebody.

Additionally, these men expressed an unequivocal reverence regarding the

integrity of marriage. In contrast to cohabitation, the decision to marry was viewed to be

permanent. Thus, counter to common myth, these men did not view cohabitation as a

replacement for marriage; instead, living together and getting married were described as

very different forms of commitment:

It‟s supposed to be a more serious commitment. You know meaning that

you gotta try to give more, you know. You know in my point of view right

now, anybody could just decide to say “listen, I don‟t want to be here.”

You know, they could just take their stuff and leave.

You‟re living together, but, when you get married, it‟s more responsible.

Just living together you could walk out any day. When you‟re married you

try to work things out more. If you get married by the church they are very

strict about divorce and none of that. It‟s different. I think it is different.

The commitment and high value placed on the institution of marriage was

paralleled by an equally strong distaste for divorce, and disdain toward people who took

marriage and divorce lightly. Many men explained that marriage means “forever”, and

that there was no point in getting married if there was a possibility that they might

someday get divorced. For these men, divorce was worst than never marrying, and

divorce was viewed as especially harmful to children:

I don‟t believe like in, how they call it umm, divorces, I don‟t think that

you suppose to do that. Once you get married, to somebody, somebody

that you really love and that you care about, it should always remain like

that, no matter what. It should be no divorce, if you have to go to

counseling or classes or anything, you should try to work it out, once you

get married.

27

There are so many divorces. You see people meeting in the club and next

week they married. You know, “I met this person and we got married”.

They don‟t even know the person and then they‟re in divorce court two

months later you know I want a divorce and that‟s not the way it rolls for

me because umm I believe that. I believe in about till death do you part.

When you get married make sure that you—just be sure that that‟s the

person you want to be with. Don‟t make the mistake.

That‟s what my mother always used to tell me. Don‟t marry just to get

married just „cause you have a kid or you feel you have to. „Cause

marriage is a big step. You get married and say it don‟t work out. What‟s

the process to get out of the marriage? To put a child through a divorce to

me is one of the meanest things you can do, because that gets very ugly.

That‟s when you start fighting over the child, fighting over custody,

fighting over this. It‟s no longer a household it becomes mine, mine, mine,

and the child gets stuck in the middle.

Once you married and something like that you build that bond…but if you

break that bond and get divorced it‟s even harder on the child.

That‟s one thing that it is today that just get married and get divorced you

know? There‟s so much divorce right now. Sometimes I think that hurts

more.

As a part of this high regard for marriage and disapproval of divorce, men were

very adamant about the requisites to marriage. Men expressed the need to have stability

and to acquire certain material things before marrying – an engagement ring, a home of

their own, a steady job – and felt they should not marry before these necessities were in

place. Without these fundamentals, there was no reason to marry.

Why should we get married? We ain‟t got nothing to show for it. I figure

when you get married with a person, you‟re supposed to have everything

already like an apartment or at least everything heading somewhere. You

know what I mean? You have a plan you know what I mean? Alright I get

married. Boom, I have an apartment we could stay in. You know what I

mean? We have enough money to support each other you know what I

mean, and um I see for five years from now we probably have enough

money to buy a house or something like that. You know what I mean?

You just save up and do what you have to do. We didn‟t have none of that.

28

I mean I was just like you know how am I really going to support a family?

Like I mean I was doing like a full time job but it was like you know not

really nothin‟ that could be translated to like a career or nothin‟ like that.

Not till I Not till I have what I need...I have to get my GED. I know I have

to do all of that. I‟m gonna get my own apartment, I‟m gonna do what I

have to do.

Until the point of financial stability, many low-income men felt it was not right to

marry. Other men focused on the importance of first obtaining what might otherwise

appear to be minor material things. To these men, the proper steps to marriage included

being able to afford an engagement ring, a car, etc. When talking about marriage, men

invariably noted “first of all I didn‟t have money for a ring”; “You know gotta go buy a

ring. I can‟t just go buy a regular ring”; “I wasn‟t ready, I didn‟t have a car, money”.

This expressed need for rings, cars, homes, and stability suggest that low-income men

view marriage as an entry into middle-income American values and lifestyle. Thus, they

do not de-value marriage, but ironically, value marriage in ways they view to be currently

unattainable; consequently they may perceive insurmountable barriers to the lifelong

commitments they hope to one day achieve with someone they truly love.

Summary

The relatively low rates of marriage in men and women from low-income

households have resulted in myths regarding men‟s perceptions of marriage. Our

qualitative research with low-income men indicates that despite many of these

men not being married to the mothers of their children, they hold the institution of

marriage in high regard and view the commitment and permanency of marriage as

much greater than that of cohabitation. At the same time, they feel that marriage

carries with it a set of requirements, including money and a stable job, and that

29

the dissolution of a marriage, or divorce, is something to be avoided at all costs.

Together, this constellation of views might partly explain why many of these low-

income men choose not to marry, even if marriage is something they someday

aspire to experience.

Conclusions: Countering Myths

The findings from our research, as well as the work of leading scholars in the area

of fatherhood, counter several prominent myths in the literature – that low-income fathers

are non-essential or deadbeat; that they are destined to perpetuate cycles of poor

parenting; and that they reject the institution of marriage. As we have shown, despite the

challenges that low-income fathers confront on a daily basis, most are highly involved in

the lives of their children, and even those men who no longer see their children express a

strong commitment to one day reunite with them.

In terms of low-income fathers‟ influence in children‟s development, studies over

the past two decades highlight the importance of positive father involvement for virtually

all aspects of children‟s development (Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002; authors this

volume). Children who grow up without a father in the home are at risk for low-school

achievement, school drop-out, delinquency, and other problem behaviors (Furstenberg &

Harris, 1993; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Perloff & Buckner, 1996). Reciprocally, the

most optimal child outcomes are found in households in which children are reared by two

biological parents (for a review, see McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Moreover, fathers

influence their children‟s development through multiple pathways, including their direct

engagements, economic provisioning, and effects on the larger family context in which

children develop (Cabrera et al., 2000; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008), and these pathways

30

of influence are common to fathers from both low-income and middle-income

backgrounds.

In terms of direct effects, fathers are as equipped as mothers to respond to and

provide for children‟s emotional needs (Lamb, 1997; Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999), and

children are as likely to be securely attached to their fathers as their mothers (Belsky,

1996; Lamb, 1981; Volling & Belsky, 1992). Father involvement has been shown to

increase children‟s regulation of emotions (MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Parke, 1996), and

fathers are core socializing agents in children‟s friendships and peer relations (e.g., Parke,

2002). In language and cognitive domains, fathers‟ supportiveness predicts children‟s

emerging skills in early development (Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, & Cabrera,

2002; Tamis-LeMonda, et al., 2004; Cristofaro et al., in progress), and father involvement

is associated with children‟s academic achievement in middle-childhood and adolescence

(Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Barth & Parke, 1996; King & Sobolewski, 2006; National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network,

2008).

Beyond these influences, fathers are central to the financial well being of the

family. In low-income households in particular, even small investments by fathers

(including in-kind contributions) can make enormous differences in the stable functioning

of the family. Fathers may provide critical economic resources for children or may

supplement household incomes, thereby figuratively “lifting” children above the poverty

line (Garfinkel & McLanahan, 1999). Longitudinal studies of teen parenthood indicate

that when fathers remain in the household, families are more financially stable (Apfel &

Seitz, 1996; Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987) and households without fathers

31

are more likely to be economically disadvantaged (McLoyd, 1998). Furthermore there are

strong links between fathers‟ financial provisioning and positive child outcomes for both

resident fathers and non-resident fathers who contribute resources through child support

dollars (Argys, Peters, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998; Yeung, Duncan, & Hill, 2000).

Finally, fathers influence children‟s development through their effects on family

climate and other members of the family, most notably mothers. Close, supportive

relationships between mothers and fathers promote positive child outcomes (Gable, Crnic,

& Belsky, 1994), whereas unstable, conflicted, and hostile mother-father relationships are

associated with negative father-child involvement and low levels of child well being

(Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Cummings,

Goeke-Morey, & Raymond, 2004; Lamb, 1997). Low-income fathers are less likely to

remain involved with their children over time if they do not maintain at least a friendly

relationship with the mothers of their children (Cabrera, et al., 2004), and fathers‟

sensitive interactions with children predict mothers‟ sensitivity within and over

developmental time (Tamis-LeMonda, Cabrera, Shannon & Lamb, 2004). Moreover, the

quality of the father-mother relationship already begins to shape the course of father

involvement from the prenatal period (Tamis-LeMonda, Yoshikawa, & Kahana-Kalman,

in press; Shannon, Cabrera, Lamb, & Tamis-LeMonda, in press).

In light of these findings, it is time to dismantle myths about low income fathers,

and instead consider the multiple pathways through which these men affect their

children‟s development, both directly and indirectly. Future research and policies on

fathering should be grounded in the evidence-based findings that fathers matter for all

32

children, in all cultural and socio-economic communities, and in families where fathers

do and do not reside with their children.

Finally, even when the behaviors of low-income men appear to “fit” with negative

portrayals, for example when fathers are seemingly “absent” from their children‟s lives,

caution should be heeded in drawing conclusions about men‟s underlying motivations (or

lack thereof). Many absentee fathers may harbor a strong desire to “be there” for their

children, but may not have the skills to enact the small steps that are necessary to realize

those goals. They may not be able to effectively negotiate complicated legal and

interpersonal co-parenting arrangements, and/or might feel that their lack of stability in

housing, employment, and so forth, are barriers to continued involvement with their

children. Thus, initiatives aimed at promoting positive and sustained father involvement

should acknowledge the high levels of commitment and involvement that is already

demonstrated by the majority of low-income men, but at the same time recognize the

unique challenges that other low-income men face in establishing the conditions

necessary for maintaining a healthy and continuous presence in their children‟s lives.

33

References

Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers' beliefs and

behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of

Marriage & the Family, 61(1), 199-212.

Amato, P. & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident Fathers and Children's Well-Being: A

Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557–73.

Apfel, N., & Seitz, V. (1996). African American adolescent mothers, their families, and

their daughters: A longitudinal perspective over twelve years. In B. J. Leadbeater

& N. Way (Eds.), Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 149-

170). New York: New York University Press.

Argys, L. M., Peters, E., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). The impact of child

support dollars on cognitive outcomes. Demography, 35(2), 159-173.

Argys, L. M., Peters, E., & Waldman, D. (2001). Can the Family Support Act put some

life back into deadbeat dads? An analysis of child support guidelines, award rates

and levels. Journal of Human Resources, 36(2), 226-252.

Bartfeld, J., & Meyer, D. (1994) Are there really deadbeat dads? The relationship

between ability to pay, enforcement, and compliance in nonmarital child support

cases. Social Service Review, 68, 219-235.

Barth, J., & Parke, R. D. (1996). The impact of the family on children‟s early school

social adjustment. In A. J. Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven year

shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 329-361). Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1986). Fathers' participation in family work and

children's sex-role attitudes. Child Development, 57(5), 1210-1223.

Belsky, J. (1996). Parent, infant, and social-contextual antecedents of father-son

attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 905-913.

Benoit, D., & Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across

three generations. Child Development, 65, 1444-1457.

Black, M. M., Dubowitz, H., & Starr, R. H. (1999). African American fathers in low

income, urban families: Development, behavior, and home environment of their

three-year-olds. Child Development, 70, 967-978.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic

Books.

34

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Cabrera, N., Brooks-Gunn, J., Moore, K., West, J., Boller, K., & Tamis-LeMonda, C.

(2002). Bridging research and policy: Including fathers of young children in

national studies. In C. Tamis-Lamonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father

involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 489-524). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cabrera, N., Ryan, R., Shannon, J. D., Brooks-Gunn, J., Vogel, C., Raikes, H., Tamis-

LeMonda, C. S., & Cohen, R. (2004). Fathers in the early head start national

research and evaluation study: how are they involved with their children?

Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 2,

5-30.

Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2004). The construction of experience: A

longitudinal study of representation and behavior. Child Development, 75(1), 66-

83.

Chavez, L. (1999, July 25). Further unraveling a fraying bond. Denver Post, p. H2.

Cherlin, A. and Griffith, J. (1998). Methodological Issues in Improving Data on Fathers;

Chapter 5: Nurturing Fatherhood Report (p177-212). Federal Interagency Forum

on Child and Family Statistics Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family

Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1980). The father‟s contribution to children‟s cognitive and social

development in early childhood. In F. A. Pederson (Ed.), The father-infant

relationship: Observational studies in the family setting (pp. 111-146) New York:

Praeger.

Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1999). Stability and change in paternal

involvement among urban African American fathers. Journal of Family

Psychology, 13 (3), 416-435.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life

change for couples. New York: Basic Books.

Cristofaro et al., in progress

Crockett, L. J., Eggebeen, D. J., & Hawkins, A. J. (1993). Fathers‟ presence and young

children‟s behavioral and cognitive adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 14,

355-377.

35

Cummings, M. E., Davies, P., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental

psychopathology and family process: Theory, research and clinical implications.

New York: Guilford Press.

Cummings, M. E., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond, J. (2004). Fathers in family

context: Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The

role of the father in child development (4th

ed., pp. 196-221). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley.

DeParle, J. (2004, August 22). Raising Kevion. The New York Times, pp. 27-43.

Dornbusch, S., Carlsmith, J., Bushwall, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, H., Hastorf, A., &

Gross, R. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of

adolescents. Child Development, 56, 326-341.

Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Cox, C. E., Kerr, M. A., Litrownik, A. J., Radhakrishna, A.,

English, D. J., Schneider, M. W., & Runyan, D. K. (2001). Father involvement

and children's functioning at age 6 years: A multisite study. Child Maltreatment,

6(4), 300-309.

Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social

Problems, 47, 112-133.

Evans, H. & Davies, R. (1997). Overview of issues in childhood socialization in the

Caribbean. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. Brown (Eds.), Caribbean families: Diversity

among ethnic groups (pp. 1-24). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Fagan, J. & 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.

Federal Interagency Forum on Family Statistics (2005). America‟s children: Key national

indicators of well-being 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Flanagan, K., & West, J. (2004). Children born in 2001: First results from the base year

of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) (NCES 2005-

036). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.

Flinn, M. (1992). Paternal care in a Caribbean village. In B. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child

relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 57-84). New York: Aldine de

Gruyter.

Furstenberg, F.F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. P. (1987) Adolescent mothers in later

life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

36

Furstenberg, F. & Harris, K. (1993). When and why fathers matter: Impacts of father

involvement on the children of adolescent mothers. Young unwed fathers:

Changing roles and emerging policies. R. Lerman and T. Ooms. Philadelphia, PA,

Temple University Press: 117-138.

Gable, S., Crnic, K., & Belsky, J. (1994). Coparenting within the family system:

Influences on children‟s development. Family Relations, 43, 380-386.

Garfinkel I., & McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single mothers and their children. Washington,

DC: Urban Institute Press.

Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S. S., Meyer, D. R., & Selzer, J. A. (1998). Fathers under fire:

The revolution in child support enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S. S., & Hanson, T. L. (1998). A patchwork portrait of non-

resident fathers. Fathers under fire: The revolution in child support enforcement

(pp. 31-60). I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, D. R. Meyer and J. A. Seltzer. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gibson-Davis, C. M., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes and even higher

expectations: The retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 67, 1301-1312.

Haskins, R., McLanahan, S., & Donohue, E. (2005). The decline in marriage: What to do.

The Future of Children, 15, 1-8.

Heuveline, P. & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation:

The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 66(5), 1214-1230.

Jaccoby, J. (1999, July 26). Attack on fatherhood a political screed masquerading as

science. Boston Globe, p. A15.

Jarrett, R., Roy, K., & Burton, L. (2002). Fathers in the „hood: Qualitative research on

low-income African American men. In C. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera, (Eds.),

Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 211-248).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

King, V. & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident Fathers' Contributions to Adolescent

Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–57.

Lamb, M. E. (1981). The development of social expectations in the first year of life. In M.

E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), The role of the father in child development (3rd

ed., pp. 1-18, 309-313). New York: Wiley.

37

Lamb, (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and guide. In M.

E. Lamb (Ed.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations

(pp. 155-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leo-Rhynie, E. (1997). Class, race, and gender issues in child rearing in the Caribbean. In

J. L. Roopnarine & J. Brown (Eds.), Caribbean families: Diversity among ethnic

groups (pp. 25-55). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Lichter, D. T., LeClere, F. B., & McLaughlin, D. K., (1991). Local marriage markets and

the marital behavior of Black and White women. American Journal of Sociology,

96, 843-867.

Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and the

retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological

Review, 57, 781-799.

MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction

and peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55(4), 1265-1277.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & 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, Serial No. 209).

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1995). Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage

among cohabitators. Demography, 32(4), 509-520.

McAdoo, H. P. (1993). Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American

Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

McFadden, K., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Howard, K., Shannon, J. D., & Cabrera, N.

(2009). Old roads, new paths: Men‟s childhood relationships with their fathers

and their current parenting. Presentation accepted to the Society for Research in

Child Development conference, April 2009.

McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N. E., & Teitler, J. O. (2001). Unwed parents or

fragile families? Implications for welfare and child support policy. In Wu, L. L. &

Wolfe, B. (Eds.), Out of wedlock: Causes and consequences of nonmarital

fertility. (pp. 202-228). New York: Russell Sage.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,

what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38

Mincy, R. B., & Oliver, H. (2003). Age, race, and children‟s living arrangements:

Implications for TANF reauthorization (Policy Brief B-53). Washington, DC:

Urban Institute Publications.

Mincy, R. B., & Sorensen, E. J. (1998). Deadbeats and turnips in child support reform.

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 44-51.

Mott, F. L. (1993). Sons, daughters, and fathers‟ absence: Differentials in father-leaving

probabilities and in home environments. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 97-128.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research

Network (2008). Mothers' and fathers' support for child autonomy and early school

achievement. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 895-907.

Nelson, T., Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Edin, K. (2002). Sustaining fragile fatherhood:

Father involvement among low-income, noncustodial African-American fathers in

Philadelphia. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father

involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 525-554). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paley, B., Cox, M. J., Burchinal, M. R., & Payne, C. C. (1999). Attachment and marital

functioning: Comparison of spouses with continuous-secure, earned-secure,

dismissing, and preoccupied attachment stances. Journal of Family Psychology,

13(4), 580-597.

Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood: The developing child series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.), Handbook of

parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed.), (pp. 27-73). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Payne, M., & Furnham, A. (1992). Parental self-reports of childrearing practices in the

Caribbean. Journal of Black Psychology, 18, 19-36.

Pearson, J. L., Cohn, D. A., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1994). Earned- and

continuous-security in adult attachment: Relation to depressive symptomatology

and parenting style. Development and Psychopathology, 6(2), 359-373.

Perloff, J., & Buckner, J. (1996). Fathers of children of welfare: Their impact on child

well-being. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4), 557-571.

Phares, V. (1996). Conducting nonsexist research, prevention, and treatment with fathers

and mothers: A call for a change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(1), 55-77.

39

Phelps, J. L., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1998). Earned security, daily stress, and parenting:

A comparison of five alternative models. Development and Psychopathology,

10(1), 21-38.

Ricks, M. H. (1985). The social transmission of parental behavior: attachment across

generations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-

2, Serial No.209), 211-230.

Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-

rejection theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roopnarine, J. L. (2002). Father involvement in English-speaking Caribbean families. In

C. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera, (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement:

Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 211-248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Scharf, M., Koren-Karie, N., Joels, T. & Mayseless, O.

(1994). Stability and discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: A

psychometric study in young Israeli adults. Developmental Psychology, 30, 988-

1000.

Shannon, Cabrera, Bradley, Tamis-LeMonda, & Lamb, in press

Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Cabrera, N. (2006). Fathering in infancy:

mutuality and stability between 8 and 16 months. Parenting: Science and Practice,

6(2-3), 167-188.

Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., London, K., & Cabrera, N. (2002). Beyond

rough and tumble: Low-income fathers‟ interactions and children‟s cognitive

development at 24 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 77-104.

Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Margolin, A. (2006). Father involvement in

infancy: Influences of past and current relationships. Infancy, 8(1), 21-41.

Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father.

American Psychologist, 54, 397-407.

Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York:

Harper and Row.

Summers, J., Raikes, H., Butler, J., Spicer, P., Pan, B., Shaw, S., et al., (1999). Low-

Income fathers' and mothers' perceptions of the father role: A qualitative study in

four early head start communities. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 291-304.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N., McFadden, K. E., Jolley, S., &

Tarkow, A. (2006). Men in the mirror: A qualitative examination of fathers‟

40

relationships and experiences. Final report prepared for Mathematica Policy

Research.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers

and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year olds: Contributions to language and

cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806-1820.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K., & Niwa, E.

Y. Parents' goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and

collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183-209.

Tamis-LeMonda, Yoshikawa, & Kahana-Kalman, in press

van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of

studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99.

Ventura, S. J. & Bachrach, C. A. (2000). Non-marital childbearing in the United States,

1940-99 (National Vital Statistics Reports, No. 16). Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics.

Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1992). Infant, father, and marital antecedents of infant-

father attachment security in dual-earner and single-earner families. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 15(1), 83-100.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wint, E., & Brown, J. (1987). Promoting effective parenting: A study of two methods in

Kingston, Jamaica. Child Welfare, 66, 507-516.

Yeung, W. J., Duncan, G. J., & Hill, M. S. (2000). Putting fathers back in the picture:

Parental activities and children's adult outcomes. Marriage & Family Review.

Special Issue: Fatherhood: Research, interventions and policies, Part I, 29(2-3),

97-113.