Fathers

What About Dad?

Consequences of Father Presence on Child Development

Sunil Santoni-de-Reddy

December 2005

In most class discussions and reading materials revolving around the topic and theme of child and adolescent development we are exposed to a lot of material focused on mother-child relationships. We are given a sense of how mother-child attachment begins at birth and how mothers become a secure base for their children. Children look to their mother for care-giving and support, and because she has control over who the child initially socializes with or what the child is exposed to, the child mind is in large part said to be shaped environmentally because of the stimuli presented to it from the mother. Due to the emotional bond and physical proximity of the mother to her child, added to the notions of a nuclear family which stereotypically places the mother at the forefront of responsibility for child development, it is easy to forget about the father’s role in his child’s growth. The following recent studies evaluate the significance American fathers play in the lives of their children to help erase the traditional image of the father as simply a “bread-winner” in the family who is emotionally detached from his offspring.

Daniel Paquette’s (2004) research primarily centers on concepts of father-child attachment in comparison to the type of relationship that develops between a mother and her child. The author begins by commenting on traditional roles of parents and how they have transformed over time.

Until recently in Western societies, the parental roles of the father and the mother were

entirely distinct: the mother provided care and tenderness while the father represented

authority and discipline. The massive entry of women into the workforce and the important

changes in family structure that have occurred since the 1970s have transformed parental

roles. […] The new nurturant father continues to enforce authority while both mother and

father tend to share in emotional support, monitoring and discipline of children as well as

in parent-child play (pp. 196-197).

We see that traditional stereotypes about what a father looks like are being destroyed. David Elkind’s (1994) analysis of the permeable family that we have discussed is relevant. We have talked about how family structures have changed drastically over the past few decades. Elkind states that “ it is not at all unusual today to find a househusband who stays home and looks after the children while the mother works. In airports and aboard planes I am often amused to observe quite rugged-looking men cuddling babies and chattering ‘motherese’ to them” (p. 54). Although I feel that Elkind reinforces gender stereotypes by inserting that he was surprised a “rugged-looking” man could display sensitivity to his child, I believe he does a good job at destabilizing the traditional role of a father. Fathers are not simply disciplinarians; conversely, they share an equal part in parenting a child. Thus, the “normal” ideas about mother superiority are unsubstantiated.

Whereas mothers may typically be viewed as sheltering their children, and classified as overprotective, Paquette asserts that the father plays a significant role in exposing the child to society. It has been observed that “the father enables the child to separate from the mother, mediating the child’s transition away from a fusional relationship with the mother,” and that “this function of opening children to the outside world is an integral part of the psychoanalytical model” (p. 198). The father exposes the child to the unknown by exciting the child in play, for example, whereas “mothers try to contain them.” Paquette cites an example of how, during infant swimming classes, “fathers tend to stand behind their children so the children face their social environment, whereas mothers tend to position themselves in front of their children, seeking to establish visual contact” (p. 199).

Additionally, “fathers have a tendency to engage infants in non object-mediated interaction that is both physical and stimulating, as well as in unpredictable or idiosyncratic play” (p. 198). Thus, by presenting the young child with alien scenarios that aim to “excite,” the father allows the child to explore outside of what is familiar by means of risk-taking. Paquette believes this form of relationship should be named “father-child activation” in contrast to “mother-child attachment” since the child is energized by the father to overcome obstacles. These obstacles motivate social competency rather than calming the child and keeping him or her securely sheltered by attachment with the mother (p. 202). Additionally, I think this correlates to the idea of Erikson’s industry versus inferiority stage of psychosocial development. When the young child is introduced to new tasks and is able to overcome them, perhaps with a father participating in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, the child will feel proud at their accomplishments and this sets the tone for later individualization.

Research has shown that “babies become attached to both their fathers and their mothers at approximately the same time during the first year of their lives” (p. 201). This also is voiced by Cole, Cole, and Lightfoot (2005) who state that “when cultural patterns lead fathers to be closely involved in their children’s upbringing, attachment to the two parents occurs in the same way” (p. 231). However, although fathers may achieve attachment, they are generally viewed by their children as playmates which contrasts the child’s perception of the mother as a nurturer. This finding is supported by the fact that mothers typically spend more quantity (and quality) time with their child while fathers spend quality time engaging in physical play. However, Paquette indicates that although attachment may initially be neutral, later in the child’s development male children show a preference for interaction with their fathers whereas female children show no similar preference for either parent. The physical play that fathers engage the child in includes bouncing the child on their knees and tickling during infancy and play-fighting/roughhousing with boys when they are older. Rough-and-tumble play (RTP) is generally practiced by fathers with their sons and “refers to vigorous behaviors, such as wrestling, grappling, kicking and tumbling, which happen in a play context” (p. 205).

Paquette asserts that fathers are significant in their child’s development because their interactions encourage social and emotional competence. The RTP associated with fathers defines rules on conduct during play while also indicating to the child the father’s affection towards them; RTP provides both warmth and control for the child which is essential for effective child development. Ultimately, RTP promotes self-confidence in the child through offering greater autonomy in the play context, as well as makes the child more responsible and aware of limitations to rules and exposing them to cooperative behaviors that will be essential when the child is in the school setting with peers. This idea links to class discussions about how children regulate themselves in play with peers and how they engage in rule formation. Perhaps, then, the father is first to introduce the child to rules in play. Additionally, “fathers succeed more easily than mothers in obtaining obedience from their sons [most probably] due in part to a relationship of dominance established through RTP” (p. 207). Play is finally significant because, as studies have shown, “children of fathers who exhibit high levels of physical play with boys and girls 3-4 years old and elicit high levels of positive feelings during play sessions receive the highest peer popularity ratings” (p. 208). Therefore, father-child play promotes greater socialization and effective relationship building.

Finally, Paquette evaluates the importance of the father through consequences of father absence. With a shift away from traditional nuclear family structures, present day family structures are varied, and many times single-parent homes are dominated by the mother as a result of an absence of or irregular presence of the father. The author indicates that girls who do not live with their fathers experience greater risks for displaying internalizing behaviors whereas boys in absent-father homes experience externalizing behaviors, “consisting on the one hand of attention disorders and hyperactivity, and on the other, of so-called anti-social behaviors such as aggressive behavior, theft, failure to respect rules, impulsivity, opposition, lying, and vandalism” (p. 197). However, it has been shown that father absence does not necessarily imply antisocial behaviors in children; boys who are able to maintain contact with their fathers outside of the home display fewer behavioral problems than their counterparts who have no relationship with their father. In addition, girls who have a positive father presence in their lives will learn how to relate to men which is crucial for her psychosexual development (Williamson, 2004, p. 210).

Therefore, Paquette argues that it is the quality of time that a father spends with his child rather than the quantity of time which influences positive childhood development. This relates to what we have read in class materials which pinpoint how time is spent with children as the primary determining factor in evaluating an effective father-child relationship. “For example, going out together to dinner or to the movies is unrelated to children’s levels of life satisfaction, whereas talking over problems and sharing and encouraging accomplishments are associated with high levels of satisfaction” (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2005, p. 413).

Although I agree with the text in that quality reflection with children enhances problem solving and teaches the child how to be a competent member of society, I feel that inherent in doing little things with a parent like going to dinner or a movie, to use the book’s examples, will provide an impetus to engage in these types of conversations. Additionally, children do not simply learn everything from talking about things directly. I believe that a lot of learning comes from observation and internal reflection, and therefore I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that parents can only be successful at helping their child’s development by setting strict guidelines about what should be talked about and how. As long as the parent engages in positive behaviors themselves, the child will ultimately pick up and internalize what they witness of their parents as positive role models.

Charlie Lewis’ and Michael E. Lamb’s (2003) studies also describe the significance of fathers on child development. Similar to Paquette, this study identifies how a few decades ago “fathers were described as ‘forgotten contributors’ to child development” (p. 211). The authors conducted research on two-parent households to observe distinctions in the relationships between mothers with their children in comparison to those formed by fathers. Whereas Paquette informed us that both parents form an attachment relationship with their child in infancy, this research tells that although “men quickly learn about the uniqueness of their own children, the evidence suggests that mothers soon become more perceptive” (p. 212). Thus, mothers are once again given an “edge” over fathers when considering child development. They go on to indicate that “fathers tend to be more engaged with their sons, have less contact with daughters, and generally have more distant relationships with their children than mothers do” (p. 214), and the consequence is one of children feeling closer to their mothers than their fathers.

While the authors indicate a generalization about how fathers are more distant from their children than mothers, thereby perhaps reinforcing the idea that mothers presence and father absence most significantly influences child development than any other situation, Lewis and Lamb correct this misperception by illustrating that although mothers engage in a greater number of interactions with their children, father-child interactions involving “play, recreation, and goal-oriented actions and tasks” (p. 214) are influential in mitigating the risks for anti-social behavioral development in children, much in the same way that Paquette argued. The authors indicate that in two-parent homes fathers and mothers both participate in their children’s educational and extracurricular activities as well as provide care-giving. Thus, these authors reject the idea that only mothers can offer “nurturant care” for their offspring. I think this is significant because in an effective two-parent household a child is able to learn from both parents’ experiences and methods of parenting. Surely mother and father play different roles in their child’s life, and I think the collaboration or joining of both sides could make for a better adjusted child who is provided with greater resources to overcome behavioral problems.

The authors would agree with Paquette that a father’s role in child development is in large part dependent on father-child play, but they also indicate how fathers present society to children, which again correlates with the idea of opening them up to the world. In single-parent households children may not attain a full sense of how they are expected to act or how to characterize a member of the opposite sex since they are only exposed to one performance of gender. However, in two-parent homes children learn the social norms of what it means to be a man and a woman in the family context as well as in larger society. Children often learn about social conventions of society from their fathers. When young boys were asked about playing with a toy that is stereotypically female, the children “said that their fathers would consider cross-sex toy play to be ‘bad’. Thus, fathers were believed by sons but not daughters to have more restrictive rules of conduct than mothers” which helps indicate that “fathers may play an important part in mediating between the family and the outside world” (p. 219).

The previous comments are also relevant to class discussions. We have talked a lot about how children at an early age engage in socio-dramatic play in which they perform gender by acting as a mommy or daddy, for example—this was acted out in Paley’s observations. Boys will learn from modeling fathers that they are expected to wear ties versus wearing dresses. Additionally, we have heard from other classmates’ research about stereotypically assigned gender objects that teach children what is “manly” and what is “feminine.” For example, boys learn that make-up is only for women and that playing with dolls is “girly,” and boys learn that it is more acceptable to act tough, fight, and never cry or express emotion. Our textbook also discusses how a father is a strong role-model for his son who envies his father’s physical strength and authority status—this fuels the Oedipus complex (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2005, p. 363). Additionally, I would add that fathers are important simply because with their presence in the household children learn about marriage relationships and how to communicate with a partner. This exposure to cooperation in a working relationship will help the child form and maintain positive relationships with peers during early and middle childhood and into adolescence as well as help them during sexual development when they acquire a boyfriend or girlfriend. Boys learn how to treat women and girls learn how they ought to be treated by members of the male sex.

Lastly, Jaffe, Moffitt, Caspi and Taylor (2003) studied 1,116 5-year-old twin pairs and their parents to determine how child behavior was influenced by the varied degrees of father presence in the lives of the children. The mothers evaluated the fathers’ involvement and the children’s behavior was evaluated by surveys from parents, teachers and other caregivers. The article begins by revealing how young children raised in dual-parent homes generally experience better cognitive and behavioral outcomes than those living in single-parent homes, of which 80% are headed by single mothers. Although most single-parent households are mother maintained, we have learned from class materials that “there has been a rise in the numbers of single fathers raising children—nearly 510 percent between 1970 and 2000, compared with the 330 percent increase in single mothers raising children” (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2005, p. 413). The authors of the article go on to indicate how the absence of fathers reinforce negative outcomes for children because of maternal emotional distress, a lack of efficient financial support, marital strife of which the children feel guilty, and child perceptions of abandonment (p. 109).

The article relates with the previous two in that the idea of quality time with a father was stated to be more important than quantity time. Behavioral problems in the children were minimal when the child felt emotionally close to their fathers, and this was not dependent on whether the father was in or outside of the home (p. 110). However, the article poses another factor to father-influenced child development that the previous two articles failed to consider. These authors discuss how varied levels of antisocial behaviors that the father displays help or hinder a father from being effective at providing financial and, more importantly, emotional support to their children. Fathers with high antisocial behaviors were those that scored at an 85^thth percentile or lower. percentile or higher on mother-written evaluations with respect to activities including “illegal activities, irritable and aggressive behavior, and fiscal and emotional impulsivity and irresponsibility, all of which are significant risk factors for the development of children’s conduct problems” (p. 111). Fathers displaying low antisocial behaviors were those identified at the 15

The data illustrated that high antisocial fathers spent less time with their children whether they were present in the home or not, thereby supporting the claim that fathers are influential whether they are nonresident or live-in fathers (pp. 114-115). Additionally, “with low and median levels of fathers’ antisocial behavior, father presence was negatively associated with children’s antisocial behaviors, such that the longer a father resided with his child, the less antisocial behavior the child had. However, at high levels of fathers’ antisocial behavior, father presence was positively associated with child antisocial behavior” (pp. 116-117). The research showed that when fathers’ antisocial behavior was high, the fathers that spent more time caring for the child produced greater negative outcomes for the child’s own antisocial behaviors and when fathers’ antisocial behavior was low the fathers who spent no time caring for the children had children who displayed behavioral problems similar to those in the first scenario (p. 118).

The authors primarily indicated, in this study, how children with antisocial resident fathers receive a “double whammy” of sorts with respect to risk of having behavioral problems. These children are first exposed to a genetic risk since antisocial behaviors are said to be heritable. Secondly, the children are put at an environmental risk since they are surrounded by their father’s antisocial acts on a regular basis (p. 120). Similarly, then, one can understand how a child with low-antisocial fathers are put at risk when they live in a single-mother household and never are cared for by their father, especially if their mother’s engage in antisocial behaviors. This idea closely relates to many of the discussions we have had about nature versus nurture since essentially it is dealing with the impact of biological and environmental factors on a child. I tend to believe that although hereditary allows for a significant risk in a child engaging in antisocial behavior, through environmental learning the child is also taught what “proper” behavior ought to be. I don’t think it is inherent that a child will adopt his or her father’s antisocial behavior but I do believe that with many combined risk factors such as poor economic status, lack of positive role models, etc. there is a greater likelihood for the child to act out negatively.

Another question that could be asked, here, is if the mother exposes her child to another male role-model and how this impacts child development when the child’s biological father is absent. Recent findings have shown that biological fathers are most relevant in positive child development in comparison with other non-related resident males. One explanation is that typically a mother’s boyfriend acts more permissively towards a child and stepfathers generally are more authoritarian with the child. Conversely, low-antisocial biological fathers usually adopt an authoritative parenting style which researchers have found keep children away from behavioral problems. These facts directly contribute to our understanding of parenting styles as discussed in class. We see that, in general, “fathering practices typically associated with authoritative parenting—providing emotional support, monitoring children’s behaviors, and noncoersive discipline—seem to be most beneficial to children” (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2005, p. 413). Although I tend to believe that parents can and do display varying degrees of parenting styles throughout their child’s development, for example in one situation a parent could be more permissive than in another, I believe that the classifications are generally consistent.

Thus, the most important factors I have learned to consider when accounting for childhood behavioral problems with respect to the father are more-so about how involved the father is rather than how much time the father spends with the child. I used to accept that children with married parents were better off since I grew up in a single-parent home led by my mother. I have learned that nonresident fathers can act as positive role models for their children and expose them to the outside world just as successful as a live-in father can. However, one must also consider the personality and behavioral traits of the father to understand the child—especially the son who adopts his father’s behavioral patterns more than a daughter does. If the father engages in antisocial behaviors and lives with the child, then according to the third article, this is more detrimental to the young person than if the child were fatherless.

References

Cole, M., Cole, S., & Lightfoot, C. (2005). The development of children (5^th ed.). New York:

Worth Publishers.

Elkind, D. (1994). Ties that stress: The new family imbalance. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Jaffe, S., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits

of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development, 74(1), 109-126.

Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence

from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2), 212-228.

Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental

outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193-219.

Williamson, M. (2004). The importance of fathers in relation to their daughters’ psychosexual

development. Psychodynamic Practice, 10(2), 207-219.