Adolescent Parents' Partner Conflict and Parenting Alliance, Fathers' Prenatal Involvement, and Fathers' Engagement With Infants

http://jfi.sagepub.com/Journal of Family Issues

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/35/11/1415The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0192513X13491411

2014 35: 1415 originally published online 17 June 2013Journal of Family IssuesJay Fagan

Prenatal Involvement, and Fathers' Engagement With InfantsAdolescent Parents' Partner Conflict and Parenting Alliance, Fathers'

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Family IssuesAdditional services and information for

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jun 17, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 4, 2014Version of Record >>

at Gazi University on August 19, 2014jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Gazi University on August 19, 2014jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jfi.sagepub.com/

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/35/11/1415

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/35/11/1415.full.pdf

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/13/0192513X13491411.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Family Issues2014, Vol. 35(11) 1415 –1439

© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0192513X13491411

jfi.sagepub.com

Article

Adolescent Parents’ Partner Conflict and Parenting Alliance, Fathers’ Prenatal Involvement, and Fathers’ Engagement With Infants

Jay Fagan1

AbstractThe present study modeled the associations between adolescent mothers’ and young fathers’ perceptions of partner conflict, parenting alliance, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and father engagement with infants using a sample of 127 adolescent mothers and their partners. This study hypothesized that (a) higher quality parenting alliances would be associated with increased father engagement with infants, (b) prenatal partner conflict would have a negative spillover effect on the parenting alliance and father engagement during infancy, and (c) fathers’ prenatal involvement would be positively associated with parenting alliance and engagement during infancy. The results showed that mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance during infancy were robust correlates of father engagement, mothers’ perceptions of prenatal partner conflict had a negative spillover effect on parenting alliance and father engagement with the infant as perceived by mothers, and fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement were directly linked to engagement with infants.

1Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:Jay Fagan, School of Social Work, Temple University, Ritter Hall Annex, 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA. Email: [email protected]

491411 JFI351110.1177/0192513X13491411Journal of Family IssuesFaganresearch-article2013

at Gazi University on August 19, 2014jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from


1416 Journal of Family Issues 35(11)

Keywordsadolescent father, coparenting, father engagement, father involvement, parenting alliance

Adolescent fathers are at high risk for decreased levels of engagement with their young children because of a range of risk factors, including low educa-tion levels, lack of employment, high rates of antisocial behavior, lack of developmental maturity, and poverty (Pittman & Coley, 2011). One of the most significant risk factors for adolescent fathers is the tendency for the adolescent father–mother romantic partnership to dissolve (i.e., go from higher to lower commitment relationship) or to deteriorate (i.e., increased partner conflict) shortly following the birth of the child (Gee & Rhodes, 2003). Researchers have found that transitioning from higher to lower com-mitment relationships has a greater negative effect on adolescent fathers’ engagement with the child than on adult fathers’ engagement (Farrie, Lee, & Fagan, 2011). However, researchers have also found that some adolescent fathers are able to stay engaged with their children even when the young couple is no longer romantically involved with each other (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007). These fathers are able to continue their engagement because they develop supportive coparenting relationships, defined as “the ways that parents and/or parental figures relate to each other in the role of parent” (Feinberg, 2003, p. 96). It is important to understand how positive coparent-ing and other partner relationship factors (e.g., partner conflict) are related to father engagement because studies suggest that highly engaged fathers can have a significant positive effect on adolescent mothers’ well-being and sense of parenting self-efficacy (Fagan & Lee, 2010) and on children’s outcomes (Mollborn & Lovegrove, 2011).

Although studies have shown significant associations between the quality of the coparenting relationship and adolescent father engagement with chil-dren (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007), there are several significant short-comings with the existing research. One shortcoming is that research has not modeled the dynamic interplay between coparenting quality, partner relation-ship quality, and young fathers’ engagement with children. Ample research with adult parents has shown that coparenting and relationship quality are distinct aspects of family functioning (Mangelsdorf, Laxman, & Jessee, 2011), although they are strongly tied to each other (McHale, 2009). Researchers have suggested that partner conflict may spillover to the coparenting relation-ship (McHale, 1995). The associations among partner relationship conflict, coparenting, and father engagement may be particularly important to



Fagan 1417

understand among adolescent couples because adolescent fathers are more likely to withdraw from parenting than adult fathers when there are high levels of relationship conflict (Herzog, Umana-Taylor, Madden-Derdich, & Leonard, 2007). Research has also shown that adolescent fathers frequently begin to withdraw from parenting shortly after the child’s birth, and this process of withdrawal is partly related to the quality of the mother–father relationship before the birth (Marsiglio & Cohan, 1997). However, studies have not mod-eled the associations among these variables during the transition to parent-hood. In response to these shortcomings, the present study conducts a short-term longitudinal study of the associations between partner conflict and coparenting before the birth of the child and the same variables plus father engagement after the birth of the child.

Another shortcoming is that available studies have not examined how fathers’ prenatal involvement is associated with the quality of the coparenting relationship and with partner relationship quality after the birth of the child. Understanding the linkages among partner conflict, father’s prenatal involve-ment, coparenting, and father engagement during infancy has significant implications for program planners and practitioners who need to know which aspects of family functioning should be addressed in interventions with ado-lescent parents. Moreover, early intervention with adolescent parents before or shortly after the birth of the child may be important because young fathers are at high risk for decreased involvement with children over time.

Background

The present study was based on the ecological systems perspective, which stresses the importance of viewing parenting in the context of the multiple systems in which the parent is located (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998). Bronfenbrenner (1986) suggests that individual behavior can best be understood within the context of the complex array of systems. Although this perspective emphasizes systems at all levels, including immediate and remote environments, recent studies have shown the significance of the father–mother relationship to parent–child relationships (Bradford & Hawkins, 2006). Furthermore, immediate environments, such as the family and coparenting relationship may be more amenable to intervention than remote environments such as the educational or class systems (Fernandez & Nichols, 1996).

Significant aspects of the father–mother relationship include the establish-ment of close family structures, such as marriage and cohabitation (Cabrera et al., 2004), emotional and physical intimacy with one’s partner (Schamess, 1993), relationship conflict, and healthy coparenting relationships that occur




both inside and outside of marriage and cohabitation (McBride & Rane, 1998). Quality of the partner and coparenting relationship may be especially important because many adolescent parents do not marry or reside together (Pittman & Coley, 2011). A major difference between partner relationships and coparenting is that partner interactions involve dyadic exchanges whereas coparenting interactions involve triadic exchanges (i.e., they are always focused on raising children; McHale & Irace, 2011). Researchers have sug-gested that coparenting has a stronger influence on parent–child relationships (Elliston, McHale, Talbot, Parmley, & Kuersten-Hogan, 2008), because it is more proximally related to parenting than is partner relationship quality (Feinberg, 2002; McHale, 2009). Researchers have also suggested that the quality of the coparenting and partner relationship is especially important for fathers because the father–child relationship tends to be more sensitive to social and family environmental influences than is the mother–child relation-ship (Doherty et al., 1998; Elliston et al., 2008).

Adolescent fathers often have difficulty with establishing healthy copar-enting relationships, regardless of their relationship status with the mother (Furstenberg, 2007). Qualitative studies of young nonresidential fathers revealed high levels of undermining behavior between new parents (Young & Holcomb, 2007). Adolescent parents have also been found to engage in low levels of communication with each other regarding their children (Vosler & Robertson, 1998). Despite the challenges to healthy coparenting faced by adolescent fathers and mothers, researchers have found that coparenting sup-port has a stronger positive influence on adolescent fathers’ engagement with young children than it does on adult fathers’ engagement, even after control-ling for residential status of the parents (Fagan & Lee, 2011). One reason is that adolescent fathers may have little chance of staying involved with their children over time, if they do not maintain at least an adequate coparenting relationship with the mother (Gee & Rhodes, 2003).

The present study focuses on one component of the coparenting relation-ship that has been widely addressed in the research literature: parenting alli-ance (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007). Cohen and Weissman (1984) defined parenting alliance as the capacity of partners to “acknowledge, respect, and value the parenting roles and tasks of the partner” (p. 35). Two important components of parenting alliance include trusting one’s coparent and the extent and quality of communication between coparenting partners. Researchers have suggested that coparenting alliance is essential for under-standing a family’s strengths (McBride & Rane, 1998; McHale, 2009; Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). In addition, the present study focuses on parent-ing alliance because studies have shown that adolescent mothers and fathers begin to form mental representations of their alliance before the birth of the



Fagan 1419

child (Fagan, 2008). Moreover, these mental representations of the parenting alliance are associated with later outcomes for adolescent parents, including their expectations regarding marriage and fathers’ engagement in caregiving activities with infants (Fagan, Schmitz, & Lloyd, 2007). Because I am inter-ested in the period of time between pregnancy and early infancy and there is evidence that adolescent parents form mental representations of parenting alliance before the birth, I do not include other significant aspects of the coparenting relationship (e.g., support, conflict, shared parenting).

Current theory suggests that partner conflict between fathers and mothers has a spillover effect on the quality of the coparenting relationship (McHale, 1995). Partner conflict may cause stress in parents, which then compromises coparenting interactions (Kitzmann, 2000). Partner conflict may also be mis-directed to coparenting interactions through mechanisms, such as scapegoat-ing or detouring (Stroud, Durbin, Wilson, Mendelsohn, 2011). Evidence for the spillover effect among adult parents has been demonstrated in meta-anal-yses of the associations between partner conflict and parenting behavior (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). There is reason to expect that partner con-flict will have a significant spillover effect on young fathers. Adolescence is a time of rapid and multiple developmental changes when youth are still developing their coping skills, maturity (e.g., identity), and experience (see Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Adolescent couples may find it difficult to main-tain supportive coparenting relationships when there are high levels of rela-tionship conflict because they lack experience in interpersonal skills because of their young age (Marsiglio & Cohan, 1997).The challenges associated with adolescence, including lack of emotional control, may interfere with adolescent fathers’ ability to deal effectively with partner conflict (Florsheim, Moore, & Edgington, 2003). Moreover, high levels of relationship conflict may be especially detrimental during the transition to parenthood, which is the time when young parents are just beginning to establish patterns of copa-renting behavior (Pittman & Coley, 2011). On the basis of current research and theory, I hypothesize that partner conflict during the pregnancy will have a spillover effect on the adolescent mother–father parenting alliance during infancy and on fathers’ engagement with the child.

I focused on fathers’ engagement (i.e., face-to-face interaction) instead of fathers’ availability (i.e., being accessible to child) or responsibility (i.e., planning for and managing child’s needs) in this study because meta-analytic reviews of father involvement find stronger associations between indicators of engagement and child outcomes than between availability or responsibility and outcomes (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). There is also grow-ing evidence that early levels of fathers’ prenatal involvement may influence the quality of the coparenting relationship and in turn subsequent levels of




father engagement. For the purposes of this study, fathers’ prenatal involve-ment is defined as expressive (i.e., feeling baby move) and instrumental involvement (i.e., helping to prepare living space for the baby) during the pregnancy (May, 1980). Fathers who are more engaged during the pregnancy may fulfill mothers’ expectations for father involvement, which may also lead to better quality coparenting relationships (Jia & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011). Studies have shown that adolescent mothers begin to avoid coparent-ing when the man shows signs of withdrawing from parenting responsibili-ties (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007). Recent research with adult fathers in fragile families has stressed the importance of fathers’ prenatal involvement (Cabrera, Fagan, & Farrie, 2008). Fathers’ prenatal involvement may not only foster the development of the father–child bond in infancy, but it may also be associated with higher levels of commitment in the mother–father relationships after the birth of the child, suggesting that fathers who become involved during the pregnancy also develop healthier coparenting relation-ships with the mother. On the basis of these findings, I hypothesize that higher levels of young fathers’ prenatal involvement will be associated with a greater degree of parenting alliance during infancy, and hence higher levels of paternal engagement.

Current Study

The present study models the associations between parenting alliance, part-ner conflict, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and father engagement with the infant. I focus on the prenatal period and infancy because recent studies sug-gest that these are important time periods for the development of young fathers’ relationships with the child and mother (Fagan, 2008). I assess fathers’ prenatal involvement, partner conflict, and parenting alliance before and after the birth of the baby, and father engagement during infancy. The advantage of a longitudinal research design (i.e., measuring these variables at two points in time) is that it can help to determine whether there is a spillover effect of partner conflict on parenting alliance and hence father engagement with the infant. The longitudinal design is also useful for determining whether young fathers’ prenatal involvement is associated with subsequent healthy parenting alliance and greater engagement with the infant.

The first hypothesis of the study is that positive alliance will be associated with higher levels of father engagement during infancy (Hypothesis 1). I expect that alliance during infancy will be more closely linked to concurrent father engagement than prenatal alliance because the transition to parenthood is often associated with changes in the quality of partner relationship, and more proximal measures of the parenting alliance and partner conflict are



Fagan 1421

likely to be more closely linked to father engagement than are more distal measures of the same variables. The present study also hypothesizes that young parents’ early representations of the parenting alliance will have an effect on later alliance (Hypothesis 2). Parents begin to formulate mental representations of coparenting during the pregnancy and sometimes before conception (McHale & Rotman, 2007; Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004).

The present study also hypothesizes a spillover effect of partner conflict on parenting alliance during infancy (Hypothesis 3). A spillover effect would be evidenced if partner conflict during the pregnancy is negatively associated with parenting alliance during infancy. I also expect that partner conflict will spill over into the father–child relationship. That is, I expect that prenatal partner conflict will have an indirect effect on father engagement with the infant through its negative association with parenting alliance. Finally, the present study hypothesized that fathers’ prenatal involvement would be posi-tively associated with higher quality parenting alliance and father engage-ment during infancy (Hypothesis 4).

The present study used the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) to examine the effects of mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of partner con-flict, parenting alliance, and fathers’ prenatal involvement before the birth of the baby on mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of partner conflict, parenting alliance, and father engagement after the birth of the baby (Cook & Kenny, 2005). This approach enables the researcher to examine how a person’s cur-rent behavior is predicted by his own and his partner’s past and concurrent behavior. This model assumes that there is interdependence between fathers and mothers and that fathers’ engagement with infants may be associated both with their own and their partner’s perception of the couple relationship. Although I am assessing the same variables for mothers and fathers (e.g., parenting alliance), there is sufficient evidence in the literature to suggest that mothers and fathers often have different perceptions of the same behaviors, and it is therefore important to treat these as separate variables, which at the same time are likely to be correlated with each other.

I controlled for possible confounding variables in this study, including race/ethnicity, child gender, mother–father residential status, fathers’ employ-ment, and mothers’ and fathers’ age. I controlled for racial and ethnic back-ground to account for such differences in family processes that influence parenting alliance and father engagement (Dorsey, Forehand, & Brody, 2007). Child gender was controlled because many fathers are more engaged with their sons than their daughters (Cabrera et al., 2004). I also included a measure of residential status of the parents because compared with nonresi-dential fathers, residential fathers have been found to be more positively involved with children (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). Employment hours




were controlled because studies have shown patterns of paid work outside the home significantly influence fathers’ involvement with children (Pleck, 2010). Mothers’ and fathers’ age was controlled because studies have shown than older adolescent parents are more engaged with their babies (Farrie et al., 2011).

Method

The present study was based on data from the Adolescent Father Involvement Intervention Project (AFIIP), which assessed the impact of two different interventions (coparenting and child development) on young fathers and their adolescent partners. The AFIIP was a pretest/posttest randomized control study, which also included a follow-up interview with couples when the baby was 3 months old. The interventions were conducted before the birth of the child. The findings of the current study were based on posttest and follow-up data. All posttests were completed before the birth of the baby.

Criteria for participation in the AFIIP included the pregnant mother must be less than 20 years old, the expecting father must be less than 24 years old, and the expecting mother must be between 5 and 9 months pregnant at the time of the pretest interview. Also, both expecting parents had to agree to participate in the study. Young couples were recruited face-to-face from three obstetrics/gynecology hospital clinics located in high-poverty communities in a northeastern U.S. city. Notices about the study were also placed at sev-eral additional obstetrics/gynecology clinics in low-income communities. Project staff recruited young parents from the clinics between January 2004 and November 2005. Potential participants, often the expecting adolescent mother and sometimes both the expecting mother and father, were screened at the clinic for eligibility. The screening procedure involved reading a brief statement about the purpose of the study, eligibility requirements, and proce-dures of the study to potential participants. The recruiters asked five ques-tions: the mother’s and father’s age, number of months pregnant, and mother’s and father’s race/ethnicity.

If both parents were eligible and expressed interest in participation in the study, information regarding how to contact them was then obtained. Appointments were then made to meet with the young mothers and fathers in their respective homes. Because of the sensitivity of the questions in the sur-vey instrument, individuals were always interviewed separately. Every effort was made to match interviewer and participant race/ethnicity. All survey questionnaires were read aloud by the interviewers.

A total of 501 age-eligible couples were screened. Among those, 165 ado-lescent mothers and their partners agreed to participate in the study. Of these,



Fagan 1423

127 fathers completed the posttest and follow-up interviews, 127 mothers completed the posttest, and 113 mothers completed the follow-up interview.

Participant Characteristics

The average ages of mothers and fathers in the present sample were 17.27 and 18.85 years, respectively (see Table 1). Almost 45% of the participants were African American, about 36% were Hispanic, and the remaining 19% were non-Hispanic White or other (e.g., Asian American). Mothers com-pleted 10th grade on average, whereas fathers completed 11th grade on aver-age. Fathers worked an average of 15 hours per week, although there was considerable variation in the number of hours worked, including about one half of fathers who were not working any hours per week. About 58% of couples were cohabiting when the baby was 3-months old. The vast majority (95%) of couples were still romantically involved with each other when the baby was 3 months old.

Measures

Fathers’ Engagement With Infant. Fathers and mothers assessed fathers’ engagement in caregiving activities with the 15-item Parental Childcare Scale (Hossain & Roopnarine, 1994) when the baby was 3 months old. Par-ticipants were asked to indicate the extent (1 = never to 5 = always) to which the father engages the child in activities, such as holding the baby during play, feeding the baby, and changing the baby’s diaper. Higher total scores reflect more frequent involvement with the infant (α = .86 for fathers and .91 for mothers).

Parenting Alliance. Fathers and mothers completed the McBride and Rane (1998) Parenting Alliance Scale (which is a modification of Abidin & Brun-ner’s, 1995, Parenting Alliance Inventory), a 17-item Likert-type questionnaire with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree, before the birth of the baby (posttest interview) and when the baby was 3 months old. The wording of the items in this instrument were appropriate for use prenatally or after the child’s birth. Sample items included, “Even if my baby’s mother and I (baby’s father and I) have problems in our relationship, we can work together for our child,” “The baby’s mother and I (baby’s father and I) have similar goals for our child,” and “My (baby’s father/mother) believes that I will be a good parent.” A high score on this scale suggests higher levels of parenting alliance. The prenatal and 3-month Cronbach’s alphas for the scale were .92 and .81 for fathers, and .77 and .95 for mothers, respectively.




Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 127).

N or M % or SD Range

Mother age (years) 17.27 1.60 13-20Father’s age (years) 18.85 2.15 14-24Black 57 44.9 0-1Hispanic 46 36.2 0-1Non-Hispanic White/other 24 18.9 0-1Mother’s highest level of school

completed10th grade 1.47 6th grade-1-year college

Father’s highest level of school completed

11th grade 1.34 7th grade-3-year college

Child is a boy 66 52 0-1Father’s work hours at 3 months 14.75 19.28 0-60Nonresident couple at 3 months 54 42.5 0-1Relationship status Romantic partners 121 95.3 0-1 Friends 6 4.7 0-1Treatment group (1 = coparenting) 68 53.5 0-1Mother’s perception of father’s

prenatal involvement25.92 6.55 7-35

Father’s perception of own prenatal involvement

27.27 6.02 7-35

Mother’s perception of parenting alliance prenatal

43.25 5.35 27-52

Father’s perception of parenting alliance prenatal

44.96 6.89 26-52

Mother’s perception of parenting alliance at 3 months

41.68 6.62 16-53

Father’s perception of parenting alliance at 3 months

41.84 4.74 31-52

Mother’s perception of partner conflict prenatal

41.45 12.46 20-70

Father’s perception of partner conflict prenatal

40.97 11.98 21-70

Mother’s perception of partner conflict at 3 months

44.33 14.86 18-70

Father’s perception of partner conflict at 3 months

40.40 10.81 20-70

Mother’s perception of father engagement at 3 months

40.81 12.05 13-65

Father’s perception of father engagement at 3 months

42.46 9.40 13-64

Partner Conflict. Conflict in the couple relationship before and after the baby’s birth were measured using the conflict items from Ahrons and Wallisch’s



Fagan 1425

(1987) Coparental Conflict Scale (eight items) and Rands, Levinger, ad Mel-linger’s (1981) Coparental Conflict Management/Resolution Scale (six items). The scales address conflict between partners; none of the items in the scales focus on conflict about parenting. For example, participants were asked, “How often were the conversations between you stressful or tense?,” “How often did you and he/she physically attack each other?,” and “How often did you and he/she call each other names?.” The response format was based on a Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. Composites of the 14 items were constructed by adding all items together (αprenatal, 3-month = .86 and .90 for fathers and .87 and .86 for mothers).

Father’s Prenatal Involvement. Father’s prenatal involvement was measured using a seven-item instrument (Fagan, 2008) developed on the basis of a review of the transition to parenthood literature and on interviews with preg-nant parents about the important components of father’s prenatal involve-ment. Fathers and mothers completed this measure. Parents were asked to indicate how often the father of the baby participated in various prenatal activities on a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). There were five items measuring communication with the mother (e.g., “How often do you and your partner talk about plans for the baby?”) and two items on interacting with the mother and child prenatally (e.g., “How often do you speak with the baby while in the mom’s belly?”). A high score on this scale suggests that fathers are more involved in various aspects of the pregnancy. A composite of the seven items was constructed by adding all items together (α = .80 for fathers and .76 for mothers).

Control Measures

One item in the follow-up questionnaire asked respondents to indicate whether they currently live together (cohabit) on a regular basis. These data were coded so that 0 = coresident and 1 = nonresident. Participants were asked to indicate whether they were African American, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or Other. Three categorical variables were created from these data: African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White/other race (reference category). Child gender was also controlled (1 = boy). Mothers and fathers were also asked to indicate their age in years. A measure of fathers’ weekly work hours was based on two items: whether the father cur-rently works for pay and how many hours the father works per week. Fathers who indicated that they are not currently working were coded as working 0 hours per week.




Analyses

Path analyses were conducted using AMOS. Full information maximum like-lihood (FIML) estimation in AMOS was used to handle all missing data. Goodness of fit of the model to the data is suggested when the chi-square is nonsignificant, the Comparative fit index (CFI) is greater than .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than .06 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). A RMSEA score of .06 is acceptable and a score less than .05 is indicative of a close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). AMOS uses the Sobel (1982) equation to test for the statistical significance of total indirect effects for variables in the model. To be consistent with the actor-partner interdependence model, I included mother and father reports of all study variables (e.g., partner conflict) in the same model. All prenatal variables were set to covary with each other, as were the infancy variables.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Among the 127 cases in the analytic sample, data were only missing among mothers during the infancy interview. From 10% to 11% of cases were miss-ing data for mothers’ perception of parenting alliance, partner conflict, and father engagement during infancy. In order to determine whether data were missing at random, we conducted t tests and chi-square tests to determine the extent to which race/ethnicity, mother’s age, and mothers’ perception of prenatal parenting alliance, partner conflict, and father involvement were associated with missing items on mothers’ perception of parenting alliance, partner conflict, and father engagement during infancy. There were no sig-nificant associations between race/ethnicity and missingness on mother’s perception of alliance, χ2 (df = 4) = 2.52, ns; mother’s perception of partner conflict, χ2 (df = 4) = 3.54, ns; or mother’s perception of father engagement with the infant, χ2 (df = 4) = 2.44, ns. There were also no significant associa-tions between mother’s age and missingness on mother’s perception of alli-ance, t(125) = −0.14, ns; mother’s perception of partner conflict, t(125) = 0.04, ns; or mother’s perception of father engagement with the infant, t(125) = 0.14, ns. Mothers who were missing data on parenting alliance during infancy had lower scores on prenatal alliance, t(125) = − 2.53, p < .05; but not on mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement, t(125) = 1.62, ns; or mothers’ perceptions of prenatal conflict, t(125) = 1.86, ns. Mothers who were missing data on perception of fathers’ engagement during infancy had lower scores on prenatal alliance, t(125) = −2.94, p < .01 and higher scores on prenatal conflict, t(125) = 2.62, p < .01; but they did not have



Fagan 1427

lower scores on perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement, t(125) = −0.05, ns. Mothers who were missing data on partner conflict during infancy did not differ from those with available data on measures of prenatal alliance, t(125) = −1.88, ns; conflict, t(125) = 1.84, ns; or fathers’ prenatal involve-ment, t(125) = −1.66, ns. The small number of significant associations sug-gests that the data were not “completely missing at random” but instead were “missing at random.” FIML has been viewed as an acceptable tech-nique to handle data that are missing at random (Raykov, 2011), especially with small amounts of missing data.

Preliminary analyses were also conducted to determine whether any of the study variables were correlated with fathers’ participation in the treatment or control groups. Results revealed no significant associations between treat-ment group and any of the prenatal or postbirth variables, including parenting alliance, partner conflict, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and father engage-ment. Moreover, I did not find significant differences for participation in the treatment or control groups by race/ethnicity or age of the parent. On the basis of these findings, treatment group was not included as a control variable in the path analyses. The correlation matrix reveals no evidence of collinear-ity among the study variables (see Table 2).

Descriptive Analyses

On average, fathers rated their engagement with the infant slightly higher than mothers did (see Table 1). When fathers’ and mothers’ total engagement scores were divided by the number of items in the composite measure (n = 15), the average item scores (2.83 for fathers and 2.72 for mothers) suggested that fathers were often involved with their infants (items were scored 1 = never to 5 = always). When fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement were divided by the number of items in the composite measure (n = 7), the average item scores (3.90 for fathers and 3.70 for mothers) suggested that fathers were very often involved prenatally (items were scored 1 = never to 5 = always). Both fathers and mothers rated partner conflict as having occurred “sometimes” before the birth of the baby and when the baby was 3 months old (average item scores = 2.93 and 2.89 for fathers and 2.96 and 3.17 for mothers [items were scored 1 = never to 5 = always]). When fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance were divided by the number of items in the composite measure (n = 17), the average item scores before the birth of the child and at 3 months (average item scores = 2.64 and 2.46 for fathers and 2.72 and 2.45 for mothers) suggest that both fathers and mothers rated the parenting alliance as somewhere between agree and disagree (items were scored 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree).



1428

Tab

le 2

. C

orre

latio

n M

atri

x (N

= 1

27).

Var

iabl

e2

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15

1.

C g

ende

r (1

= b

oy)

−.0

14.0

11−

.120

−.0

09−

.036

−.0

22−

.075

.089

.142

−.0

02−

.058

.008

.074

−.0

76 2

. H

ispa

nic

−.7

08**

*.1

66−

.288

*.0

05−

.189

*.2

11*

.102

.083

−.2

26*

−.0

78.1

19.1

40.0

15 3

. Bl

ack

−.2

10*

.376

***

.098

.244

**−

.146

−.2

04*

−.1

95*

.266

**.1

31−

.163

−.1

69−

.035

4.

F W

ork

hour

s−

.183

*−

.021

−.2

55**

.130

.274

**.0

69−

.229

**−

.047

.059

.107

.017

5.

Non

resi

dent

.239

**.2

70**

−.2

13*

−.2

37**

−.2

07*

.274

**.1

67−

.107

−.1

66−

.175

* 6

. F

Con

flict

–P.4

90**

*−

.479

***

−.3

69**

*−

.227

**.3

74**

*.5

56**

*−

.052

−.1

76*

−.0

12 7

. M

Con

flict

–P−

.417

***

−.5

18**

*−

.395

***

.721

***

.472

***

−.1

23−

.325

***

−.0

10 8

. F

Alli

ance

–P.2

86**

*.2

80**

*−

.342

***

−.2

97**

*.1

38.2

50**

.031

9.

M A

llian

ce–P

.394

***

−.3

94**

*−

.273

**.2

86**

*.4

49**

*.1

86*

10.

M A

llian

ce–I

−.5

04**

*−

.339

***

−.4

74**

*.6

80**

*.3

20**

*11

. M

Con

flict

–I.5

57**

*−

.178

*−

.476

***

−.1

1512

. F

Con

flict

–I−

.165

−.3

94**

*−

.126

13.

F A

llian

ce–I

.361

***

.322

***

14.

F en

gage

men

t M

.271

**15

. F

Enga

gem

ent

F

Not

e . C

= c

hild

, F =

fath

er, M

= m

othe

r, I

= in

fanc

y, P

= p

rena

tal.

*p <

.05.

**

p <

.01.

***

p <

.001

.



Fagan 1429

Path Analyses

Table 3 and Figure 1 show the results of the path analysis. Only significant parameters are shown in Figure 1. The hypothesized model revealed a good fit to the data, χ2(df = 10) = 14.06, ns; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .00. With approx-imately 90% confidence, the RMSEA was between .00 and .12.

Examination of the direct effects reveals mothers’ perceptions of parent-ing alliance during infancy were positively related to mothers’ reports of father engagement during infancy. There was no significant association between fathers’ perception of parenting alliance during infancy and his engagement with the infant. There were no significant associations between mothers’ or fathers’ reports of prenatal parenting alliance and father engage-ment with infants. Thus the first hypothesis of the study was supported: Alliance during infancy will be more closely linked to concurrent father engagement than will prenatal alliance. However, this was only the case for mothers.

The second study hypothesis suggested that young parents’ early represen-tations of the parenting alliance will have an effect on later alliance. Only mothers’ perceptions of prenatal alliance were significantly associated with both mother and father perception of alliance during infancy, suggesting that mothers’ but not fathers’ representations of alliance before the birth of the baby show stability over time.

The present study hypothesized a spillover effect of prenatal partner con-flict on parenting alliance during infancy (Hypothesis 3). Mothers’ percep-tions of prenatal conflict were significantly and negatively associated with mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance during infancy. Moreover, there was a fairly robust indirect effect of mothers’ perceptions of partner conflict before the birth of the baby on mothers’ perceptions of father engagement with the infant, which was partially mediated by mothers’ perceptions of par-enting alliance during infancy. The size of the indirect effect was calculated by multiplying the coefficients for prenatal conflict (M) → infancy parenting alliance (M) (β = −.24) and infancy parenting alliance (M) → father engage-ment (M) (β = .45), which yields an indirect effect of .11. It should be noted that the indirect effect of mothers’ perceptions of partner conflict before the birth of the baby on mothers’ perceptions of father engagement with the infant was also partially mediated by mothers’ perceptions of conflict during infancy (β = .13). Thus, the spillover hypothesis was supported, but only in relation to mothers’ (not fathers’) perceptions of partner conflict, alliance, and engagement.

The fourth hypothesis suggested that fathers’ prenatal involvement would be positively and directly associated with higher quality parenting alliance




Table 3. Path Analysis for Mothers’ and Fathers’ Perceptions of Parenting Alliance, Partner Conflict, Father Prenatal Involvement, and Father Engagement (N = 127).

B SE β

Direct effects F prenatal involvement (M) → parenting alliance (I, F) .04 .08 −.05 F prenatal involvement (M) → parenting alliance (I, M) .00 .10 .00 F prenatal involvement (M) → partner conflict (I, M) .30 .19 .13 F prenatal involvement (M) → partner conflict (I, F) .34 .16 .19* F prenatal involvement (F) → parenting alliance (I, F) .18 .08 .23* F prenatal involvement (F) → parenting alliance (I, M) .39 .10 .36*** F prenatal involvement (F) → partner conflict (I, M) −.21 .18 –.08 F prenatal involvement (F) → partner conflict (I, F) −.41 .16 −.22** Parenting alliance (F, P) → parenting alliance (I, F) .03 .07 .04 Parenting alliance (F, P) → parenting alliance (I, M) .01 .09 .02 Parenting alliance (F, P) → partner conflict (I, M) −.08 .16 −.04 Parenting alliance (F, P) → partner conflict (I, F) .11 .14 .07 Parenting alliance (M, P) → parenting alliance (I, F) .29 .10 .32** Parenting alliance (M, P) → parenting alliance (I, M) .30 .12 .24* Parenting alliance (M, P) → partner conflict (I, M) −.21 .23 −.08 Parenting alliance (M, P) → partner conflict (I, F) −.10 .20 –.05 Partner conflict (M, P) → parenting alliance (I, F) .02 .04 .05 Partner conflict (M, P) → parenting alliance (I, M) −.13 .05 −.24** Partner conflict (M, P) → partner conflict (I, M) .79 .10 .61*** Partner conflict (M, P) → partner conflict (I, F) .27 .08 .30*** Partner conflict (F, P) → parenting alliance (I, F) .04 .04 .11 Partner conflict (F, P) → parenting alliance (I, M) .03 .05 .05 Partner conflict (F, P) → partner conflict (I, M) −.02 .10 −.01 Partner conflict (F, P) → partner conflict (I, F) .38 .08 .41*** F prenatal involve (M) → F engagement (M) .53 .14 .29*** F prenatal involve (M) → F engagement (F) −.18 .16 −.12 F prenatal involve (F) → F engagement (M) .01 .14 .00 F prenatal involve (F) → F engagement (F) .37 .16 .24* Parenting alliance (F, P) → F engagement (M) .05 .12 .03 Parenting alliance (F, P) → F engagement (F) −.11 .13 −.08 Parenting alliance (M, P) → F engagement (M) .31 .17 .14 Parenting alliance (M, P) → F engagement (F) .35 .20 .20 Partner conflict (M, P) → F engagement (M) .24 .09 .26** Partner conflict (M, P) → F engagement (F) .15 .10 .20 Partner conflict (F, P) → F engagement (M) .12 .07 .13 Partner conflict (F, P) → F engagement (F) .04 .09 .05 Parenting alliance (I, F) → F engagement (M) .02 .16 .01 Parenting alliance (I, F) → F engagement (F) .34 .18 .17 Parenting alliance (I, M) → F engagement (M) .78 .14 .45*** Parenting alliance (I, M) → F engagement (F) .23 .16 .16 Partner conflict (I, M) → F engagement (F) −.04 .08 −.06 Partner conflict (I, M) → F engagement (M) −.17 .07 −.22* Partner conflict (I, F) → F engagement (M) −.24 .08 −.24** Partner conflict (I, F) → F engagement (M) −.04 .09 −.05

(continued)



Fagan 1431

B SE β

Indirect effects Partner conflict (F, P) → F engagement (F) .01 .05 .01 Partner conflict (F, P) → F engagement (M) −.07 .07 −.07 Partner conflict (M, P) → F engagement (F) −.06 .08 −.09 Partner conflict (M, P) → F engagement (M) −.29 .09 −.31** Parenting alliance (M, P) → F engagement (F) .18 .10 .10 Parenting alliance (M, P) → F engagement (M) .30 .17 .12 Parenting alliance (F, P) → F engagement (F) .01 .06 .02 Parenting alliance (F, P) → F engagement (M) .01 .11 .01 F prenatal involve (F) → F engagement (F) .18 .10 .11 F prenatal involve (F) → F engagement (M) .44 .15 .22** F prenatal involve (M) → F engagement (F) −.04 .07 −.02 F prenatal involve (M) → F engagement (M) −.13 .13 −.06χ2 (df = 10) 14.06 CFI .99 RMSEA .00

Note. M = mother, F = father, I = infancy, P = prenatal. Controls = mother’s age, father’s age, father’s work hours, nonresidential status, child gender, race/ethnicity; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 3. (continued)

and father engagement during infancy. Fathers’ perceptions of prenatal involvement were positively associated with higher levels of parenting alli-ance during infancy as perceived by fathers and mothers and higher levels of father engagement as perceived by fathers. Mothers’ perceptions of prenatal involvement were positively associated with mothers’ perceptions of father engagement but not with higher levels of parenting alliance. Moreover, there was a significant indirect effect of fathers’ perception of their prenatal involvement and father engagement with infants as perceived by mothers (fathers’ prenatal involvement (F) → infancy parenting alliance (M) [β = .36] × infancy parenting alliance (M) → father engagement (M) [β = .45] = .16). This indirect effect was mediated by mothers’ perception of parenting alli-ance during infancy. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was supported, but the asso-ciations between fathers’ prenatal involvement and alliance or engagement depended on who rated the behavior.

Discussion

The present study modeled the associations among parenting alliance, partner conflict, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and fathers’ engagement with infants. A strength of the present study was that both adolescent mothers’ and young




fathers’ perceptions of these variables were included. As hypothesized (Hypothesis 1), the results showed that concurrent (proximal) measures of parenting alliance during infancy (as perceived by mothers) were more closely linked to father engagement than were prenatal measures of parenting alliance. Researchers have suggested that parents start to form mental repre-sentations of parenting alliance before the birth of the child, and these repre-sentations are predictive of postbirth parenting alliance and father engagement. The present study revealed no significant associations between prenatal par-enting alliance and father engagement. It is possible that adolescent parents’ representations of parenting alliance before the birth of the child are not asso-ciated with father engagement with the infant because adolescents do not yet have a clear understanding of what is involved in sharing the care of a new baby. Just as adolescent parents often have inappropriate expectations for

Figure 1. Path analysis of partner conflict, parenting alliance, fathers’ prenatal involvement, and father engagement with infants.Note. All statistics are standardized coefficient. All prenatal variables are set to covary. Infancy variables (conflict, alliance) are set to covary. Control variables include mother’s age, father’s age, father’s work hours, residential status, child gender, and race ethnicity. (F) = father per-ception; (M) = mother perception.



Fagan 1433

their infant’s development (O’Callaghan, Borkowski, Whitman, Maxwell, & Keogh, 1999), they may also have unrealistic expectations of the parenting alliance, especially before the child’s birth. Adolescent parents may be overly idealistic before the birth about the extent to which they will be able to work together as a team with their partner. Their experiences with forming a par-enting alliance may change dramatically once the baby arrives and the couple realizes the responsibilities of caring for a newborn.

It was interesting to note, however, that there were significant associa-tions between prenatal parenting alliance and postbirth parenting alliance among adolescent mothers but not among young fathers (Hypothesis 2). Adolescent mothers may be able to construct a more accurate representation of the parenting alliance before the child’s birth because of their close physi-cal involvement with the child. As a result, adolescent mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance may be more closely linked to their postbirth percep-tions of coparenting. These findings also suggest that adolescent and young fathers may benefit from prenatal intervention programs designed to help them understand the nature of parenting alliances (i.e., coparenting) and to begin communicating with their partners about how they will work together as a team.

The present study hypothesized a spillover effect of prenatal partner con-flict on parenting alliance and father engagement during infancy (Hypothesis 3). The results supported this hypothesis but only in relation to adolescent mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance, conflict, and engagement. Mothers’ perceptions of prenatal partner conflict were not only negatively associated with parenting alliance during infancy, but they were also indi-rectly related to father engagement through parenting alliance during infancy. These findings extend the work of previous researchers who have focused on adult parents (e.g., Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000) by showing that the spill-over effect also applies to adolescent mothers and young fathers. It is not clear from these data, however, whether partner conflict causes stress in par-ents which then compromises the parenting alliance (Kitzmann, 2000) or whether partner conflict is misdirected to the parenting alliance through mechanisms such as scapegoating or detouring (Stroud et al., 2011).

It is noteworthy that the spillover effect seems to depend on the gender of the parent. It is possible that adolescent mothers have more at stake in terms of the quality of the parenting alliance and they are therefore more sensitive to couple conflict. That is to say, because adolescent mothers are likely to assume long-term primary caregiving responsibility for the child, they are also more likely to have greater influence on whether they will allow the young father to coparent the child. Adolescent mothers may partially base their decision to form a parenting alliance with the young father on the level




of conflict in the couple relationship. On the other hand, father’s sense of the parenting alliance may be based more on factors such as the mother’s gate-keeping or his own feelings about becoming a father.

The findings partially supported the hypothesis that fathers’ prenatal involvement would be positively associated with the parenting alliance and with father engagement (Hypothesis 4). Fathers’ ratings of their own prenatal involvement were positively associated with both fathers’ and mothers’ per-ceptions of the parenting alliance during infancy, but mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement were not significantly associated with mothers’ rating of the alliance. These findings show some consistency with a growing body of research showing that adult fathers’ engagement with young children is longitudinally associated with subsequent quality of the coparenting rela-tionship (Jia & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011). It is interesting to note that the sig-nificant associations among fathers are between their perceptions of their own prenatal involvement and later parenting alliance, but the significant associa-tions among mothers are between quality of the prenatal mother–father rela-tionship (partner conflict, parenting alliance) and parenting alliance during infancy. Young fathers may feel that their alliance with the mother is deter-mined more by their early involvement in the pregnancy whereas adolescent mothers may feel that their alliance with the father is determined more by partner relationship factors. These findings may have implications for practice with young parents. For example, interventions that focus on the quality of the partner relationship during pregnancy may be associated with improved par-enting alliances as perceived by mothers but not by fathers. Practitioners may need to be aware that interventions during pregnancy may have different effects depending on the gender of the parent.

Fathers’ prenatal involvement was positively and directly associated with father engagement with the infant as perceived by both mothers and fathers, supporting a growing body of research showing linkages between fathers’ prenatal involvement and later engagement (Cabrera et al., 2008). An unex-pected finding was that fathers’ prenatal involvement was indirectly associ-ated with fathers’ engagement through its effect on mothers’ perception of parenting alliance during infancy. These findings are significant because they suggest that fathers’ prenatal involvement is not only important for fostering the development of the father–child bond in infancy, but it may also be asso-ciated with higher levels of engagement with the infant because the mother and father have an improved parenting alliance. Young fathers need to estab-lish early patterns of engagement with their children in hopes that the father–child relationship will be stable over time. Consequently, there may be considerable value in promoting young fathers’ prenatal involvement in pro-grams for young parents.



Fagan 1435

Limitations

A limitation of the present study was that data were collected from a very low-income population in a large urban community. Thus, the findings can-not be generalized to the U.S. population of adolescent mothers and young fathers. The results may also be biased because parents who participated in the study agreed to participate in an intervention program for expecting ado-lescent parents. It is not clear how this sample of young parents differs from other adolescent parents. It is possible that the participants of this study included couples who were more committed to each other than adolescent couples in the general U.S. population. If that is the case, then the findings may be more representative of couples with better quality relationships. However, it is also possible that the couples who participated in the study were expectant parents with more inter-personal or personal problems. These couples may have agreed to participate in the intervention study because they were seeking help from a program to address relationship dif-ficulties. There were also limitations due to missing data. Mothers who were missing parenting alliance and father engagement assessments during infancy were more likely to report lower prenatal parenting alliance, sug-gesting that attrition occurred among couples with lower levels of commit-ment to each other. Given these various limitations, I suspect that the findings are more representative of higher functioning adolescent mothers and young fathers.

Conclusions

The present study found that adolescent mothers’ and young fathers’ percep-tions of the parenting alliance before the birth of the baby were not good predictors of fathers’ engagement with the infant. Mothers’ perceptions of parenting alliance during infancy were robust correlates of mothers’ reports of father engagement with infants. Moreover, mothers’ (but not fathers’) per-ceptions of prenatal parenting alliance were significantly related to parenting alliance in infancy. These findings suggest that practitioners and researchers may need to help young couples obtain more realistic understandings of what it means to form a parenting alliance before the birth of the baby and how it can affect later coparenting relationships and father engagement.

Mothers’ perceptions of prenatal partner conflict were linked to lower quality parenting alliances during infancy, and there was an indirect spillover effect of mothers’ perceived prenatal conflict on later father engagement. This is an important finding because adolescent mothers often control the extent to which fathers have access to their children. These results suggest




that it is especially important for practitioners and researchers to assess the adolescent mothers’ perceptions of partner conflict before the child’s birth, as these perceptions may influence the extent to which the father is involved with the baby shortly after the child is born.

Finally, mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of fathers’ prenatal involvement were robust correlates of fathers’ engagement with infants. These findings are consistent with the growing body of research showing the importance of fathers’ early involvement with the mother and fetus. We caution, however, that the results of this study may be more applicable to higher functioning adolescent mothers and young fathers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of Adolescent Family Life Research, Grant # APRPA006004-03-02

References

Abidin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance inven-tory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 31-40.

Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and stepparents. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepfamilies: Research and theory (pp. 225-256). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bradford, K., & Hawkins, A. (2006). Learning competent fathering: A longitudi-nal analysis of marital intimacy and fathering. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 4, 215-234.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human develop-ment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cabrera, N., Fagan, J., & Farrie, D. (2008). Explaining the long reach of fathers’ prenatal involvement on later paternal engagement with children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1094-1107.

Cabrera, N., Ryan, R. M., Shannon, J. D., Brooks-Gun, J., Vogel, C., Raikes, H., & Cohen, R. (2004). Low-income fathers’ involvement in their toddlers’ lives: Biological fathers from the early head start research and evaluation study. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 2, 5-30.



Fagan 1437

Cohen, R. S., & Weissman, S. H. (1984). The parenting alliance. In R. S. Cohen, B. J. Cohler & S. H. Weissman (Eds.), Parenthood: A psychodynamic perspective (pp. 33-49). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). Actor-partner interdependence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109.

Doherty, W., Kouneski, E., & Erickson, M. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277-292.

Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Brody, G. (2007). Coparenting conflict and parenting behavior in economically disadvantaged single parent African American fami-lies: The role of maternal psychological distress. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 621-630.

Elliston, D., McHale, J., Talbot, J., Parmley, M., & Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2008). Withdrawal from coparenting interactions during early infancy. Family Process, 47, 481-499.

Fagan, J. (2008). Randomized study of a prebirth coparenting intervention with ado-lescent and young fathers. Family Relations, 57, 309-323.

Fagan, J., & Lee, Y. (2010). Perceptions and satisfaction with father involvement and adolescent mothers’ postpartum depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1109-1121.

Fagan, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Do coparenting and social support have a greater effect on adolescent fathers than adult fathers? Family Relations, 60, 247-258.

Fagan, J., Schmitz, M., & Lloyd, J. (2007). The relationship between adolescent and young fathers’ capital and marital plans of couples expecting a baby. Family Relations, 56, 231-243.

Farrie, D., Lee, Y., & Fagan, J. (2011). The effect of cumulative risk on paternal engagement: Examining differences among adolescent and older couples. Youth & Society, 43, 90-117.

Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 173-195.

Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95-131.

Fernandez, M., & Nichols, L. (1996). Ecological approach in practice: A case study of the ounce of prevention fund. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23, 121.

Florsheim, P., Moore, D., & Edgington, C. (2003). Romantic relations among ado-lescent parents. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 297-322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Furstenberg, F. F. (2007). Destinies of the disadvantaged: The politics of teenage childbearing. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Futris, T. G., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2007). Mothers’ perceptions of barriers, par-enting alliance, and adolescent fathers’ engagement with their children. Family Relations, 56, 258-269.




Gee, C. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2003). Adolescent mothers’ relationship with their chil-dren’s biological fathers: Social support, social strain, and relationship continu-ity. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 370-383.

Herzog, M. J., Umana-Taylor, A. J., Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Leonard, S. A. (2007). Adolescent mothers’ perceptions of fathers’ parental involvement: Satisfaction and desire for involvement. Family Relations, 56, 244-257.

Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus mar-riage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213-232.

Hossain, Z., & Roopnarine, J. (1994). African-Americans fathers’ involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioning style, support, education, and income. Infant Behavior & Development, 17, 175-184.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Jia, R., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Relations between coparenting and father involvement in families with preschool-age children. Developmental Psychology, 47, 106-118.

Kitzmann, K. M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family inter-actions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36, 3-13.

Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behav-iors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25-44.

Mangelsdorf, S. C., Laxman, D. J., & Jessee, A. (2011). Coparenting in two-parent nuclear families. In J. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A concep-tual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 39-60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173-1191.

Marsiglio, W., & Cohan, M. (1997). Young fathers and child development. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 227-244). New York, NY: Wiley.

May, K. A. (1980). A typology of detachment/involvement styles adopted dur-ing pregnancy by first time fathers. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2, 445-453.

McBride, B. A., & Rane, T. R. (1998). Parenting alliance as a predictor of father involvement: An exploratory study. Family Relations, 47, 229-236.

McHale, J. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985-996.

McHale, J. (2009). Shared child rearing in nuclear, fragile, and kinship family sys-tems: Evolution, dilemmas, and promise of a coparenting framework. In M. S. Schultz, M. K. Pruett, P. K. Kerig & R. D. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening cou-ple relationships for optimal child development (pp. 77-94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.



Fagan 1439

McHale, J., & Irace, K. (2011). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In J. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examina-tion of family systems (pp. 15-38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McHale, J., & Rotman, T. (2007). Is seeing believing? Expectant parents’ outlooks on co-parenting and later co-parenting solidarity. Infant Behavior & Development, 30, 63-81.

Mollborn, S., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2011). How teenage fathers matter for children: Evidence from the ECLS-B. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 3-30.

O’Callaghan, M. F., Borkowski, J. G., Whitman, T. L., Maxwell, S. E., & Keogh, D. (1999). A model of adolescent parenting: The role of cognitive readiness to par-ent. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 203-225.

Pittman, L. D., & Coley, R. L. (2011). Coparenting in families with adolescent moth-ers. In J. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clini-cal examination of family systems (pp. 105-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58-93). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rands, M., Levinger, G., & Mellinger, G. D. (1981). Patterns of conflict and resolu-tion and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 2, 297-258.

Raykov, T. (2011). On testability of missing data mechanisms in incomplete data sets. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 419-429.

Schamess, S. (1993). The search for love: Unmarried adolescent mothers’ views of, and relationships with, men. Adolescence, 28, 425-438.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83-110.

Stroud, C. B., Durbin, C. E., Wilson, S., & Mendelsohn, K. A. (2011). Spillover to triadic and dyadic systems in families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 919-930.

Van Egeren, L. A., & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 65-178.

Vosler, N. R., & Robertson, J. G. (1998). Nonmarital co-parenting: Knowledge build-ing for practice. Families in Society, 79, 149-159.

Young, A. Y., & Holcomb, P. A. (2007). Voices of young fathers: The partners for fragile families demonstration projects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/voices/index.htm


http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/voices/index.htm


Documents

Adolescent Parents' Partner Conflict and Parenting Alliance, Fathers' Prenatal Involvement, and Fathers' Engagement With Infants