4
NATASHA J. CABRERA University of Maryland JAY FAGAN Temple University* DANIELLE FARRIE Temple University** Why Should We Encourage Unmarried Fathers to Be Prenatally Involved? We appreciate the opportunity to write a rejoinder to the thoughtful and insightful comments of Pro- fessors Doherty and Marsiglio. Their comments place our findings in the context of research and policy and, as such, offer a springboard from which to think about current policy applications of our study and future data needs, especially lon- gitudinal data that can enable researchers to examine causal explanations and trajectories of fatherhood. Doherty points out that a more specific way to frame our findings would be by stating that unmar- ried fathers’ greater reliability and helpfulness during the pregnancy is associated with more positive face-to-face interaction with the child 1 and 3 years later and that fathers who are more reliably helpful during the pregnancy are more apt to be positively involved with their child if the father and mother continue living together or start to live together. We agree that these terms— reliable, helpful, and face-to-face-interaction— convey the behaviors that the broad constructs of prenatal involvement and father engagement in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data set are designed to measure. These terms, however, do not convey some of the complexity and emotional connection that may be driving these behaviors (although the broad constructs fail at this, too). It is not just being reliable and helpful that leads fathers to more frequent face- to-face interaction with their children. Men who are prenatally involved seem to be motivated to commit to their partner and child and to be engaged in their lives, which lead to establish- ing or maintaining more committed partner rela- tionships following the child’s birth. We suggest that a father’s reliable and helpful behavior toward the mother during the preg- nancy has special meaning during the transition to fatherhood; for example, a man may begin to think of himself as a father (i.e., identify with the role) and reflect on how he will fulfill this new role. Thus unmarried fathers’ prenatal involvement is meant to convey not only reli- able behaviors but also a motivation to be com- mitted to his partner and child, which may make them feel they have more control over the upbringing of their child (Weiss & Willis, 1985). And this leads us to Marsiglio’s impor- tant point that the Fragile Families data do not provide the proper tools to assess these behav- iors and motivations as men transition into fatherhood. The implications that Doherty draws for policy are equally important. Our research suggests that family structure matters; couples who live together (cohabiting or married) are more likely University of Maryland, College of Education, Human Development, 3304 Benjamin Bldg., Room 3304E, College Park, MD 20742 ([email protected]). *Temple University, School of Social Administration, Ritter Hall Annex, 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19122. **Temple University, Department of Sociology, Gladfelter, 7th floor, 1115 W. Berks St., Philadelphia, PA 19122. 1118 Journal of Marriage and Family 70 (December 2008): 1118–1121

Why Should We Encourage Unmarried Fathers to Be Prenatally Involved?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

NATASHA J. CABRERA University of Maryland

JAY FAGAN Temple University*

DANIELLE FARRIE Temple University**

Why Should We Encourage Unmarried Fathers to

Be Prenatally Involved?

Weappreciate the opportunity towrite a rejoinderto the thoughtful and insightful comments of Pro-fessors Doherty and Marsiglio. Their commentsplace our findings in the context of research andpolicy and, as such, offer a springboard fromwhich to think about current policy applicationsof our study and future data needs, especially lon-gitudinal data that can enable researchers toexamine causal explanations and trajectories offatherhood.

Doherty points out that a more specific way toframe our findingswould be by stating that unmar-ried fathers’ greater reliability and helpfulnessduring the pregnancy is associated with morepositive face-to-face interaction with the child 1and 3 years later and that fathers who are morereliably helpful during the pregnancy are moreapt to be positively involved with their child ifthe father and mother continue living together orstart to live together. We agree that these terms—reliable, helpful, and face-to-face-interaction—convey the behaviors that the broad constructsof prenatal involvement and father engagementin the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing

data set are designed to measure. These terms,however, do not convey some of the complexityand emotional connection that may be drivingthese behaviors (although the broad constructsfail at this, too). It is not just being reliable andhelpful that leads fathers to more frequent face-to-face interaction with their children. Men whoare prenatally involved seem to be motivated tocommit to their partner and child and to beengaged in their lives, which lead to establish-ing or maintaining more committed partner rela-tionships following the child’s birth. Wesuggest that a father’s reliable and helpfulbehavior toward the mother during the preg-nancy has special meaning during the transitionto fatherhood; for example, a man may begin tothink of himself as a father (i.e., identify withthe role) and reflect on how he will fulfill thisnew role. Thus unmarried fathers’ prenatalinvolvement is meant to convey not only reli-able behaviors but also a motivation to be com-mitted to his partner and child, which maymake them feel they have more control over theupbringing of their child (Weiss & Willis,1985). And this leads us to Marsiglio’s impor-tant point that the Fragile Families data do notprovide the proper tools to assess these behav-iors and motivations as men transition intofatherhood.

The implications that Doherty draws for policyare equally important. Our research suggeststhat family structure matters; couples who livetogether (cohabiting or married) are more likely

University of Maryland, College of Education, HumanDevelopment, 3304 Benjamin Bldg., Room 3304E, CollegePark, MD 20742 ([email protected]).

*Temple University, School of Social Administration, RitterHall Annex, 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

**Temple University, Department of Sociology, Gladfelter,7th floor, 1115 W. Berks St., Philadelphia, PA 19122.

1118 Journal of Marriage and Family 70 (December 2008): 1118–1121

to be actively involved with their children duringthe first 3 years of life. The available research lit-erature, however, has already established thisassociation. Our contribution is to suggest thatunmarried fathers’ involvement with the motherduring the pregnancy leads to couples establish-ing residential relationships when they did notpreviously, and it is the establishment of a resi-dential relationship that partially explains whyprenatal involvement is associated with higherlevels of paternal engagement as the child growsolder. We agree that at some level combining co-habiting and married couples is an ‘‘apples andoranges’’ phenomenon. We did, however, exam-ine the effects of marriage versus cohabitation onlater involvement and found no differences. It didnot matter whether couples established marriageor cohabiting relationships after the child’s birth;residence regardless of marital status mediatedthe association between father’s early commit-ment and later father involvement. A cautionarynote:We need to remember that in our studymar-riage and cohabitation were not static states; ourvariables assessed the transition to residentialliving arrangements. It is the decision that cou-ples make to strengthen commitment and eitherstay married or move together that is importantrather than status per se. Our study shows thatin order to understand the meaning of marriageand cohabiting for how couples parent, we needto look at these variables in a dynamic way.Simply measuring ‘‘marriage’’ or ‘‘cohabiting’’will not do.

PARTNER RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

Quality of the partner relationship was not asstrong a predictor of later paternal engagementas was transitioning into residential relationships.It is possible that our measure of relationshipquality is too broad and not nuanced enough topick up differences in parents’ behavior. Thus,partner quality should not be dismissed. Evidencefrom research suggests that higher levels of mar-ital quality are significantly associated with posi-tive parenting behaviors and child outcomes(Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000;Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Raymond, 2004).Marital discord and hostility are associated withnegative and harsh parenting and, consequently,poor outcomes for children (Cummings et al.,2004). As we look ahead at the next generationof studies, we need to bring these literaturestogether and examine whether the stability that

marriage affords is jeopardized by poor qualityof partner relationship. One can live a perfectlyunhappy life in a stable relationship. Similarly,selection issues aside, we need to better under-stand the aspects of marriage that make it a stableand desirable arrangement for children’s devel-opment. Doherty cites research suggesting thatcohabiting couples are more likely to separatethan married couples (Osborne, Manning, &Smock, 2007). But it is unclear whether this factalone translates into instability and, conse-quently, negative outcomes for children. Onecan argue that children might fare better with co-habiting parents because cohabitating parents aremore likely thanmarried parents to separatewhenthere are high levels of partner conflict. We knowless about the variation within marriages: Whichfactors contribute to ‘‘healthy’’ marriage? Arehappy cohabiting unions better for parentingand child well-being than unhappy marriages?

Marsiglio comments that he is surprised thatrelationship quality was not a mediator of theassociation between prenatal and postnatalinvolvement. At first, we were not certain howto interpret our finding, but the more we consid-ered it the more we think it makes sense. Havinga child together binds two adults to each other,and being that the majority of unmarried adultsare still in romantic relations with each otherwhen the baby is born, many couples may bemotivated to commit to living together. At thesame time, the transition to parenthood is a timewhen relationship quality declines for many cou-ples (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). Thus, we thinkthat our findings are consistent with a vast litera-ture on marriage that shows that having children(and being an involved parent) is associated bothwith greater relationship commitment but alsowith challenges to relationship quality. Althoughboth residence and relationship quality are posi-tively associated with paternal engagement withchildren, only transitioning into a residential situ-ation explains the association between prenatalinvolvement and later paternal engagement.

Marsiglio encourages the field to collect betterdata on the transition to fatherhood and cautionsresearchers from making statements about cau-sality. We think our findings can be used to makesome recommendations regarding the impor-tance of promoting early development as a wayof strengthening relationships and increasingfather-child engagement among unmarried fa-thers. Yet we completely agree that we now haveenough evidence that the period of transition into

Prenatal Involvement 1119

fatherhood is pivotal in aman’s life tomerit an in-depth exploration of men’s motivations tobecome involved before the child is born, duringthe pregnancy, and also after the birth of the child.

GATEKEEPING AND FACILITATION AS

MEDIATORS

Marsiglio raises an interesting question about thelife changes that mediate the association betweenfathers’ prenatal involvement and later paternalengagement with children. He points out thatfathers’ transition from nonresidential to residen-tial relationships may be a mediator because themother is willing to allow the father to reside withher rather thanbecause the father ismakingacom-mitment to her, as we suggested. Fathers may beready to make life changes when they have a newbaby but not be able to do so because of the moth-er’s reluctance to reside with theman. Unfortuna-tely, the Fragile Families data do not allow forsorting out these relationship transactions betweenfathers and mothers. These are issues of gatekeep-ing and facilitation. We would suggest that moth-ers’ gatekeeping and facilitation not only occur inrelation to fathers establishing a residential rela-tionship with the mother and child after the birth,but they also may occur in relation to fathers’ pre-natal involvement. The roots of gatekeeping andfacilitation may start during the pregnancy andpossibly before. For example, mothers who haveambivalent or negative feelings about the fathers’involvement may purposefully schedule ultra-sound visits at times when their partners are notavailable or withhold this information from them.Mother’s gatekeeping may be beneficial formother and child if the father is abusive or violent;but if the father is not abusive or violent, thenmother’s gatekeeping may help to alienate thefather from her and the child and reduce his levelof involvement over time. If fathers do not haveopportunities to become involved with the motherand fetus, then theymay not bemotivated to estab-lish a residential relationship with them. To thebest of our knowledge, research has not addressedprenatal gatekeeping. This may be a fruitful areafor future research.

TRANSITION TO COPARENTING

Marsiglio raises important questions regardingthe intersection between the couple relationshipand the father-child relationship during the preg-nancy. The prenatal items available in the Fragile

Families data primarily address fathers’ supportof the mother, as both Doherty and Marsiglionote, although they may also be suggestive of fa-thers’ involvement with the fetus. The importantthing to note is that the lack of specificity of theitems does not allow for sorting out these two sig-nificant aspects of men’s prenatal involvement.Marsiglio suggests the need for research thatfocuses on prenatal involvement with the partner,child-focused prenatal activity, and prospectivefather identity construction. We think that copar-enting may be a better way to conceptualizemen’s prenatal involvement with the partner.Thus a significant component of the transition toparenthood is the transition to coparenting. Com-ponents of coparenting that have been widelyaddressed in the research literature include copar-enting support (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; VanEgeren & Hawkins, 2004), maintaining an ongo-ing communication with one another around theneedsof the child (McBride&Rane, 1998;McHale,1995), and coparenting alliance or solidarity(McBride & Rane; Van Egeren & Hawkins). Co-parenting support is defined as ‘‘strategies andactions that support and extend the partner’s effortsto accomplish parenting goals’’ (Van Egeren &Hawkins, p. 169). Communication between par-ents may be positive or disruptive, (e.g., one part-ner undermines the other partner’s parentingbehavior, partners compete with each other tosee who is the better parent) (Schoppe-Sullivan,Mangelsdorf, Brown, & Sokolowski, 2006; VanEgeren & Hawkins; Westerman & Massoff,2001). Cohen and Weissman (1984) defined par-enting alliance as the capacity of partners to‘‘acknowledge, respect, and value the parentingroles and tasks of the partner’’ (p. 35). Very littleresearch has been conducted on coparenting beforethe birth of the child (McHale & Rotman, 2007;VanEgeren&Hawkins).Little is known, for exam-ple, about how the coparenting relationship devel-ops before the child’s birth, how nonresidentialcouples’ coparentingdiffers fromcoresidential cou-ples’ coparenting, and how coparenting is affectedby or affects other aspects of the couples’ relation-ship, including satisfaction with the relationship,commitment, and trust.

CONCLUSION

We conclude our comments by responding toDoherty’s and Marsiglio’s questions about thepolicy relevance of our study. Given our find-ings, we think that it is not premature to make

1120 Journal of Marriage and Family

recommendations for policy and programs, butthe recommendations are limited in their scope.Specifically, we think that our findings and thoseof other studies with similar populations (Cabrera,2003; Fagan, Bernd, & Whiteman, 2007) showthat policy and programs should focus onlow-income unmarried couples (fathers andmothers) before the birth of the child. There issufficient evidence at this time to suggest thatthese families can benefit from early interven-tion. The growing body of research in this areareveals that fathers’ prenatal involvement isassociated with fathers staying engaged withtheir children during the early childhood years.Additionally, interventions should target thesefamilies at this time, as well as following thechild’s birth, because many fathers discontinuetheir involvement with the mother and childwithin the first few years following the birth.There are also new experimental studies show-ing the benefits of prenatal intervention pro-grams on fragile families (Fagan, 2008). Ourknowledge is limited, however, in regards to thespecific focus of early intervention programs.Our lack of understanding about the processesinvolved in becoming an engaged father andpartner during the pregnancy leaves us with lit-tle direction on the types of programs to be im-plemented. Should the focus be on the couple’scoparenting relationship, the father’s emergingidentity as a parent, knowledge of child devel-opment and childbirth, or fathers’ personaldevelopment and reduction of risk factors? Wealso do not yet know whether short-term inter-ventions, such as involving fathers in obstetrics/gynecology visits with medical staff, are equallyas effective as longer term interventions likepartner relationship enhancement. Clearly thereis a need for continued investigation in theseareas, and we hope our research and this dia-logue will stimulate research and implementa-tion of demonstration programs.

REFERENCES

Bonds, D. D., & Gondoli, D. M. (2007). Examining

the process by which marital adjustment affects

maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support

as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology, 21,288 – 296.

Cabrera, N. (2003, April). Who stays? Who leaves?Father involvement in Early Head Start. The Mich-

igan State Fatherhood Conference, Lansing, MI.

Cohen, R. S., & Weissman, S. H. (1984). The parent-

ing alliance. In R.S. Cohen, B.J. Cohler, & S.H.

Weissman (Eds.), Parenthood: A psychodynamicperspective (pp. 33 – 49). New York: Guilford.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2000).When partnersbecome parents: The big life changes for couples.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cummings, M. E., Davies, P., & Campbell, S. B.

(2000). Developmental psychopathology and fam-ily process: Theory, research and clinical implica-tions. New York: Guilford Press.

Cummings, M. E., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond,

J. (2004). Fathers in family context: Effects of mari-

tal quality and marital conflict. In M. E. Lamb

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development(4th ed., pp. 196 – 221). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Fagan, J. (2008). Randomized study of a prebirth co-

parenting intervention with adolescent and young

fathers. Family Relations, 57, 309 – 323.

Fagan, J., Bernd, E., & Whiteman, V. (2007). Ado-

lescent fathers’ parenting stress, social support,

and involvement with infants. Journal of Researchon Adolescence, 17, 1 – 22.

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. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interac-

tions during infancy: The roles of marital distress

and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31,985 – 996.

McHale, J. P., & Rotman, T. (2007). Is seeing believ-

ing? Expectant parents’ outlooks on coparenting

and later coparenting solidarity. Infant Behaviorand Development, 30, 63 – 81.

Osborne, C., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J.

(2007). Married and cohabiting parents’ relation-

ship stability: A focus on race and ethnicity. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1345 – 1366.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown,

G. L., & Sokolowski, M. S. (2007). Goodness-of-

fit in family context: Infant temperament, marital

quality, and early coparenting. Infant Behavior andDevelopment, 30, 82 – 96.

Van Egeren, L. A., & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming

to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition

and measurement. Journal of Adult Development,11, 165 – 178.

Weiss, Y., & Willis, R. J. (1985). Children as collec-

tive goods and divorce settlements. Journal ofLabor Economics, 3, 268 – 292.

Westerman, M. A., & Massoff, M. (2001). Triadic

coordination: An observational method for examin-

ing whether children are ‘‘caught in the middle’’ of

interparental discord. Family Process, 40, 479 – 493.

Prenatal Involvement 1121