Bocknek, 2017. Active Playtime With Fathers

M E R R I L L - P A L M E R Q U A R TE R L Y , V O L . 6 3 , N O .
Routine Active Playtime With Fathers Is Associated

With Self-Regulation in Early Childhood
Erika L. Bocknek, Carolyn Dayton, Hasti A. Raveau, and
Patricia Richardson Wayne State University
Holly E. Brophy-Herb and Hiram E. Fitzgerald Michigan State University
In recent years, a literature has emerged describing contributions fathers make to

the development of very young children. Scholars suggest that active play may be
a specific area of parenting in which fathers are primary and, further, that this type
of play helps children experience intense emotions and learn to regulate them.
However, this hypothesis remains largely theoretical. The current study (N = 415)
addresses this gap in fatherhood research by using a secondary analysis of
Erika L. Bocknek, College of Education and Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute; Carolyn

Dayton, School of Social Work and Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute; Hasti A. Raveau and
Patricia Richardson, Department of Psychology; and Holly E. Brophy-Herb and Hiram E.
Fitzgerald, Human Development and Family Studies.
The findings reported here are based on research conducted as part of the national Early
Head Start Research and Evaluation Project funded by the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract 105-951936
to Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, and Columbia University’s Center for Children
and Families, Teachers College, in conjunction with the Early Head Start Research Consortium.
The consortium consists of representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation,
15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and the ACF. Research institutions in the
consortium include the ACF, Catholic University of America, Columbia University, Harvard
University, Iowa State University, Mathematica Policy Research, Medical University of South
Carolina, Michigan State University, New York University, University of Arkansas; University of
California–Los Angeles, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, University of Kansas,
University of Missouri–Columbia, University of Pittsburgh, University of Washington School of
Education, University of Washington School of Nursing, and Utah State University. The content of
this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and
Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
Address correspondence to Erika L. Bocknek, College of Education, Wayne State University,
5425 Gullen Mall, Detroit, MI 48202. Phone: (313) 577-0902. Fax: (313) 664-2552. E-mail: Erika.
Bocknek@wayne.edu.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January 2017, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 105–134. doi: 10.13110/merrpalmquar
1982.63.1.0105 Copyright © 2017 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.
105
106 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
data collected in the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project
(EHSREP) Fathering Substudy (Boller et al., 2006; Love et al., 2005) to examine
relations between fathers’ active play (measured at children’s 36-month birthday-
related assessment) and developmental outcomes (cognitive–social and emotion
regulation) at the entry to kindergarten. Findings demonstrate that regular active
physical play between fathers and young children is associated with improved
developmental outcomes. However, findings support a curvilinear relationship
such that moderate amounts of active play are associated with better outcomes
for children, but too little or too much active play is associated with worse
outcomes, especially for children with more reactive temperamental qualities.
Importantly, these findings are not replicated in relation to other types of parent-
ing activities in which fathers engage, such as reading to children or engaging at
mealtime, suggesting there is a special relationship between this type of play and
children’s development. Furthermore, findings demonstrate that children with high
emotional reactivity may benefit the most from active playtime with their fathers.
These results are discussed in the context of the influence of fathering processes
on child and family outcomes in low-income families.
The development of self-regulation in early childhood is a critical competency,

supporting healthy development across childhood in social, cognitive, and
psychological domains (Denham, 1998; Thompson & Goodvin, 2007). A
consistent body of literature describes self-regulation as developing in the
context of supportive relationships with primary caregivers (Calkins & Hill,
2007; Calkins & Johnson, 1998; Denham, 1998; Sroufe, 1997), characterized
by parental support of children’s emerging regulation strategies (Bocknek,
Brophy-Herb, & Banerjee, 2009). Even though the extant literature in this area
largely focuses on mother–child relationships, fathers likely play a specific
and critical role in socializing early regulation through regularly occurring
physically active play that both allows children to experience high arousal and
to manage the arousal through external (e.g., paternal response to toddler emo-
tion arousal) and internal regulatory processes (Flanders et al., 2010; Fletcher,
St. George, & Freeman, 2013; Paquette, 2004; Paquette, Carbonneau, Dubeau,
Bigras, & Tremblay, 2003). The current study tests relations between fathers’
regular active physical play with their children, children’s competencies at age
3 years, and the development of self-regulation at the close of the preschool
period among children from low-income families when comprehensive self-
regulation competencies are normatively consolidating and become critical
for successful learning readiness (Raver et al., 2011).
Relations Between Father–Child Play and Emotion Regulation

The hypotheses in the current study are largely framed by Paquette’s
(2004) Activation relationship theory, an alternative theory of father–child
attachment, which provides a useful framework in considering fathers’
Active Playtime With Fathers and Self-Regulation 107
contributions to young children’s emotion regulation. This theory includes
two dimensions of fathering that underlie the father–child relationship: (a)
stimulation wherein fathers encourage the child’s interaction with the out-
side world, and (b) discipline designed to provide children with limits that
will maintain their safety (Paquette, 2004). Fathering activities, which pro-
vide stimulation within the boundaries of safe exploration, likely promote
children’s regulatory competencies by allowing them to experience higher
levels of emotional arousals in play while also managing arousal with
the father’s support in the play experience. Pursuant to this supposition,
Paquette (2004) has demonstrated that father play with infants and tod-
dlers is typically characterized by regular patterns of increasing emotional
arousal followed by decreasing arousal. This peaks-and-valleys pattern in
emotional arousal is much different from patterns of mother–child play,
which tend to be characterized by steady and lower levels of emotional
arousal (Feldman, 2003). Other research, too, points toward father–infant
interactions as reflecting physical play (Dickson, Walker, & Fogel, 1997;
Feldman, 2003; Lamb, 1977; Yogman, 1981). Roggman (2004) describes
the importance of Paquette’s theory for a nuanced understanding of the
father–child relationship in which more physical play may be typical and
also emphasizes the importance of avoiding a stark contrast between par-
enting styles. Fathers of young children in general, and specifically in the
current sample, are likely to engage in a range of parenting behaviors,
especially those described as in the domains of physical, didactic, and
caregiving (Cabrera et al., 2004a, 2004b).
Some research demonstrates that fathers and mothers may be likely
to engage in similar parenting processes—for example, both have the
capacity to be sensitive and supportive with their children, and the sup-
portiveness itself is overall important for children’s outcomes (and asso-
ciations with cognitive outcomes, in particular, have been demonstrated),
regardless of parent gender (Martin, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Ryan,
Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, &
Cabrera, 2002). The extant literature overall suggests there may also
be role-specific behaviors that fathers and mothers likely coconstruct
within the family (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2014).
Behavioral data with fathers have demonstrated important differences
in typical father–child versus mother–child interactions beginning
in infancy (Crawley & Sherrod, 1984). Fathers, for example, tend to
exhibit increased physical interactions with their young children, often
characterized as rough-and-tumble play (Carson, Burks, & Parke, 1993).
Furthermore, within father–child relationships, the presence and quality
(e.g., positive arousal and dyadic synchrony) of active, father–child play
interactions, and not sensitivity per se, might be related to positive social
emotional outcomes in children (Feldman, 2003; MacDonald, 1987). In
fact, fathers’ tendencies toward play with their young children that is
more active and physical, compared to mothers’ play that is often more
verbal and didactic, has compelled researchers to consider the father as
the primary playmate, with an emphasis on how this role is as impor-
tant to early development as other parenting behaviors (Roggman, 2004;
Roggman, Boyce, Cook, Christiansen, & Jones, 2004). Thus, different
mechanisms may account for the development of regulation in the con-
text of the father–child relationship than those most commonly studied in
mother–child relationships.
In the current study, we focus on children who are identified as
low-income based on their eligibility for Early Head Start services.
Critical inquiry of the development of self-regulation in early childhood
is a particularly important focus among this vulnerable group. Poor chil-
dren are at higher risk for problems in regulatory development, which
underscore long-term problems across areas of development, including
mental health (for a review, see Raver, 2004). Furthermore, literature
has long suggested that children in poverty are at higher risk for low
father involvement, often due to higher risk factors that poor men face,
including higher incarceration rates, lower employment rates, lower
marital rates combined with higher multipartner fertility rates, and fewer
fathering role models of their own (Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999;
Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). Yet, contemporary
research increasingly demonstrates that low-income fathers may be more
likely to be involved with their children and participate in a range of
caregiving activities beyond what was previously thought, especially in
the early years of children’s lives (Boller et al., 2006; Cabrera et al.,
2004a, 2004b).
We were especially interested in physically active play between fathers
and young children because of the potentially greater opportunities for
variation in the range of arousal. For example, play activities, such as chase
games or holding a laughing preschooler high in the air provide more emo-
tionally intense experiences by combining high physical stimulation and
anticipation in the context of play. Less intensive forms of play such as
singing or reading together or playing with toys together likely provide
fewer opportunities for emotional arousal. Fathers, then, may play a unique
role in providing practice for very young children to experience high levels
of emotional arousal and recover from emotional arousal in the context
of high quality father–child physical play (Parke et al., 1989; Peterson &
Flanders, 2005). In fact, frequent opportunities for this type of practice may
be a source of resilience for children with temperamentally high emotional
reactivity.
Overall, paternal engagement with children is known to predict positive
outcomes for children, and we reference a small but important literature
that describes this relationship in regard to socioemotional outcomes for
young, low-income children. However, there is some heterogeneity in the
literature in regard to what fathers do and how what they do is associated
with quality relationships. We hypothesize that engaging in greater play
with children is indicative of overall higher quality relationships between
fathers and children. In the current data set in specific, researchers demon-
strate significant associations between consistent father presence, quality of
parenting, and children’s developmental outcomes, self-regulation among
them, in early childhood (Bocknek, Brophy-Herb, Fitzgerald, Schiffman, &
Vogel, 2014; Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Malin, Cabrera,
Karberg, Aldoney, & Rowe, 2014; Roggman et al., 2004; Vogel, Bradley,
Raikes, Boller, & Shears, 2006). Previous Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project (EHSREP) researchers have demonstrated that fathers in
this data set were likely to engage in the three types of interaction of focus
in the current study (physical play, didactic play, and caregiving behaviors),
and relationship status predicted some types of involvement but did not
do so consistently (Cabrera et al., 2004a, 2004b). Overall, based on physi-
cal play and caregiving (playing chasing games, teasing their children to
make them laugh, preparing meals, or helping them use the toilet), fathers
reported the highest rates of engagement with children. Research with this
data set has not yet examined relations between these types of play and
self-regulation, nor have researchers frequently considered the within-child
variability of regulation in fathering models.
Self-Regulation
Nascent regulatory behaviors are evident from the beginning of life, when
a newborn cries due to hunger, is fed a bottle, and stops crying, the care-
giver’s intervention results in the infant moving from a dysregulated to a
regulated emotional state. While infants may discover self-regulatory mech-
anisms, such as sucking or shifting attention, to manage mild emotional
arousal, a coordinated, integrated, and internalized system of self-regulation
does not become consolidated until children reach preschool age (e.g.,
3–5 years) (Kopp, 1989; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). Beebe
and colleagues (2010) suggest that the degree of caregiver and infant inter-
active contingency either facilitates or interferes with the organization of
self-regulatory systems.
Children’s own temperamental characteristics likely also play a role
in shared meaning making because these characteristics contribute to this
dynamic system of regulatory development. S. Crockenberg and Leerkes
(2000, p. 63) write, “[R]eactivity is an internal characteristic of infants that
together with exogenous factors contributes to differences in emotion regu-
lation.” As infants develop into social toddlers and eventually curious pre-
schoolers, they become increasingly able to communicate their emotional
states to parents and to initiate interactions, eliciting responsiveness from
parents and developing an understanding of the parenting role in modulat-
ing affect, learning that arousal need not lead to disorganization (Sroufe,
1996). Literature is mixed as to whether increased emotional reactivity is
positively or negatively associated with responsive parenting. While some
research defines a difficult infant temperament as a stressor on relation-
ships and parenting, other research suggests that fussier infants may be
more likely to elicit a response for parents, especially in higher risk dyads
(S. C. Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003; S. B. Crockenberg & Smith, 2002;
Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; van den Bloom & Hoeksma, 1994). Overall,
within the mother–infant relationship, the presence of attuned and sensi-
tive early interactions have been established as hallmarks of healthy early
relationships (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997). For fathers, however, the
picture is much less clear (Lamb, 2002).
We emphasize that the development of self-regulation is a dynamic
process occurring over time and highly influenced by both a child’s indi-
vidual characteristics and context (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, &
Robinson, 2007). Cole, Martin, and Dennis (2004) describe a developmen-
tal sequence in which infants have a basic but limited capacity for manag-
ing affective arousal, begin engaging in mutually responsive interactions
with caregivers, and, beginning in toddlerhood, build upon these capacities
in increasingly complex ways. The developmental period of toddlerhood is
therefore critical in considering additional relational influences beyond the
mother–child relationship. In the current study, we examine a snapshot of
father–child interactions during this critical time in toddlerhood and then,
accounting for children’s individual characteristics, investigate associa-
tions with later self-regulation.
Moreover, as we noted previously, some evidence suggests that children’s
higher emotionality or reactivity may be more likely to elicit a response for
parents (S. C. Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003; S. B. Crockenberg & Smith,
2002; Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; van den Bloom & Hoeksma, 1994). From
this perspective, we argue that rough-and-tumble physical play may have
more robust associations to more reactive children’s emotional regulation
than to their more temperamentally flexible counterparts. First, children
with more reactive temperaments have the greater challenge and thus the
greater room to increase their emotion regulation skills (Rothbart &
Sheese, 2007). Second, these children may be in more need of the safe
boundaries of active physical play to experience and learn to manage
their emotions and behavior as compared to other children (Van Zeijl
et al., 2007).
The Current Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among three
types of father–child interaction and children’s self-regulation in toddler-
hood. Secondary analysis of the EHSREP allowed an opportunity to assess
data collected from a unique group of fathers and their young children:
Fathers reported on their own parenting activities, and fathers and children
were observed in interactions together. In addition, comprehensive mea-
sures of development are available for the young children in this data set,
and the current study used multiple constructs associated with preschool-
age self-regulation, including emotion regulation, attention, and impulse
control, while controlling for developmental gains in cognitive develop-
ment and emotion regulation in toddlerhood. Specifically we assessed
father–child caregiving routines, which included (a) paternal involvement
in meals and bedtime preparations; (b) father–child didactic/teaching activ-
ities that were nonphysical in nature, such as reading and singing together;
and (c) father–child physical play, such as playing chase or catch with
children or playing outdoors. Our specific hypotheses were these: (a) First
we explored the interrelationships of these types of play. We hypothesized
fathering profiles would emerge such that positive parenting would be
associated with higher levels of activities in all areas. To test this hypoth-
esis, we employed latent profile analysis to examine typologies of parent-
ing according to reported activities and then tested these profiles against an
observed measure of positive parenting. This measure specifically refers to
behaviors that fathers engaged in during a teaching task with their young
children and is a composite of observed ratings. (b) Next, we hypothesized
that physical play described in toddlerhood would be uniquely associated
with children’s self-regulation at the entry to kindergarten (K). To test this
hypothesis, we first used latent profile analysis to develop child typologies
across a range of cognitive, social, and emotional outcomes measured at
36 months. Then, we used hierarchical regression to test the impact of lin-
ear and curvilinear terms based on father’s active play on pre-K outcomes,
controlling for child typology at 36 months. (c) Finally, we hypothesized
that that children with higher emotional reactivity would benefit more
from active play with their fathers. We repeated the hierarchical regression
models within groups and compared results to test for moderation.
Method
Participants
The current study is a secondary analysis of data from biological fathers
and father figures and their children who participated in the EHSREP (Love
et al., 2005), Father Involvement with Toddlers Substudy (FITS; Boller
et al., 2006). Originally, 3,001 biological mothers and their young children
who met eligibility for Early Head Start (EHS) services participated in
the study at 17 sites across the United States. The project aimed to study
the effectiveness of EHS services; half of the participants were randomly
assigned to receive EHS services. The half who did not receive services
were free to receive services in their communities. Families were assessed
multiple times from the time the children were 14–50 months old. FITS
was designed to address key research questions about low-income fathers
and their young children. Data were collected from biological fathers and
father figures when the children were 24 and 36 months old from 10 of the
original 17 EHS sites. Mothers were asked to identify the biological father
of the focus child. If the biological father did not reside with the mother and
child, mothers identified any man in the child’s life who was a father figure
to the focus child and who had at least a 9-month presence in the child’s
life. Our analysis focused on the data collected from 727 fathers and the
focus child at the 36-month time point. Our main dependent variables are
drawn from the data set collected at the children’s kindergarten entry.
Fathers self-reported their ethnicity, and the final sample in the current
study, representing biological fathers who lived with their children across
toddlerhood consistently (N = 415), consisted of 49.9% White, 26.8%
African American/Black, 19.2% Hispanic/Latino, and 4.2% as Other. The
age of the fathers ranged 17–79 years (M = 30.67, SD = 8.79). The percent-
age of children being identified by their mother as boys was 52.2%. Refer
to Table 1 for demographic information on the fathers.
Procedures
Mothers provided approval for researchers to contact the fathers to sched-
ule an appointment with them. Those who chose to participate were seen
within their homes when the focus children were 24 and 36 months old.
They completed the study questionnaires in an interview format with a
Table 1. Father demographics
Characteristics % N
Residency status
Residential biological father 81.9 340
Nonresidential biological father 13 54
Residential father figure 4.3 18
Nonresidential father figure 0.7 3
Last month income
<$500 10.3 41
$501–$1,000 13 52
$1,001–$2,000 49 196
>$2,000 27.8 111
Education
Less than high school 32.8 133
High-school diploma 39.7 161
Some college 17.5 71
College degree 10.1 41
Employment at least part-time 78.1 324
researcher, answering a variety of questions regarding their relationship

with their child, the routine play activities they engage in, their coparenting
relationship, their mental health, demographic information, and residency
status. Mothers and fathers also participated separately in a videotaped
play task with their children that was later coded. Moreover, the Bayley
Mental Development Index (BMDI; Bayley, 1993) was administered to
children by trained data collectors, and the children’s regulatory behaviors
during the BMDI were coded. Families received follow-up phone calls and
assessment visits when children were about 50 months old, at their entry
to kindergarten. The main dependent variables in this study assessing self-
regulation were captured by examiner ratings of behavior via the Leiter
International Performance Scale—Revised (Roid & Miller, 1997).
Measures
Father–child activity engagement. A series of questions created for FITS
were asked during the interview of the fathers regarding a multitude of 30
activities they engage in with their children. These activities were grouped
by lead FITS researchers into the following scales: physically active play
activities (items included play outside with child and play games with a
ball with child), didactic play activities (items included read stories to
child and play with toys for building things), and caregiving activities
(items included help child get dressed and prepare meals/bottles for child)
(Cabrera et al., 2004a, 2004b). Researchers also identified a fourth scale
representing socialization (items included take child with you to visit rela-
tives and take child shopping with you), but it is not included in the current
study because we do not hypothesize a direct role for it in the development
of emotion regulation. We chose to focus on dimensions of active play
because of the aforementioned literature investigating the father-specific
role value of this kind of play, didactic play because of its pervasiveness
in parenting measurement and methodologies, and caregiving behaviors
because these are necessary parenting activities. Activities were grouped
into these categories that were based on theoretical information. Summed
scores of these items provide important advantages over other statistical
approaches; specifically, data reduction is based on theoretical criteria as
opposed to statistical information. and no assumptions are made about the
distribution of indicators (Burchinal, Roberts, Hooper, & Zeisel, 2000).
This is useful in the current study because all fathers may have participated
in varying degrees in each type of activity about which they were asked.
Correlations among items between these scales in the current study ranged
.5–.6. While significant within this sample, common rules of thumb sug-
gest conservative lower bounds at .7 for potential problems in multicol-
linearity (Ganzach, 1998).
Fathers rated how frequently they participated in each activity on a
6-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = a few times a month, 4 = a
few times a week, 5 = about once a day, and 6 = more than once a day.
The internal reliability of the activity groups in the current sample were
in the acceptable range (active play, α = .81; didactic play, α = .80; and
caregiving, α = .84).
Child temperament at 14 months. The Emotionality, Activity, Sociability,
and Impulsivity (EASI) Temperament Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1984) is a
measure of child temperament that was completed by mothers in this study
at the 14-month visit. Mothers reported on their child’s behaviors regard-
ing four dimensions: emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity. We
used the children’s scores on the 5-item emotionality subscale as an esti-
mate of predisposition to get easily distressed and upset (Buss & Plomin,
1975, pp. 32–33). Sample items on the emotionality subscale include He/
she often fusses and cries and He/she cries easily (α = .72). Children’s
mean score on this subscale was 2.89 (SD = .96, range 4.00; boys: M = 2.91,
SD = .98, range 4.00; and girls: M = 2.87, SD = .95, range 4.00). Hypothesis
3 is tested with a dichotomous variable representing a median cut score of
the data.
Developmental outcomes at 36 months. The Bayley Scales of Infant
Development—Second Edition (BSI-II; Bayley, 1993) is a standardized
psychological measure for a comprehensive assessment of early child-
hood development. The children’s behavior in this study was coded at
the 14-month, 24-month, and 36-month visits via the Bayley Behavior
Rating Scales (BBRS) of the BSI-II, which is composed of two subscales:
Emotion Regulation (the child’s ability to change tasks and test materi-
als, negative affect, and frustration with tasks during the assessment) and
Orientation and Engagement (children’s level of cooperation with inter-
viewer, positive affect, and interest in the test materials). We used both the
Emotion Regulation subscale and the Orientation and Engagement sub-
scale at 36 months. Higher scores are indicative of greater competence in
these areas. The children in this sample had a mean score of 4.00 on the
Emotion Regulation subscale at 36 months (SD = .74, range 3.57; boys:
M = 3.87, SD = .80, range 3.57; and girls: M = 4.15, SD = .63, range 3.43).
The children in this sample had a mean score of 3.83 on the Orientation and
Engagement subscale at 36 months (SD = .76, range 3.78; boys: M = 3.78,
SD = .76, range 3.40; and girls: M = 3.87, SD = .77, range 3.38).
The Mental Development Index (MDI) of the BSI-II was used to assess
various types of cognitive outcomes in children at 36 months: sensory/
perceptual acuities, discriminations, and response; acquisition of object
constancy; memory learning and problem solving; vocalization and begin-
ning of verbal communication; basis of abstract thinking; habituation;
mental mapping; complex language; and mathematical concept formation.
The MDI has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The children
in this sample had a mean score of 91.41 at 36 months (SD = 14.16, range
85.00; boys: M = 91.03, SD = 14.11, range 74.00; and girls: M = 91.80,
SD = 14.25, range 85.00).
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT III; Dunn & Dunn,
1997) was administered at the 36-month visit to measure children’s recep-
tive vocabulary. The PPVT requires a trained administrator to present a
series of four illustrations and ask the child to identify the picture that best
corresponds to the administrator’s spoken word. Items are administered
until a ceiling is reached (8 or more errors within a set of 12). The PPVT III
has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The children in this sam-
ple had a mean score of 83.19 at 36 months (SD = 16.81, range 83.00; boys:
M = 80.86, SD = 16.53, range 81.00; and girls: M = 85.60, SD = 16.81,
range 83.00).
Children and their mothers in this study completed the three-bag task
at the 36-month visit. This semistructured task requires mothers to play
with their child by using three different toys placed in separate bags. The
parents are instructed to play with the toys in order, starting with Bag 1.
This task was videotaped and later coded by trained coders to assess chil-
dren’s sustained involvement with objects. Indicators of sustained attention
included being focused on an object during play, coordinating activities
with several objects, exploring different aspects of a toy, spending more
than a minimal amount of time focused on the object, and not quickly shift-
ing one’s attention from one object to another. The coding scale ranged
from 1 = very low attention to 7= very high attention. The children in this
sample had a mean score of 4.94 at 36 months (SD = .93, range 5.00; boys:
M = 4.87, SD = .91, range 4.57; and girls: M = 5.00, SD = .95, range 4.39).
Children and their mothers in this study completed a puzzle task at the
36-month visit. The task presents children with three puzzles of increas-
ing difficulty to complete for up to 4 min per puzzle (Brady-Smith, Ryan,
Berlin, Brooks-Gunn, & Fuligni, 2001; Brooks-Gunn, Liaw, Michael, &
Zamsky, 1992). Parents are asked to allow their child at first to attempt
to complete the puzzle on his or her own and then to provide assistance.
The task is meant to be a challenge for children to assess whether they
will persist on the task despite feeling frustrated. The children were coded
by trained and reliable coders on their persistence (ability to remain goal-
oriented, focused, and motivated forward the puzzle throughout the task)
and their level of frustration. The coding scale ranged from 1= very low
persistence to 7 = very high persistence. The coding scale for persistence
ranged from 1 = very low persistence to 7 = very high persistence, and the
coding scale for frustration ranged from 1 = very low frustration to 7 = very
high frustration. The children in this sample had a mean score of 4.62 at 36
months for persistence (SD = 1.18, range 6.00; boys: M = 4.51, SD = 1.22,
range 6.00; and girls: M = 4.72, SD = 1.13, range 6.00) and a mean score of
2.76 at 36 months for frustration (SD = 1.41, range 7.27; boys: M = 2.67,
SD = 1.42, range 7.27; and girls: M = 2.86, SD = 1.39, range 6.00).
In addition, fathers and their children completed the same task. In the
current study, fathers were rated on positive aspects of parenting: support-
ive presence and quality of assistance. Fathers in this study had a mean of
8.11 at 36 months (SD = 1.96, range 9.00).
Prekindergarten self-regulation measures. Self-regulation at entry to
kindergarten was assessed by using examiner ratings of observed behavior
during the Leiter International Performance Scale—Revised (Roid & Miller,
1997). Observers rated exhibition of behaviors on a 4-point scale: 0 = rarely/
never occurred (i.e., roughly <10% of the time), 1 = sometimes occurred
(i.e., 10%–50% of the time), 2 = often occurred (i.e., 50%–90% of the time),
or 3 = usually/always occurred (i.e., >90% of the time). Subscale scores
were summed as composite scores ranged 0–66 and, by application of age-
based norms, were converted to scaled scores ranging 46–113. Observer
ratings were grouped into two composite domains: emotion regulation
(energy/feelings, mood and regulation, anxiety, and sensory activity) and
cognitive–social (sociability, activity level, impulse control, and attention);
alphas ranged .81–.96, demonstrating good reliability. Both domains rep-
resent important aspects of self-regulation emerging during the preschool
period. The children in this sample had a mean score of 90.19 on emotion
regulation (SD = 11.19, range 113.00; boys: M = 88.93, SD = 11.19, range
113.00; and girls: M = 91.49, SD = 11.07, range 113.00) and a mean score
of 93.57 on cognitive–social (SD = 11.17, range 117.00; boys: M = 92.10,
SD = 10.56, range 59.00; and girls: M = 95.09, SD = 11.60, range 117.00).
Missing Data
As described, the FITS included 727 fathers. Among those, 662 provided
complete data for the questionnaire on activities, and we chose to exclude
those fathers without these data at 36 months. Also excluded were 16
families because the children did not have data on the emotion regulation
measure at any time point to inform imputation. Another seven cases were
excluded because there was not enough information on covariates used in
the model. We then only retained cases in which biological fathers had been
continuously present in their children’s lives across toddlerhood, given the
nature of the research questions. The final sample size for the current study
is 415 families.
Among those families (N = 415), <7% of cases were missing data on
any measure at 36 months. Specifically, 28 children did not have data for
the main dependent variable: the emotion regulation measure at 36 months.
At pre-K, <14% were missing data. Thorough nonresponse analyses dem-
onstrated that missingness was not dependent on any focus variable in the
current study, though poorer families were more likely to drop out of the
EHSREP. Beyond correlates of poverty (e.g., receipt of welfare), nonre-
sponse was unremarkable. Therefore, data are considered missing at ran-
dom (MAR) but not missing completely at random (MCAR) because the
reason for missingness is known but not related to a participant’s true sta-
tus on a variable of current interest to analysis and interpretation (Acock,
2005; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Scholars indicate that a maximum likeli-
hood (ML) approach is best for handling missing data. Missing data were
imputed by using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm prior to
analyses, which is appropriate when missingness is MAR, to prepare data
sets for latent variable models and for the rate of missingness in the current
study (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977; Graham, 2012; Newman, 2003).
EM implements an ML approach and iteratively imputes missing values by
using two steps per iteration: an expectation step and a maximization step
(Graham, 2012). EM results in estimates very similar to those of full-infor-
mation maximum likelihood (FIML), another common ML approach, and
there are largely trivial differences in bias and efficiency (Enders, 2006;
Graham, 2012; Newman, 2003).
Plan for Analysis

In preparation to test the main hypotheses, we used latent profile analysis
(LPA), a person-centered methodology, to classify continuous indicator vari-
ables into latent categories to create two models: father activities and child
characteristics. This approach was used to apply a person-centered approach
and aid interpretation of the large set of information available on children
and their fathers from the EHSREP data set. We considered children’s char-
acteristics in play with their mothers, as well as independent observations, so
as to better describe children’s overall functioning across contexts.
Models were computed by using Mplus version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén,
2007). Multiple fit indices and solution interpretability statistics were con-
sidered in selecting a k-class solution. To determine the relative fit of each
model, the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) and the
sample-size-adjusted BIC (AIC; Sclove, 1987) were examined, where
lower values suggest better fit. We also used the Vuong–Lo–Mendel–Rubin
likelihood-difference test (VLMR; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007),
which assesses the fit between two nested models that differ by k-1 class.
According to the VLMR, significant p values indicate that the solution
with one more class fits better than the solution containing one less class.
Entropy was also examined as an indicator of model fit, where scores range
0–1, and higher scores suggest better classification (Celeux & Soromenho,
1996). Finally, overall model interpretability and parsimony were consid-
ered in final model selection (Bauer & Curran, 2004). Classes of selected
models were then labeled based on latent profile indicator probabilities.
Results
Fathers in the current study reported on a variety of activities they engaged
in with their children, and we describe patterns in these data here. Fathers
were likely to engage in a multitude of activities with their children,
including singing songs and taking their children to the park. Activities
were grouped in three domains: physically active activities, caregiving
activities, and didactic/teaching activities. We also tested whether child
characteristics (emotionality and gender) predicted differences in whether
fathers engaged in any of these types of behavior; results of independent-
samples t tests were nonsignificant (p < .05).
Development of Father and Child Profiles

Father-reported activities. First, we employed LPA to investigate profiles
of father-reported activities (activities in the physical play, didactic play,
and caregiving domains) with their children; three-, four-, and five-class
models were examined. The three-class model was selected as providing the
best statistical and conceptual fit to the data; three-profile model: log likeli-
hood (126) = −16,933.08, VLMR = −17,273.07, p = .04, BIC = 34,625.72,
AIC = 34,118.16, entropy = 0.91. Although the four- and five-class models
demonstrated some better fit indices (e.g., BIC, AIC, and entropy), analy-
ses failed to reject the VLMR, which suggests that the three-class model
is a better fit than the four-class model. Further, the three-class model was
most interpretable and parsimonious; four-class model: log likelihood
(158) = −16,782.77, VLMR = −16,933.08, p = 0.73, BIC = 34,518.00, AIC
= 33,881.54, entropy = 0.93; and five-class model: log likelihood (190)
= −16,624.21, VLMR = −16,782.77, p = 0.19, BIC = 34,393.78, AIC =
33,628.41, entropy = 0.93. Overall, groups of the three-class solution were
differentiated based on levels of caregiving involvement in all domains
(labeled High, Moderate, and Low).
Child development profiles. Next, we employed LPA to investigate
varying typologies of child characteristics at 36 months; three-, four-, and
five-class solutions were examined. We included multiple measures across
a range of measurement types (observation as well as parent report) and a
range of domains (cognitive, social, and emotional). The three-class model
was selected as providing the best conceptual fit to the data; three-profile
model: log likelihood (30) = −3,785.58, VLMR = −3,879.63, p < 0.01,
BIC = 7,752.01, AIC = 7,631.16, entropy = 0.79. Although the four-class
model demonstrated some better fit indices, we rejected this model because
the three-group model was most interpretable, parsimonious, and meaning-
ful to the present study; four-class model: log likelihood (38) = −3,748.18,
VLMR = −3,785.58, p = 0.03, BIC = 7,725.43, AIC = 7,572.36, entropy = 0.79;
and five-class model: log likelihood (46) = −3,728.47, VLMR = −3,748.18,
p = 0.79, BIC = 7,734.24, AIC = 7,548.94, entropy = 0.73. The three-class
model classes were labeled High, Moderate, and Low, reflecting differing
amounts of the attributes at 36 months in the cognitive and social–emotional
domains (children’s scores on behavioral ratings of orientation and engage-
ment and emotion regulation, Bayley BRS; child cognitive scores, Bayley
MDI; PPVT scores; and children’s behavioral ratings during the three-bag
and puzzle tasks). Then the three-class profile group was used in hierarchi-
cal regression models. This approach increases the information included
as covariates in the main models because linear scores on each of these
variables would be related in varying amounts and ways to the final out-
comes. In addition, a range of demographic and maternal variables might
explain variance in outcome scores. Using this person-centered approach to
covariate development captures variance in a range of family-level indica-
tors while preserving considerations of power and parsimony.
Testing Study Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. We hypothesized that fathering profiles would emerge such
that positive parenting would be associated with higher levels of activities
in all areas. The linearity of group membership based on High, Moderate,
and Low involvement across fathering types (physical play, caregiving,
and didactic play) was confirmed via significant linear association with an
observed measure of positive parenting during a puzzle task (F = 4.30, p =.
02, ηp2 = .10). Overall, our results demonstrate that there are associations
among fathering activities and that greater involvement in self-reported
activities is associated with an observed measure of parenting.
Hypothesis 2. We hypothesized that physical play described in tod-
dlerhood would be uniquely associated with children’s self-regulation at
the entry to kindergarten. We used hierarchical multiple regression to test
the influence of linear and quadratic terms representing each of the caregiv-
ing types of interest: caregiving, didactic play, and physically active play.
We used the sum score of each caregiving type to investigate the unique
contribution of each type of fathering. To test the hypothesis that a curvilin-
ear shape of the fathering activities would be a better predictor of children’s
outcomes, we entered the linear term into each regression model and then
the quadratic term in a subsequent step and tested for significance of the
direct effect, as well as a significant F change produced by the final step
of the equation. Only the models including physically active play, and not
the models exploring associations with caregiving and didactic play, were
significant in predicting children’s pre-K outcomes and therefore these
models are reported here.
We used the child latent profile membership categories as a covariate
in the model in order to maximize information about the contributions the
child would make to the relationship over time and account for the most
information in the child’s broader context. To confirm this approach, we
took two additional steps. First, we tested the contributions of individual
covariates in parallel regression models, including family income/cumula-
tive risk, paternal psychopathology, and maternal psychopathology. In some
cases, variables were nonsignificant predictors as individual covariates and
in others they were significant but did not improve variance explained in
the final models. Second, we confirmed our expectation that LPA group
membership would be significantly and robustly associated with family-
level and demographic variables (family cumulative risk: F = 13.80, p = .00;
paternal depression: F = 5.35, p = .00; child gender: χ2 = 5.67, p = .05).
Child LPA group membership status was not significantly associated with
maternal depression, nor was maternal depression significantly associated
with the prekindergarten developmental outcomes of interest in the current
study. Therefore, we concluded that variations across a range of variables are
already present in the latent profile membership groups such that children
who are higher functioning overall compared to children who are lower func-
tioning overall also have higher functioning primary caregivers and lower
demographic risk, so adding additional covariates did not contribute above
and beyond group membership. This is important given our theoretical view
that dyadic relationships are transactional and sensitive to child functioning.
Father’s physically active play predicted children’s cognitive and social
outcomes for both the quadratic term, as well as for the linear term, but
only in the step in which the quadratic term was included in the equation,
and adding the quadratic term predicted a significant F change (F = 6.46,
p = .00; F change = 4.96, p = .03, ΔR2 = .04). See Figure 1 for an illustration
of the curvilinear relationship between fathering activities and children’s
outcomes.
Hypothesis 3. We hypothesized that children with higher emotional
reactivity would benefit more from active play with their fathers. Subgroup
analysis demonstrated significant effects for the higher emotionality group
(F = 6.61, p = .00; F change = 3.99, p = .04, ΔR2 = .08) and not the lower
emotionality group (F = 1.45, p = .23; F change = 2.22, p = .14, ΔR2 = .01).
The curvilinear term representing active play only significantly predicted
emotion regulation at pre-K for the higher emotionality kids (F = 4.56,
p = .00; F change = 4.03, p = .04, ΔR2 = .05) and not the lower emotional-
ity children (F = 1.24, p = .30; F change = .05, p = .82, ΔR2 = .00). The
Fisher r-to-z ratio test confirmed significant differences between groups
in each of the dependent variables (p < .05) as means to confirm modera-
tion as an interaction term calculated with a curvilinear score would inhibit
interpretation.
Figure 1. Curvilinear relationship between active play and children’s self-

regulation behaviors at the entry to kindergarten. Leiter-R = Leiter International
Performance Scale--Revised.
Discussion
The current study investigated associations among three types of fathering
activities (specifically, caregiving activities, didactic/teaching activities,
and physically active activities) and children’s self-regulation. Overall,
findings supported our hypotheses. First we demonstrated that physically
active play, along with other more often observed and measured types of
parenting activities, represent an aspect of overall positive parenting among
fathers in relation to their young children. This is an intuitive but important
finding given the lack of empirical data supporting this well-regarded theo-
retical construct. Future work should compare the relative role of active
play in fathering compared to mothering to test empirically whether this is
indeed father-specific parenting, as it is theorized to be.
Our hypotheses that physically active play would predict self-
regulation and behavioral outcomes were supported by the data, support-
ing a curvilinear relationship such that moderate amounts of paternal play
in toddlerhood were the most supportive of good outcomes when children
approached kindergarten entry, whereas no physically active play or too
much actually predicted worse outcomes. This curvilinear relationship to
outcomes was especially robust among children rated as more emotionally
reactive by their mothers when they were infants.
Physical Play and Emotion Regulation

Our results suggest that physically active play provides unique experiences
to young children that may not be available in other forms of fathering
activities and father–child play. Our results suggest that these effects are
an important aspect of positive parenting for fathers and appear to be
important elements of the family routine and of father–child relation-
ships, showing stronger associations to children’s outcomes compared to
other kinds of parent–child activities (Flanders et al., 2010; Fletcher et al.,
2013; John, Halliburton, & Humphrey, 2013). We specifically highlight
the contributions of physical play because it is less examined in the litera-
ture and provides an important context for the development of children’s
emotion regulation. For example, fathers’ deference to the child’s lead in
physical play (John et al., 2013), positive, playful demeanor, and pleasure
at the child’s enjoyment and success (Fletcher et al., 2013) are key ele-
ments of positive physical play that provide a safe context in which the
child can experience emotional arousal. Furthermore, research demon-
strates that paternal control strategies during play contribute to the devel-
opment of children’s self-regulation, and physical play likely provides
ample opportunities to create boundaries and set limits and thus help chil-
dren control their impulses (Malin et al., 2014). Considering Beebe and
colleagues’ (2010) supposition that contingent interactions between the
parent and very young child promote the organization of self-regulatory
systems, physical play likely contributes to children’s regulatory com-
petencies. This notion reaffirms a long history of interaction data with
similar assessments of the significance of contingency (Papoušek, 1989;
Papoušek & von Hofacker, 1998). As we suggested previously, regu-
lar father–child physical play may reflect one context, unique to young
children and their fathers, in which meaning-making processes unfold.
Through regular physical play, the child may gradually assume more
responsibility for leading the intensity of the play and subsequently
develop numerous templates for ranges of emotional arousal and regula-
tory strategies in response.
Father Engagement
The fatherhood literature has evolved over the years to include a more thor-
ough interpretation of presence and involvement, conceptualizing the ways
in which fathering is defined by specific types of caregiving and play, among
other indicators (Castillo, Welch, & Sarver, 2011; Leavell, Tamis-LeMonda,
Ruble, Zosuls, & Cabrera, 2012). The current results emphasize that father-
hood is not unidimensional and rather that fathers, specifically here low-
income fathers of young children, engage with their children in a range of
ways. As Roggman (2004) suggests, there appears to be significant overlap
in fathering activities, and involvement in general plays a critical role in
children’s regulatory development in the current study.
However, results in the current study pointedly indicate that active
play activities that may be unique to fathers are likely to have a signifi-
cant association with the emotion regulation competencies normatively
being consolidated at this age. Children in poverty who are similar to the
current sample are at high risk for deficits in emotion regulation compe-
tencies (Garner & Spears, 2000; Shaw, Keenan, Vondra, Delliquardi, &
Giovannelli, 1997), and they are likely to be impacted by higher rates
of father absence (Coley, 2001; Coley & Hernandez, 2006; Ingoldsby,
Shaw, Owens, & Winslow, 1999; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004).
Furthermore, children with higher emotional reactivity, especially in poor
communities, are likely to suffer from worse socioemotional outcomes,
as well as poor outcomes in other domains such as academic and school
readiness (Crawford, Schrock, & Woodruff-Borden, 2011; Fox & Calkins,
2003; Ursache, Blair, Stifter, & Voegtline, 2013). Though, as noted, chil-
dren with more difficult temperaments may be more likely in some scenar-
ios to elicit greater responsivity from parents, overall, children with these
temperamental characteristics are rated as difficult and are most likely to
experience the kinds of childhood problems that lead to concerns across the
life span, such as early indicators of mental health problems and preschool
expulsion (Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt, & Silva, 1995; Colom, Escorial,
Shih, & Privado, 2007; Frick & Morris, 2004; Muris & Ollendick, 2005).
Therefore, the findings in the current study may illuminate one important
intervening factor for these children: Active playtime with fathers gives
greater opportunities for the kind of high emotional arousal that are not
present in many other contexts of a child’s life in ways that are socially
appropriate and allow for parent-mediated processes of regulation. The
curvilinear relationship, however, suggests that these activities are likely
ideal when occurring in balance with other types of care and parenting,
especially for children who are highly reactive. When fathers become dom-
inant, negative, and threatening in the course of high-energy physical play,
trust is jeopardized (Fletcher et al., 2013), and safe opportunities to prac-
tice emotion regulation are eliminated. In fact, fathers’ negative physical
play with preschoolers is related to children’s aggressive behaviors with
their peers (Flanders et al., 2010).
Overall, this study explores fit between child and parent. A limited
set of studies have explored bidirectional relationships between parents
and children as means to predict later outcomes, particularly among litera-
ture investigating associations between maternal depression and maternal
sensitivity and babies with difficult temperaments (Mangelsdorf, Gunnar,
Kestenbaum, Lang, & Andreas, 1990; Stams, Juffer, & IJzendoorn, 2002).
This study accounted for a wide range of children’s behavior measured in
toddlerhood in predicting the contributions of father’s play to later develop-
mental outcomes. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate the relationship
between children’s temperament in predicting the quadratic function of
father’s play, as well as the overall impact. In other words, more reactive
children benefit more from moderate amounts of active play but also may
be more negatively impacted by too much arousal. In even more succinct
words, fit matters.
Routine Fathering Activities

A likely key ingredient in relations between fathering and children’s out-
comes is the regularity of involvement. In the current study, father–child
play types were measured by the regularity in which fathers engaged with
their children (how frequently). This is notable because the resulting sta-
tistical associations are inasmuch describing the importance of routine in
children’s lives as a means to build predictable relationships given that they
are measured by how frequently a father participates in given activities, not
simply whether he does at all. These data suggest that this predictability
may support the development of children’s internal organization. Moreover,
as we noted previously, consistent parental involvement in family rou-
tines plays a key role in positive family functioning (Ahmeduzzaman &
Roopnarine, 1992; Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984; Volling & Belsky,
1991) and, subsequently, children’s positive emotional development
(Diener & Mangelsdorf, 1999; Golombok, Cook, Bish, & Murray, 1995;
Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, & Bremberg, 2008; Sytsma, Kelley, &
Wymer, 2001). We view structured routines as contributing to children’s
self-regulation skills through two mechanisms: by reducing children’s
motivation for negative interactions through predictability and order, and
by assisting in the development of rule-governing behavior. Regular par-
enting routines provide a structured, predictable environment that helps
children better regulate their emotions and behavior, which reduces paren-
tal stress and helps them feel competent in their parenting skills (Snyder,
1999; Sprunger, Boyce, & Gaines, 1985). Regular routine activities and
interactions involving the same adult caregivers may be especially impact-
ful among low-income families in which marital rates are lower and multi-
partner fertility rates are higher; fathers can increase predictability for their
young children via regular and routine shared activities. The fathers in the
current study were likely to be consistently present in their children’s lives,
and this likely contributed to a sense of predictability and expectations of
each other that may have indicated that shared activities and engagement
were overall positive experiences and, therefore, were better able to sup-
port optimal development. Previous work has demonstrated that fathers in
this sample are highly likely to engage in physical play and caregiving in
particular and that rates of engagement in these activities are related to
greater overall involvement (Cabrera et al., 2004a, 2004b). Our findings
support this previous literature.
Limitations
Though study results are generally robust, there are limitations to note.
Future research should investigate these relationships in a broader ecologi-
cal context for improved understanding of how fathers coconstruct parent-
ing roles with children’s mothers and further how children’s development
unfolds within this complex system (Cabrera et al., 2014). Relatedly, effect
sizes in this study are small, suggesting that broader models would con-
tinue to support a complex inquiry. Our measure of positive parenting
may be limited and refer very specifically to supportive behaviors during a
teaching-focused task. Finally, this study does not compare fathering activ-
ities to mothering activities to confirm that these are behaviors unique to
fathers compared to mothers.
Conclusions
Despite some study limitations, our results expand current theoretical sup-
positions that fathers play a unique role in children’s early emotional devel-
opment by demonstrating empirical associations between father–child
physical play and children’s self-regulation skills. An important strength of
this study is that fathers reported on their own relationships with their chil-
dren, a rare and unique contribution to the fathering literature and one that
scholars have identified as a necessary contribution because much of the
extant literature is based on maternal report (Fitzgerald, Mann, & Barratt,
1999). These results may lend themselves well to informing interventions
by providing important information about how fathers and their children
naturally engage and by highlighting the benefits of rough-and-tumble play
in children’s early emotional development, including promotive relations
between preschoolers’ physical play with peers and their social skills with
peers (Pellegrini, 2009). Moreover, affirmation to fathers that sensitive,
high-quality physical play contributes to young children’s development in
important ways may prove to engage fathers more intensely in their parent-
ing roles and in parenting-support programs.
References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67(4), 1012–1028.
Ahmeduzzaman, M., & Roopnarine, J. L. (1992). Sociodemographic factors,
functioning style, social support, and fathers’ involvement with preschoolers in
African-American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 699–707.
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete
latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities.
Psychological Methods, 9(1), 3–29.
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Manual (2nd ed.). San.
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., Markese, S., Buck, K., Chen, H., Cohen, P., . . . Feldstein,
S. (2010). The origins of 12-month attachment: A microanalysis of 4-month
mother–infant interaction. Attachment & Human Development, 12(1–2),
3–141.
Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family
Development Project: I. Stability and change in mother-infant and father-
infant interaction in a family setting at one, three, and nine months. Child
Development, 55(3), 692–705.
Black, M. M., Dubowitz, H., & Starr, R. H., Jr. (1999). African American fathers in
low income, urban families: Development, behavior, and home environment
of their three-year-old children. Child Development, 70(4), 967–978.
Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., & Banerjee, M. (2009). Effects of parental
supportiveness on toddlers’ emotion regulation over the first three years of
life in a low-income African American sample. Infant Mental Health Journal,
30(5), 452–476.
Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., Fitzgerald, H. E., Schiffman, R. F., &
Vogel, C. (2014). Stability of biological father presence as a proxy for family
stability: Cross-racial associations with the longitudinal development of emo-
tion regulation in toddlerhood. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(4), 309–321.
Boller, K., Bradley, R., Cabrera, N., Raikes, H., Pan, B., Shears, J., & Roggman, L.
(2006). The Early Head Start father studies: Design, data collection, and
summary of father presence in the lives of infants and toddlers. Parenting,
6(2–3), 117–143.
Brady-Smith, C., Ryan, R. M., Berlin, L. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Fuligni, A. S.
(2001). 36-Month child–parent interaction rating scales for the puzzle task
assessment. New York: Columbia University.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Liaw, F. R., Michael, R. T., & Zamsky, E. S. (1992). Manual
for coding freeplay parenting styles: From the Newark observational study
of the teenage parent demonstration (Unpublished coding scales). New York:
Columbia University.
Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Hooper, S., & Zeisel, S. A. (2000). Cumulative
risk and early cognitive development: A comparison of statistical risk models.
Developmental Psychology, 36(6), 793–807.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development.
New York: Wiley.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality
traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology
of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory &
Review, 6(4), 336–354.
Cabrera, N., Moore, K., Bronte-Tinkew, J., Halle, T., West, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., . . .
Boller, K. (2004a). The DADS initiative: Measuring father involvement in
large-scale surveys. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and
measuring father involvement (pp. 417–452). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cabrera, N. J., Ryan, R. M., Shannon, J. D., Brooks-Gunn, J., Vogel, C.,
Raikes, H., . . . Cohen, R. (2004b). Low-income fathers’ involvement in their
toddlers’ lives: Biological fathers from the Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Study. Fathering, 2(1), 5–36.
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2007). Fathers’ influence on
their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K.
Applied Development Science, 11(4), 208–213.
Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion
regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 229–
248). New York: Guilford Press.
Calkins, S. D., & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Toddler regulation of distress to
frustrating events: Temperamental and maternal correlates. Infant Behavior &
Development, 21(3), 379–395.
Carson, J., Burks, V., & Parke, R. D. (1993). Parent-child physical play:
Determinants and consequences. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play:
Descriptions and implications (pp. 197–220). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995).
Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: From age
three to age fifteen. Child Development, 66(1), 55–68.
Castillo, J., Welch, G., & Sarver, C. (2011). Fathering: The relationship between
fathers’ residence, fathers’ sociodemographic characteristics, and father
involvement. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1342–1349.
Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number
of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13(2), 195–212.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific
construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333.
Coley, R. L. (2001). (In)visible men: Emerging research on low-income, unmarried,
and minority fathers. American Psychologist, 56(9), 743–753.
Coley, R. L., & Hernandez, D. C. (2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for
resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology,
42(6), 1041–1056.
Colom, R., Escorial, S., Shih, P. C., & Privado, J. (2007). Fluid intelligence,
memory span, and temperament difficulties predict academic performance
of young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8),
1503–1514.
Crawford, N. A., Schrock, M., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2011). Child internalizing
symptoms: Contributions of child temperament, maternal negative affect, and
family functioning. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42(1), 53–64.
Crawley, S. B., & Sherrod, K. B. (1984). Parent-infant play during the first year of
life. Infant Behavior & Development, 7(1), 65–75.
Crockenberg, S., & Leerkes, E. (2000). Infant social and emotional development
in family context. In C. H. Zeanah Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health
(2nd ed., pp. 60–90). New York: Guilford Press.
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2003). Parental acceptance, postpartum
depression, and maternal sensitivity: Mediating and moderating processes.
Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 80–93.
Crockenberg, S. B., & Smith, P. (2002). Antecedents of mother–infant interaction
and infant irritability in the first 3 months of life. Infant Behavior &
Development, 25(1), 2–15.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and
parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child
Development, 57(6), 1507–1518.
De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment:
A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child
Development, 68(4), 571–591.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from
incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York:
Guilford Press.
Dickson, K. L., Walker, H., & Fogel, A. (1997). The relationship between smile
type and play type during parent–infant play. Developmental Psychology,
33(6), 925–933.
Diener, M. L., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1999). Behavioral strategies for emotion
regulation in toddlers: Associations with maternal involvement and emotional
expressions. Infant Behavior & Development, 22(4), 569–583.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Enders, C. K. (2006). Analyzing structural equation models with missing data.
In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A
second course (pp. 313–342). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Feldman, R. (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: The coregulation
of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1–23.
Fitzgerald, H. E., Mann, T., & Barratt, M. (1999). Fathers and infants. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 20(3), 213–221.
Flanders, J. L., Simard, M., Paquette, D., Parent, S., Vitaro, F., Pihl, R. O., &
Séguin, J. R. (2010). Rough-and-tumble play and the development of physical
aggression and emotion regulation: A five-year follow-up study. Journal of
Family Violence, 25(4), 357–367.
Fletcher, R., St. George, J., & Freeman, E. (2013). Rough and tumble play quality:
Theoretical foundations for a new measure of father–child interaction. Early
Child Development and Care, 183(6), 746–759.
Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (2003). The development of self-control of emotion:
Intrinsic and extrinsic influences. Motivation and Emotion, 27(1), 7–26.
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to
conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(1),
54–68.
Ganzach, Y. (1998). Nonlinearity, multicollinearity and the probability of type II
error in detecting interaction. Journal of Management, 24(5), 615–622.
Garner, P. W., & Spears, F. M. (2000). Emotion regulation in low-income
preschoolers. Social Development, 9(2), 246–264.
Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. (1995). Families created by the
new reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting and social and emotional
development of the children. Child Development, 66(2), 285–298.
Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing data: Analysis and design. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Ingoldsby, E. M., Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., & Winslow, E. B. (1999). A longitudinal
study of interparental conflict, emotional and behavioral reactivity, and
preschoolers’ adjustment problems among low-income families. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(5), 343–356.
John, A., Halliburton, A., & Humphrey, J. (2013). Child–mother and child–father
play interaction patterns with preschoolers. Early Child Development and
Care, 183(3–4), 483–497.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental
view. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343–354.
Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and
guide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd
ed., pp. 1–18). New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (2002). Infant–father attachments and their impact on child
development. In C. S. Tamis-Lemonda & N. J. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of
father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 93–117). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Leavell, A. S., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ruble, D. N., Zosuls, K. M., & Cabrera, N. J.
(2012). African American, White and Latino fathers’ activities with their sons
and daughters in early childhood. Sex Roles, 66(1–2), 53–65.
Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., . . .
Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old
children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental
Psychology, 41(6), 885–901.
MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent–child physical play with rejected, neglected, and
popular boys. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 705–711.
Malin, J. L., Cabrera, N. J., Karberg, E., Aldoney, D., & Rowe, M. L. (2014).
Low-income, minority fathers’ control strategies and their children’s regula-
tory skills. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(5), 462–472.
Mangelsdorf, S., Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R., Lang, S., & Andreas, D. (1990).
Infant proneness-to-distress temperament, maternal personality, and mother-
infant attachment: Associations and goodness of fit. Child Development,
61(3), 820–831.
Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). The joint influence of mother
and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 22(4), 423–439.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The
role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social
Development, 16(2), 361–388.
Muris, P., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). The role of temperament in the etiology of
child psychopathology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(4),
271–289.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent
variables. Version 7. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.
Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically
missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple
imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6(3), 328–362.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the num-
ber of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte
Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569.
Papoušek, M. (1989). Determinants of responsiveness to infant vocal expression of
emotional state. Infant Behavior & Development, 12(4), 507–524.
Papoušek, M., & von Hofacker, N. (1998). Persistent crying in early infancy: A
non-trivial condition of risk for the developing mother–infant relationship.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 24(5), 395–424.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and
developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193–219.
Paquette, D., Carbonneau, R., Dubeau, D., Bigras, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003).
Prevalence of father-child rough-and-tumble play and physical aggression
in preschool children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2),
171–189.
Parke, R. D., MacDonald, K. B., Burks, V. M., Carson, J., Bhavnagri, N. P., Barth,
J. M., & Beitel, A. (1989). Family and peer systems: In search of the link-
ages. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lemer (Eds.), Family systems and life-span
development (pp. 65–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2009). Research and policy on children’s play. Child Development
Perspectives, 3(2), 131–136.
Peterson, J. B., & Flanders, J. L. (2005). Play and the regulation of aggression. In
R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of
aggression (pp. 133–157). New York: Guilford Press.
Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and
socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75(2), 346–353.
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011).
CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-
regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362–378.
Roggman, L. A. (2004). Do fathers just want to have fun? Human Development,
47(4), 228–236.
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., Christiansen, K., & Jones, D. (2004).
Playing with daddy: Social toy play, early head start, and developmental out-
comes. Fathering, 2(1), 83–108.
Roid, G. H., & Miller L. J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale—
Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.
Rothbart, M. K., & Sheese, B. E. (2007). Temperament and emotion regulation. In
J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 331–350). New York:
Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Is one good parent good
enough? Patterns of mother and father parenting and child cognitive outcomes
at 24 and 36 months. Parenting, 6(2–3), 211–228.
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’
involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of
longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97(2), 153–158.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics,
6(2), 461–464.
Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in
multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52(3), 333–343.
Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., London, K., & Cabrera, N. (2002). Beyond
rough and tumble: Low-income fathers’ interactions and children’s cognitive
development at 24 months. Parenting: Science & Practice, 2(2), 77–104.
Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., Vondra, J. I., Delliquardi, E., & Giovannelli, J. (1997).
Antecedents of preschool children’s internalizing problems: A longitudinal
study of low-income families. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(12), 1760–1767.
Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and child well-being:
A critical review. In D. P. Moynihan, L. Rainwater, & T. Smeeding (Eds.), The
future of the family (pp. 116–155). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Snyder, B. K. (1999). Teacher knows best. Parents Magazine, 74, 92–94.
Sprunger, L. W., Boyce, W. T., & Gaines, J. A. (1985). Family-infant congruence:
Routines and rhythmicity in family adaptations to a young infant. Child
Development, 56(3), 564–572.
Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Attachment: The dyadic regulation of emotion. In
Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years
(pp. 172–191). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in
the early years. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Placing early
attachment experiences in developmental context. In K. E. Grossmann, K.
Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The
major longitudinal studies (pp. 48–70). New York: Guilford Press.
Stams, G. J. J., Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2002). Maternal sensitivity,
infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in
middle childhood: The case of adopted children and their biologically unre-
lated parents. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 806–821.
Sytsma, S. E., Kelley, M. L., & Wymer, J. H. (2001). Development and initial
validation of the Child Routines Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 23(4), 241–251.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004).
Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to
language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806–1820.
Thompson, R. A., & Goodvin, R. (2007). Taming the tempest in the teapot: Emotion
regulation in toddlers. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Transitions
in early socioemotional development: The toddler years (pp. 320–344).
New York: Guilford Press.
Ursache, A., Blair, C., Stifter, C., & Voegtline, K. (2013). Emotional reactivity
and regulation in infancy interact to predict executive functioning in early
childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 127–137.
van den Bloom, D. C., & Hoeksma, J. B. (1994). The effect of infant irritability on
mother-infant interaction: A growth-curve analysis. Developmental Psychology,
30(4), 581–590.
Van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., Stolk, M. N., Alink, L. R., Van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., . . . Koot, H. M. (2007). Differential
susceptibility to discipline: The moderating effect of child temperament on
the association between maternal discipline and early childhood externalizing
problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 626–636.
Vogel, C. A., Bradley, R. H., Raikes, H. H., Boller, K., & Shears, J. K. (2006).
Relation between father connectedness and child outcomes. Parenting, 6(2–3),
189–209.
Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father involvement
during infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 53(2), 461–474.
Yogman, M. W. (1981). Games fathers and mothers play with their infants. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 2(4), 241–248.
Copyright of Merrill-Palmer Quarterly is the property of Wayne State University Press and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Bocknek, 2017. Active Playtime With Fathers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bocknek, 2017. Active Playtime With Fathers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M E R R I L L - P A L M E R Q U A R TE R L Y , V O L . 6 3 , N O .

Routine Active Playtime With Fathers Is Associated

In recent years, a literature has emerged describing contributions fathers make to

Erika L. Bocknek, College of Education and Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute; Carolyn

The development of self-regulation in early childhood is a critical competency,

Relations Between Father–Child Play and Emotion Regulation

The Current Study

researcher, answering a variety of questions regarding their relationship

Plan for Analysis

Development of Father and Child Profiles

Testing Study Hypotheses

Figure 1. Curvilinear relationship between active play and children’s self-

Physical Play and Emotion Regulation

Routine Fathering Activities

You might also like