See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40679132

Mother and Father Connectedness and Involvement During Early Adolescence

Article  in  Journal of Family Psychology · December 2009

DOI: 10.1037/a0016438 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
148 2,640

2 authors:

Randal D. Day Laura M. Padilla-Walker

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
75 PUBLICATIONS   3,472 CITATIONS    130 PUBLICATIONS   6,094 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Prosocial Behavior View project

Measuring the Three Ethics of Autonomy, Community, and Divinity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura M. Padilla-Walker on 17 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Family Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 23, No. 6, 900 –904 0893-3200/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016438

BRIEF REPORTS

Mother and Father Connectedness and Involvement During

Early Adolescence
Randal D. Day and Laura M. Padilla-Walker
Brigham Young University

The purpose of the current study was to explore how mother’s and father’s connectedness and
involvement individually and collectively influence the lives of their children. Specifically,
we asked how fathers’ and mothers’ parent– child connectedness and behavioral involvement
influenced both problem behaviors (externalizing and internalizing behaviors) and positive
outcomes (prosocial behaviors and hope) during early adolescence. Data for this study were
taken from the Flourishing Families Project, from which 349 mothers and fathers were
selected, along with their early adolescent child (mean age ⫽ 11.23 years, SD ⫽ .96).
Hierarchical regression analyses revealed (even after controlling for child age, gender, and
self-regulation) that mothers’ and fathers’ contributions differed, primarily as a function of
child outcome. Namely, father (but not mother) connectedness and involvement were nega-
tively related to adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors, whereas mother (but
not father) connectedness and involvement were positively related to adolescents’ prosocial
behaviors and hope. We also found that when one parent’s involvement was low (for
whatever reason), the other parent’s involvement made a significant and important contribu-
tion to the child’s well-being, particularly in the area of internalizing behaviors.

Keywords: parenting, fathers, mothers, connectedness, behavioral involvement in early

adolescence

One of the more compelling research stories to emerge
within the study of parenting is that parenting behaviors ex-
hibited by mothers and fathers independently influence child
development (Stolz, Barber, & Olsen, 2005). Understanding
the differences in mothering and fathering is especially impor-
tant as we seek to understand the challenges of early adoles-
cence (Collins & Laursen, 2004). The current study shows that
parents matter in the lives of their children, and explores how
fathers’ and mothers’ connectedness and behavioral involve-
ment differentially influence children during early adolescence.
strong parent-adolescent bond tend to feel closer to other
people, utilize others as a resource, and are perceived as
more approachable (Allen & Land, 1999; Lee, Draper, &
Lee, 2001). Parental involvement is also key, with research-
ers suggesting that parental engagement or involvement is
central to both fathering and mothering (Lamb, Pleck, &
Levine, 1985; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Taken together,
we would expect adolescents who report higher levels of
parental connection and involvement to score higher on
positive and lower on negative behaviors.

Parental Connectedness and Involvement

Research on parent– child connectedness has found that
adolescents with higher levels of social connection and a
Randal D. Day and Laura M. Padilla-Walker, School of Life,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
We thank the Family Studies Center at Brigham Young Uni-
versity (BYU), the School of Family Life, and the College of
Family Home and Social Science at BYU for their generous
support for this project. We also recognize the generous support of
the many private donors who provided support for this project. We
also thank those families who were willing to spend valuable hours
with our team in interviews.
Correspondence should be directed to Randal D. Day, School
of Life, Brigham Young University, Provo UT 84602. E-mail:
day@byu.edu
Differential Influence of Mothers and Fathers
Researchers claim that men and women approach the
parenting of adolescents differently (Steinberg & Silk,
2002), but few studies interview both fathers and mothers in
the same family, with even fewer including children’s
views. The few available studies report that mothers and
fathers play both different and combined roles in parenting,
and that this is often dependent upon the gender of the
adolescent. For example, one study found that mothering
was related to their sons’ antisocial behaviors and depres-
sion, while fathering was more important for their daugh-
ters’ depression (Stolz et al., 2005). Other studies have
found that mothering was more important for both boys’
and girls’ prosocial behaviors (Hastings, McShane, Parker,
& Ladha, 2007), whereas fathering has been found to ex-

900
 BRIEF REPORTS
plain unique variance in behavioral and externalizing prob-
lems (Williams & Kelly, 2005). In sum, researchers are
moving away from the general idea of “parenting,” and
toward the more refined constructs of mothering and father-
ing, which are impacted both by the gender of the child, and
the outcome being examined.
Research Questions
We hypothesized that fathers’ and mothers’ connected-
ness and behavioral involvement would be significantly
related to their child’s positive and negative outcomes, and
we explored whether parental connectedness and involve-
ment would differ in their associations with outcome vari-
ables as a function of the gender of the parent and the child.
Second, we examined whether one parent’s connectedness
or involvement might act as a buffer against low levels of
parenting from the other parent, or whether high levels of
parenting from both parents resulted in the most positive
outcomes. Finally, given research suggesting the impor-
tance the adolescent’s temperament on both positive and
negative outcomes (Eisenberg et al., 2005), the current
study examined the role of parenting after controlling for
adolescent temperament (i.e., adolescents’ emotional self-
regulation).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Study participants come from the Flourishing Families
Project (FFP). The FFP is an ongoing, longitudinal study
involving families with a child between the ages of 10 and
14 years. Participant families for the FFP were randomly
and purposively selected from a large northwestern city and
were interviewed in 2007 (for more information about our
sample, please contact the first author). Families were in-
terviewed in their homes, with each interview consisting of
a 1-hr video (not reported here) and a 1.5-hr self-
administered questionnaire completed by the child, mother,
and father. Our overall response rate of eligible families was
68%.
The final sample consisted of the 349 intact families (151
single-parent families were not used here), which included
the adolescent child (mean age ⫽ 11.23 years, SD ⫽ .96,
range ⫽ 11–14), mother (mean age ⫽ 43.44, SD ⫽ 5.54),
and father (mean age ⫽ 45.32, SD ⫽ 6.23). Ninety-five
percent of mothers and 90% of fathers reported being bio-
logical parents. Seventy-nine percent of the participants
were European American, and 70% of families reported an
income of more than $50,000 per year.
Measures
Parent– child connectedness and involvement. Parent–
child connectedness was assessed using 9 items from the
Social Connectedness Scale (Lee et al., 2001). Mothers
(␣ ⫽ .85) and fathers (␣ ⫽ .88) were both assessed, with
higher scores representing higher parent– child connected-
901
ness (sample item, “I feel close to my child”). Parental
involvement was assessed using 8 items from the Inventory
of Father Involvement (Hawkins et al., 2002). Mothers (␣ ⫽
.64) and fathers (␣ ⫽ .77) were both assessed, with higher
scores representing higher involvement (sample item, “How
often do you help your child with homework?”).
Child self-regulation. Adolescents’ self-regulation was
self-reported using a 5-item measure of emotional self-
regulation (Novak & Clayton, 2001). Higher scores repre-
sented greater self-regulation (␣ ⫽ .76; sample item, “I have
a hard time controlling my temper”).
Child negative behaviors. Adolescents’ externalizing
and internalizing behaviors were assessed using the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). Adolescents
responded to 13 items assessing internalizing behaviors
(␣ ⫽ .87; e.g., “I feel lonely”) and 9 items assessing
externalizing behaviors (␣ ⫽ .62; e.g., “I use alcohol or
drugs”).
Child positive behaviors. Adolescents’ prosocial be-
haviors were assessed using the Values in Action Inventory
of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), with higher
scores representing higher levels of prosocial behaviors
(␣ ⫽ .84; sample item, “I help others, even if it is difficult
for me”). Adolescents’ self-reported hope was assessed
using 9 items from the Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder,
2005). Higher scores represented higher levels of hope (␣ ⫽
.79; sample item, “I have hope for my future”).
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Because outcomes varied as a function of child age and
gender, these variables were added as control variables, and
gender interactions were explored. It should be noted that
connectedness was moderately and positively related to
involvement for both mothers and fathers (mothers’ r ⫽ .38,
fathers’ r ⫽ .49), so regressions were conducted separately
for each aspect of parenting. Furthermore, mothering and
fathering were not highly correlated with one another (con-
nectedness r ⫽ .20, involvement r ⫽ .21), which minimized
our concern about colinearity.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Parenting
Predicting Child Outcomes
In each regression analysis, the main effects of child age,
gender (0 ⫽ boys, 1 ⫽ girls), and self-regulation were
entered in the first step, mother and father connectedness
(Table 1) or involvement were entered in the second step,
and the three, 2-way interactions were entered in the third
step. None of the 3-way interactions were statistically sig-
nificant and are thus not presented. The scores on the
predictors were centered prior to analyses to reduce colin-
earity formed by the interaction, and interactions were ex-
amined by calculating simple regression slopes (Aiken &
West, 1991).
Externalizing behaviors. For connectedness, at Step 1
adolescents’ age, gender, and self-regulation accounted for
902 BRIEF REPORTS

a statistically significant proportion of variance, F(3, 332) ⫽

Involvement
17.84, p ⬍ .001, with age positively, and gender and self-

.19ⴱⴱⴱ

.06ⴱⴱⴱ
.04ⴱⴱ

.15ⴱⴱ

.06ⴱⴱ
2.51ⴱⴱ
.02
.09

.00

.02
.02
⫺.02
regulation negatively related to externalizing behaviors (see
Table 1). No other steps resulted in a significant increase in
variance. For involvement, at Step 2 (Step 1 is the same as
Hope

above), mother and father involvement produced a .02 in-

crease in the proportion of variance accounted for, F⌬(2,
Connectedness

.19ⴱⴱⴱ 330) ⫽ 3.33, p ⬍ .05, with father involvement negatively

.04ⴱⴱ

.05ⴱⴱ

.05ⴱ
2.05ⴱ
related to externalizing behaviors (see Table 2). However,
.02
.09

.07
⫺.08

.09
⫺.02
⫺.03
using general linear modeling (GLM) custom hypothesis
testing, it was determined that the coefficient for fathers was
not significantly larger than the coefficient for mothers
(difference ⫽ .16, SE ⫽ .23, p ⫽ .48). Thus, it can be
Involvement

concluded that fathers’ involvement was significantly re-

.29ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.16ⴱⴱⴱ

.18ⴱⴱⴱ

.19ⴱⴱⴱ
10.21ⴱⴱⴱ
.09⫹

lated to children’s externalizing behaviors and mothers’

.12ⴱ

⫺.17ⴱ
⫺.08

.07

.00
Prosocial behaviors

involvement was not, but we cannot conclude that fathering

mattered more than mothering in this regard.
Internalizing behaviors. For connectedness, at Step 1
Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Parent–Child Connectedness and Involvement Predicting Child Outcomes

adolescents’ age, gender, and self-regulation accounted for

Connectedness

a statistically significant proportion of variance, F(3, 332) ⫽

50.80, p ⬍ .001, with self-regulation negatively related to
.29ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.16ⴱⴱⴱ

.17ⴱⴱⴱ

.18ⴱⴱⴱ
.18ⴱⴱⴱ
8.19ⴱⴱⴱ
.12ⴱ
⫺.08

.01

⫺.08
⫺.07

internalizing behaviors. At Step 2, mother and father con-

Child outcomes

nectedness produced a .02 increase in the proportion of

variance accounted for, F⌬(2, 332) ⫽ 4.29, p ⬍ .01, with
Note. All regression values represent standardized beta weights. For child gender, 0 ⫽ boys, 1 ⫽ girls.

father connectedness negatively related to internalizing be-

haviors. Using GLM custom hypothesis testing, it was de-
Involvement

termined that the coefficient for fathers was significantly

⫺.56ⴱⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ

.33ⴱⴱⴱ

.36ⴱⴱⴱ
20.14ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14ⴱⴱ

.14ⴱⴱ

larger than the coefficient for mothers (difference ⫽ 1.38,

Internalizing behaviors

.03
.05

.03

.10
⫺.05

SE ⫽ .57, p ⫽ .02). This suggests that fathering mattered

more than mothering in this regard.
For involvement, at Step 2 mother and father involve-
ment produced a .02 increase in the proportion of variance
Connectedness

accounted for, F⌬(2, 330) ⫽ 4.72, p ⬍ .01, with father

⫺.56ⴱⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ

.33ⴱⴱⴱ

.35ⴱⴱⴱ
19.42ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14ⴱⴱ

⫺.12⫹
.09⫹

involvement negatively related to internalizing behaviors.

.03
.05

.05

⫺.07

Using GLM custom hypothesis testing, it was determined

that the coefficient for fathers was significantly larger than
the coefficient for mothers (difference ⫽ 1.56, SE ⫽ .73,
p ⫽ .03). This suggests that fathering mattered more than
mothering in this regard. At Step 3, the interactions pro-
Involvement

.21ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ
.14ⴱⴱⴱ

.16ⴱⴱⴱ

.16ⴱⴱⴱ
7.16ⴱⴱⴱ

duced a .02 increase in the proportion of variance accounted

⫺.16ⴱⴱ

⫺.12ⴱ
Externalizing behaviors

for, F⌬(3, 327) ⫽ 9.49, p ⬍ .01, with the interaction

⫺.04

.06
⫺.02
⫺.04

between mother and father involvement positively related to

p ⬍ .06. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

internalizing behaviors. After examining simple slopes, this

interaction suggests that when father involvement was high,
there was little difference in internalizing behaviors as a
Connectedness

function of mother involvement. However, when father

.21ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ
.14ⴱⴱⴱ

.14ⴱⴱⴱ

.16ⴱⴱⴱ
6.95ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.16ⴱⴱ

involvement was low, high mother involvement resulted in

⫺.04
⫺.09

.05
⫺.01
.04

lower internalizing behaviors. In other words, either parent

was acting as a buffer against low involvement from the
other parent.
Prosocial behaviors. For connectedness, at Step 1 ad-
Child self-regulation

olescents’ age, gender, and self-regulation accounted for a

A ⫻ Child gender
B ⫻ Child gender

statistically significant proportion of variance, F(3, 331) ⫽

20.11, p ⬍ .001, with child gender and self-regulation
Mothering (A)
Fathering (B)
Child gender

positively related to prosocial behaviors. At Step 2, mother

Child age

and father connectedness produced a .01 increase in the

Final R2
A⫻B

proportion of variance accounted for, F⌬(2, 331) ⫽ 2.71,

Table 1

F test
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

p ⫽ .06, with mother connectedness positively related to

R2

R2

prosocial behaviors. However, using GLM custom hypoth-

⫹
 BRIEF REPORTS
esis testing, it was determined that the coefficient for moth-
ers was not significantly larger than the coefficient for
fathers (difference ⫽ .12, SE ⫽ .08, p ⫽ .13). Thus, we
cannot conclude that mothering mattered more than father-
ing in this regard. Step 3 did not result in a significant
increase in the proportion of variance accounted for, despite
significant parameter estimates.
For involvement, at Step 2 mother and father involve-
ment produced a .03 increase in the proportion of variance
accounted for, F⌬(2, 329) ⫽ 5.45, p ⬍ .01, with mother
involvement positively related to prosocial behaviors. How-
ever, using GLM custom hypothesis testing, it was deter-
mined that the coefficient for mothers was not significantly
larger than the coefficient for fathers (difference ⫽ .06,
SE ⫽ .10, p ⫽ .54). Thus, we cannot conclude that moth-
ering mattered more than fathering in this regard. Step 3 did
not result in a significant increase in the proportion of
variance accounted for, despite significant parameter esti-
mates.
Hope. For connectedness, at Step 1 adolescents’ age,
gender, and self-regulation accounted for a statistically sig-
nificant proportion of variance, F(3, 331) ⫽ 4.83, p ⬍ .01,
with self-regulation positively related to hope. For involve-
ment, at Step 2 mother and father involvement produced a
.02 increase in the proportion of variance accounted for,
F⌬(2, 329) ⫽ 3.80, p ⬍ .05, with mother involvement
positively related to hope. Using GLM custom hypothesis
testing, it was determined that the coefficient for mothers
was significantly larger than the coefficient for fathers (dif-
ference ⫽ .16, SE ⫽ .08, p ⫽ .05). This suggests that
mothering mattered more than fathering in this regard.
Discussion
This study confirmed that both mothers and fathers mat-
tered, however, mothering was more consistently related to
adolescents’ positive behaviors, and fathering was more
consistently related to adolescents’ problem behaviors.
Mothers’ parenting may be more centered on relationship-
building skills whereas fathers’ parenting is more focused
on norm compliance (Lamb, 2004). Our findings did not
support the idea that involvement was a “fathering” variable
and connectedness was a “mothering” variable. Rather, they
suggested that both aspects of parenting were important for
both mothers and fathers, but their relations to outcomes
were consistently different. A key in our findings was that
parental connectedness and involvement in the lives of their
children matters, with fathering being more important for
internalizing behaviors and mothering being more important
for hope. Although this is not a new idea in the literature,
most research projects do not directly assess the power of
different aspects of mothering and fathering with reports
from multiple respondents and with multiple outcomes.
We also found that when one parent’s involvement was
low (for whatever reason), the other parent’s involvement
made a significant and important contribution to the child’s
well-being, particularly in the area of internalizing behav-
iors (Stolz et al., 2005). Given our inability to determine
direction of effects, it is possible that one or the other parent
903
compensated for low levels of involvement from the other
parent when they perceived their early adolescent child to
be displaying internalizing problems at such an early age.
Future research should continue to examine interactions
between mothering and fathering as adolescents get older,
because the lack of significant findings on other outcome
variables may have been because of the age of our sample
and the relatively low level of problem behaviors during
early adolescence.
The last finding that was of note was that adolescent
temperament was the strongest and most consistent predic-
tor of adolescent outcomes. Although this relation may be
overinflated in the current study because adolescents self-
reported both their temperament and the behavioral out-
comes, findings are consistent with research suggesting that
adolescents’ ability to self regulate is negatively related to
negative outcomes and positively related to positive out-
comes (Eisenberg et al., 2005). It will be important for
future research to examine not only how parenting matters
after controlling for temperament, but also how different
aspects of parenting are differentially important for children
with different temperaments.
Although there is a large body of research that suggests
that mothers and fathers matter in the lives of their children,
there are few studies that examine the contribution of one
parent after controlling for the contribution of the other in
an attempt to determine unique contribution (Parke, 2002).
The current study is consistent with the small body of
research suggesting that even after considering the redun-
dancy in parenting across mothers and fathers, both parents
matter in unique ways (Hastings et al., 2007; Williams &
Kelly, 2005), and it adds to this literature by suggesting that
fathering is particularly salient in protecting against nega-
tive behaviors, whereas mothering is more consistently re-
lated to positive behaviors.
Our first limitation is that this was a community-based
sample, and larger generalizations cannot be extrapolated.
The current sample focuses only on intact families and did
not examine parenting of nonresidential fathers, or low-
income, ethnically diverse families. However, one of the
strengths of this sample is that it is somewhat “population
normal” in that we did not oversample children or families
in trouble.
Second, we also did not report these findings from the
strength of a longitudinal design. To more accurately assess
the power of mothers’ and fathers’ contribution to the
well-being of children, it is necessary to view those inter-
actions and contributions over time. For example, children
who exhibit higher levels of positive behaviors and lower
levels of negative behaviors may possibly elicit more con-
nectedness and involvement from parents.
Third, this study did not specify what it is that fathers and
mothers do differently that may produce different outcomes
in children’s well-being as reported here. Indeed, our find-
ings do not suggest that mothers do not matter for negative
behaviors and that fathers do not matter for positive behav-
iors, only that when controlling for the other parents’ par-
enting, mothers parenting was more consistently related to
904 BRIEF REPORTS
positive outcomes and fathering was more consistently re-
lated to negative outcomes.
Fourth, note that there are only modest results connecting
parenting and child outcomes. This may be a reflection of a
key measurement issue facing family/parenting researchers.
To date, there is no single instrument that adequately assess
mother and father involvement. We have retrofitted a scale
here that was initially used to assess father involvement,
while other measures were clearly written with mothers in
mind. This challenge needs to be addressed in future re-
search.
In conclusion, although there is a large body of research
that suggests that mothers and fathers matter in the lives of
their children, there are few studies that examine the cont-
ribution of one parent after controlling for the contribution
of the other in an attempt to determine unique contribution
(Parke, 2002). Thus, the current study is consistent with the
small body of research suggesting that even after consider-
ing the redundancy in parenting across mothers and fathers,
that both parents matter in unique ways, and suggests that
fathering is particularly salient in protecting against nega-
tive behaviors, while mothering is more consistently related
to positive behaviors. This study is an important first step in
continuing to examine the combined and relative impor-
tance of both mothers and fathers in the lives of their
adolescent children.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report and
1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 319 –335). New York:
Guilford Press.
Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relation-
ships and influences. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Hand-
book of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 331–362). New
York: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya,
S. H., & Valiente, C. (2005). The relations between problem
behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful con-
trol, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of
change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193–211.
Hastings, P., McShane, K., Parker, R., & Ladha, F. (2007). Ready
View publication stats
to make nice: Parental socialization of young sons’ and daugh-
ters’ prosocial behaviors with peers. Journal of Genetic Psychol-
ogy, 168, 177–200.
Hawkins, A. J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Day, R. D., Chris-
tiansen, S. L., & Call, V. C. (2002). The inventory of father
involvement: A pilot study of a new measure of father involve-
ment. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 183–196.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child devel-
opment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. (1985). The role of
father in child development: The effects of increased paternal
involvement. In B. B. Hahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in
clinical child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 229 –266). New York:
Plenum.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness,
dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological dis-
tress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 48, 310 –318.
Novak, S. P., & Clayton, R. R. (2001). The influence of school
environment and self-regulation on transitions between stages of
cigarette smoking: A multilevel analysis. Health Psychology, 20,
196 –207.
Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3: Being and Becoming a
Parent (2nd ed., pp. 27–73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths
and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC:
Oxford University Press.
Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by
U.S. residential fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development (pp. 222–271). New York: Wiley.
Snyder, C. R. (2005). Measuring hope in children. In K. Moore &
D. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish: Concep-
tualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp.
61–73). New York: Springer.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and
parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Stolz, H. E., Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Toward
disentangling fathering and mothers: An assessment of relative
importance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1076 –1092.
Williams, S. K., & Kelly, F. D. (2005). Relationships among
involvement, attachment, and behavioral problems in adoles-
cence: Examining father’s influence. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 25, 168 –196.
Received September 11, 2008
Revision received March 17, 2009
Accepted March 30, 2009 䡲