Child Development, March/April 2021, Volume 92, Number 2, Pages 554–577

Paternal Sensitivity and Children’s Cognitive and Socioemotional Outcomes:

A Meta-Analytic Review
Michelle Rodrigues and Nina Sokolovic Sheri Madigan
University of Toronto University of Calgary

Yiqi Luo, Victoria Silva, Shruti Misra, and Jennifer Jenkins

University of Toronto

In a series of meta-analyses, paternal sensitivity was associated with children’s (age range: 7 months–9 years)
overall cognitive functioning (N = 3,193; k = 23; r = .19), including language skills (k = 9; r = .21), cognitive
ability (k = 9; r = .18), and executive function (k = 8; r = .19). Paternal sensitivity was not associated with chil-
dren’s overall socioemotional functioning (N = 2,924; k = 24; r = .03) or internalizing problems, but it was
associated with children’s emotion regulation (k = 7; r = .22) and externalizing problems (k = 19; r = .08). In
the broad cognitive functioning, executive function, broad socioemotional functioning, and externalizing prob-
lems meta-analyses, child age was a significant moderator.

Early life experiences shape children’s acquisition of

cognitive skills and socioemotional competencies
(Britto et al., 2017). These skills and competencies
serve as the foundation for positive adjustment dur-
ing childhood and beyond. Indeed, early cognitive
(e.g., language, IQ, executive functioning) and
socioemotional functioning (e.g., emotional and
behavioral regulation) have been linked to positive
outcomes in adolescence and adulthood, including
higher educational attainment (Suldo, Gormley,
DuPaul, & Anderson-Butcher, 2014), reduced rates
of mental health difficulties (Fergusson, Horwood,
& Ridder, 2005; Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley,
2015), improved physical health (Moffitt et al.,
2011), and higher quality of relationships (Durkin &
Conti-Ramsden, 2007; Izard et al., 2008). Supporting
children’s early development, therefore, has the
potential to contribute positively to a more healthy,
productive, and prosperous society (Campbell
et al., 2014; Gertler et al., 2014).
Funding: This project was funded by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to be
reported.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jennifer Jenkins, Department of Applied Psychology and Human
Development, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St W., Toronto,
Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada. Electronic mail may be sent to
jenny.jenkins@utoronto.ca.
Parental Sensitivity and Child Development
Sensitive parenting involves reading the subtle
affective and cognitive cues of children and in turn,
responding in a manner that is sensitive, stimulat-
ing, or both (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974;
Landry & Smith, 2011). Sensitive parenting has
been identified as particularly valuable for promot-
ing the developmental progression of both cognitive
and socioemotional functioning (Britto et al., 2017;
Madigan et al., 2019). When considering cognitive
development, there is both correlational and causal
evidence showing the effects of sensitive parenting
on children’s development (Mills-Koonce et al.,
2015; Raby, Freedman, Yarger, Lind, & Dozier,
2019). Theoretically, parents who are sensitive act
within children’s zone of proximal development by
being attuned and responsive to children’s interests,
focus of gaze, and developmental capacity (Chak,
2001; Vygotsky, 1978). Over time, these high qual-
ity, reciprocal parent–child interactions, are thought
to build the neural architecture responsible for
healthy cognitive development (Kok et al., 2015).
With regard to socioemotional development,
there is evidence highlighting a negative association
between parental sensitivity and rates of child
© 2021 Society for Research in Child Development
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2021/9202-0007
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13545

internalizing (i.e., anxiety and depression) and
externalizing (i.e., aggression, noncompliance,
hyperactivity) problems (Kok et al., 2013; Van Zeijl
et al., 2006). Children of parents who are sensitive
also display better regulation of negative affect
(Davidov & Grusec, 2006), and higher relationship
quality over the life course (Zayas, Mischel, Shoda,
& Aber, 2011). Theoretically, sensitive parents who
appropriately perceive and respond to children’s
emotional and cognitive states provide a secure
base for children. The secure base enables children
to explore their environment without threat
(Bowlby, 1973; Goldberg, Grusec, & Jenkins, 1999),
building their capacity to trust in others (attach-
ment security) and providing an optimal environ-
ment for learning. Securely attached children show
positive socioemotional and cognitive development
(Groh, Fearon, van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranen-
burg, & Roisman, 2017; Madigan, Brumariu, Villani,
Atkinson, & Lyons-Ruth, 2016; van IJzendoorn,
Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995).
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Development
Although the early conceptualization of parental
sensitivity referenced both mothers and fathers as
primary caregivers (Bowlby, 1973), most sensitivity
assessment measures were initially developed and
validated using mother–child dyads, as mothers
have historically spent more time involved in care-
giving compared to fathers (Cabrera, Volling, &
Barr, 2018). Data from Western, industrialized
countries reveal that there has been a three to six-
fold increase in father involvement in caregiving
since the 1970’s (Bakermans-Kranenburg, Lotz, Dijk,
& van IJzendoorn, 2019; Craig & Mullan, 2010).
Given this, it is important to validate parenting
assessment measures on both mother–child and
father–child dyads.
In the domain of sensitivity, studies have found
that like mothers, sensitive fathers display attune-
ment and appropriately respond to children’s needs
(Mesman & Emmen, 2013; Mills-Koonce et al.,
2015). In contrast to mothers, however, observa-
tional studies suggest that sensitive fathers focus
more on stimulating and exploratory play interac-
tions (Lucassen et al., 2011; Mills-Koonce et al.,
2015). Fathers have also been found to engage in
rough-and-tumble play (Stgeorge & Freeman, 2017)
and greater encouragement of risk-taking than
mothers (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman,
2014). These findings highlight the importance of
investigating the role of father sensitivity, taking
into account both attunement and stimulation, in
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 555
children’s development. The current meta-analysis
synthesizes the literature examining associations
between paternal sensitivity and children’s cogni-
tive and socioemotional outcomes.
Studies that have examined the association
between paternal sensitivity and children’s func-
tioning have found small to moderate positive
associations between paternal sensitivity and chil-
dren’s cognitive outcomes (Malmberg et al., 2015;
Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, & Cabrera,
2002; Towe-Goodman et al., 2014), and negative
associations with similar magnitudes when exam-
ining child psychopathology (Goffin, Boldt, &
Kochanska, 2018; Hazen, McFarland, Jacobvitz, &
Boyd-Soisson, 2010), in line with studies assessing
maternal sensitivity (Bradley & Corwyn, 2007;
Kok et al., 2013; Madigan et al., 2019). In con-
trast, meta-analyses provide evidence that the
association between paternal sensitivity and infant
attachment security is weaker than the association
between maternal sensitivity and infant attach-
ment security (Lucassen et al., 2011; Verhage
et al., 2016). This difference may be attributed to
the fact that fathers are less involved in caregiv-
ing during infancy compared to mothers (Cabrera
& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Mothers’ greater focus
on emotion and affect (Mills-Koonce et al., 2015)
may also underlie the stronger associations
between maternal sensitivity and secure infant
attachment. There have also been studies that find
weak or no association between father sensitivity
and child cognitive and socioemotional function-
ing (Magill-Evans & Harrison, 2001; Zvara,
Sheppard, & Cox, 2018). Given this variation in
magnitude of associations across individual stud-
ies, it is important to explore potential sources of
variation.
Potential Moderators of the Association Between
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes
Several potential moderators of the association
between paternal sensitivity and child outcomes
have been noted in the literature.
Child Age
Some individual studies have shown that the
magnitude of the association between paternal sen-
sitivity and child language or cognitive ability
does not vary as a function of child age (Tamis-
LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004).
However, when the association between parental
sensitivity and child executive functioning has
556 Rodrigues et al.
been examined, effects were strongest in the early
childhood period (Valcan, Davis, & Pino-Pasternak,
2018), highlighting the potential importance of sen-
sitive parenting during the early years when brain
plasticity is highest (Kolb & Gibb, 2011). Early
childhood is also when children spend the most
concentrated time with parents (Flynn, 2016), and
when father involvement is heightened (Cabrera &
Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). When examining the
development of children’s internalizing and exter-
nalizing problems, some studies have found that
the magnitude of the association between paternal
sensitivity and child adjustment varies as a func-
tion of child age, wherein associations are stronger
in the middle childhood period compared to the
early childhood period (Zvara et al., 2018),
whereas others have not (van der Pol et al., 2016).
In sum, findings of age as a moderator appear to
vary across child outcomes, but nevertheless point
to the importance of assessing child age as a mod-
erator, at both the parenting and the child out-
come time points.
Child Sex
In the paternal parenting literature, there is
mixed evidence to support the notion that fathers
treat their sons and daughters differently. For
example, some studies have found that fathers are
more sensitive toward sons (Schoppe-Sullivan
et al., 2006), while others have found that fathers
are more sensitive toward daughters (Barnett,
Deng, Mills-Koonce, Willoughby, & Cox, 2008;
Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Other studies have
found that child gender is not related to the
amount of sensitivity the child receives (Hallers-
Haalboom et al., 2014). In relation to child function-
ing, some studies have shown that the magnitude
of the association between paternal sensitivity and
some aspects of child executive functioning are
stronger in father–son dyads (Mileva-Seitz et al.,
2015). Other studies examining language and child
executive functioning have not found this differ-
ence (Lucassen et al., 2015; Malmberg et al., 2015).
Finally, some individual studies examining the
links between paternal sensitive responding and
child socioemotional functioning have found associ-
ations to vary by child sex (Zvara et al., 2018),
whereas others have not (Hart, Nelson, Robinson,
Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998). Exploring child
sex as a moderator is important to clarify the direc-
tion and strength of the associations between pater-
nal sensitivity and various domains of child
functioning.
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic disparities have been found to be
associated both with parental sensitivity and chil-
dren’s functioning (Buttitta et al., 2019; Letourneau,
Duffett-Leger, Levac, Watson, & Young-Morris,
2013). While literature examining this moderator
particularly in father–child dyads is somewhat
scarce, drawing on the meta-analytic research on
maternal sensitivity, it has been shown that socioe-
conomic status (SES) moderates the association
between parental sensitivity and child language,
with associations being stronger among samples of
children from low and diverse socioeconomic back-
grounds compared to middle and high socioeco-
nomic backgrounds (Madigan et al., 2019). Of the
few studies that have examined SES as a moderator
in the relation between paternal sensitivity and
child socioemotional and executive functioning,
results did not reveal a moderation effect (Miller-
Lewis, Searle, Sawyer, Baghurst, & Hedley, 2013;
Valcan et al., 2018). This study will add to the liter-
ature by examining how the magnitude of the asso-
ciation between paternal sensitivity and child
functioning differs as a function of SES.
Measurement
The magnitude of the association between sensi-
tive parenting and child functioning may vary
based on quality of measurement (Eiden, Edwards,
& Leonard, 2007; Goffin et al., 2018). Specifically,
multi-informant measurement is recommended over
single informant for socioemotional questionnaire
data (De Los Reyes et al., 2015), and variations in
magnitude of the association between parental sen-
sitivity and children’s externalizing and internaliz-
ing problems have been found as a function of
multi-informant measurement (Eiden et al., 2007;
Goffin et al., 2018). This moderator is less relevant
to the language, cognitive ability, and executive
function measures as the gold-standard measure-
ment is direct testing and therefore, biases related
to the number of informants are less problematic.
Finally, due to the increasing sophistication in
methodological and analytic methods over time
(Cabrera et al., 2018; Carter, Briggs-Gowan, &
Davis, 2004; Hughes & Graham, 2002), earlier stud-
ies may report larger associations compared to
recent studies. Alternatively, societal shifts in pater-
nal involvement in childcare may result in a
strengthening of associations over time. Thus, both
informant and study year of publication will be
examined as moderators.

The Current Study
To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has summa-
rized the effects of father sensitivity on child cogni-
tive and socioemotional abilities. Therefore, the first
goal of this study was to statistically synthesize
findings from studies examining the associations
between fathers’ sensitive responding and chil-
dren’s cognitive and socioemotional functioning by
conducting two broad meta-analyses. It has been
argued that parental sensitivity is optimally
assessed using observations rated by an objective
third party compared to questionnaires, as parents
can only self-report on responses to signals that
they notice, and not those they miss or misinterpret
(Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Smith, 2011). Sensitivity,
when assessed using observations of parent–child
interactions, more strongly predicts child outcomes
compared to parent-reported sensitivity (Zaslow
et al., 2006). Therefore, only observational studies
that assess father sensitivity are included in this
study.
The second goal was to examine the association
between paternal sensitivity and three separate sub-
domains of children’s cognitive functioning (i.e.,
language, cognitive ability, executive function) and
three separate subdomains of children’s socioemo-
tional functioning (i.e., emotion regulation, external-
izing problems, internalizing problems) to further
inform theory, research, and practice. Given that
the existence of associations between paternal sensi-
tivity and children’s cognitive and socioemotional
functioning have been shown in the literature
(Goffin et al., 2018; Hazen et al., 2010; Malmberg
et al., 2015; Shannon et al., 2002), analyses in this
study seeking to characterize the magnitude of the
association between these variables were confirma-
tory in nature.
The final goal was to understand which factors
explain variation in effect sizes to understand
“when” and “for whom” associations are stronger
or weaker. In order to gain a comprehensive under-
standing of the characteristics that influence the
strength of the relation between father sensitivity
and child functioning, we assessed the moderating
roles of sample (i.e., child age, child sex), study
(i.e., study year of publication), demographic (i.e.,
SES), and measurement (i.e., multi-informant) char-
acteristics. The moderator analyses were explora-
tory given the role of the variables in other
parenting and child outcome associations. This
study will provide a synthesis of the role of sensi-
tive fathering in child development and highlight
future directions for research.
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 557
Method
Search Strategy
Although the meta-analyses reported here only
consider observed father sensitivity, the original
search operationalized father parenting more
broadly. Since different labels (e.g., sensitivity,
responsivity, attunement) are often used in the liter-
ature to identify similar parenting behaviors, con-
ducting a comprehensive search allowed for the
retrieval of all studies assessing fathers’ parenting
practices. We then used empirically sourced defini-
tions to consistently categorize parenting constructs.
Herein, “sensitive responding” was defined as the
ability to appropriately perceive and respond to chil-
dren’s emotional or cognitive states (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 2015; Cabrera, 2020;
Shannon et al., 2002). The search terms in our strat-
egy most related to this construct of parenting were
“sensitivity,” “responsivity,” and “synchrony.” We
also included “mind-mindedness” in the search as
when assessed via observation, it captures a par-
ent’s ability to accurately perceive children’s states,
a skill that enables them to respond in a sensitive
manner. A recent meta-analysis confirmed that
mind-mindedness and parental sensitivity are corre-
lated skills in mother–child and father–child dyads
(Zeegers, Colonnesi, Stams, & Meins, 2017).
Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, Medline,
Education Resources Information Center, and Proquest
Dissertations and Theses for published and unpub-
lished studies up to June 2018. Titles and abstracts
of studies were searched for concepts of “paternal
parenting” (e.g., warmth, sensitivity, stimulation,
play), “cognitive” outcomes (e.g., theory of mind,
language, executive functioning, academic achieve-
ment, cognitive ability) and “socioemotional” out-
comes (e.g., internalizing problems, externalizing
problems, emotion regulation, psychopathology),
with truncation symbols used to capture variant
endings and spellings. Synonymous terms were
combined with the Boolean “OR,” and the paternal
parenting and child outcomes were combined with
the Boolean “AND.” The detailed search strategy
can be found in Table S1. The reference lists of all
included studies were also screened for additional
relevant studies, which resulted in the addition of
two additional studies.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The titles and abstracts of all studies that
emerged from the search strategy were reviewed by
two independent trained research assistants to
558 Rodrigues et al.
determine whether studies met inclusion criteria,
which were as follows: (a) observational measure of
father’s sensitive parenting (defined above); (b) one
or more targeted areas of children’s functioning
assessed prior to the age of 18 years; (c) study
available in English; and (d) availability of statisti-
cal data that allowed for the calculation of an effect
size. If effect sizes could not be extracted, the corre-
sponding author was contacted. A total of 32 corre-
sponding authors were contacted and five authors
provided data (15.6% response rate).
Exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) qualitative
study; (b) intervention study with no baseline or
control group data; (c) full-text article could not be
retrieved or sourced; (d) atypically developing sam-
ple (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, intellectual dis-
ability, deafness). Moreover, longitudinal studies
were not included if the time point measurement of
the child outcome preceded the assessment of sensi-
tive responding.
For all studies where titles and abstracts were
insufficient to determine eligibility criteria, full
texts were retrieved. Two independently trained
research assistants evaluated whether the source
was appropriate for the current meta-analyses. At
both phases, discrepancies between the two
coders were resolved by the study’s first author
(MR). After examining all studies meeting the
inclusion criteria, only a small number of studies
assessed theory of mind (N = 2) and academic
achievement (N = 1). As a result, a separate meta-
analysis was not conducted for either of these
outcomes, however, these outcomes were included
in the broad cognitive functioning meta-analysis.
In addition, only one study utilized an adolescent
sample (externalizing problems outcome), and
hence, this study was removed. Thus, this study
reports associations between parenting and child
functioning in the early and middle childhood
period only. A total of 41 studies (63 effect sizes
as some studies had multiple outcomes of inter-
est) met inclusion criteria and were included in
one or multiple meta-analyses (see Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] Figure 1).
Data Extraction
Two independent, trained research assistants
extracted all effect size data and potential modera-
tor variables from studies meeting inclusion criteria
from each article. The first author compared all
extracted data across both coders and in instances
of a discrepancy, the first author reviewed and
discussed the discrepancy and made a final coding
decision.
Coding of Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcome
Variables
Father sensitive responding was defined as the abil-
ity to appropriately perceive and respond to chil-
dren’s emotional or cognitive states, and was
assessed using observational measures (e.g., CARE
Index, Emotional Availability Scales, Early Head
Start Research and Evaluation Project, Three Bag
Assessment).
Child language included measures of receptive,
expressive, or combined expressive and receptive
language. In the language meta-analysis, all studies
utilized direct testing, except for one that used a
questionnaire. For child cognitive ability, all studies
utilized direct testing, standardized assessments of
cognitive abilities (e.g., Bayley Scales of Infant
Development). Child executive function included out-
comes related to attention shifting, working mem-
ory, and inhibitory control. All studies used either
direct testing or coded observations of behavior.
Theory of mind (e.g., false belief) was included in the
broad cognitive functioning meta-analysis. Both
studies that assessed this outcome used structured
assessments. A measure of children’s academic
achievement in math, reading, or writing was
included in the broad cognitive functioning meta-
analysis, assessed via a standardized assessment
(i.e., The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement).
Child regulation of negative affect was elicited by a
task in which the children’s goals were blocked
(e.g., a toy that cannot be retrieved by the child).
Observers coded the child’s behavioral response
after being trained to criterion. Externalizing prob-
lems included measures of child aggression, delin-
quency, oppositionality, hyperactivity, or a
combination of these externalizing behaviors. This
outcome was most commonly assessed using parent
or teacher reports (e.g., Child Behavior Checklist),
with a few studies utilizing child self-reports or
observational assessments. Finally, internalizing
problems included anxiety, depression, withdrawal,
or a combination of these symptoms. All informants
were either parents or teachers who completed
questionnaires.
Moderators
The following continuous moderators were
tested in each meta-analysis: child age at the time
paternal sensitivity and the child outcome was
 Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 559

Published and unpublished records Review of references of

Identification
identified through database included studies
searching (n = 2)
(n=10, 727)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 8, 208)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 8, 208) (n = 6, 150)

Full-text articles excluded

Eligibility

Full-text articles due to overlapping samples,

assessed for eligibility study not in English,
(n = 2, 058) experimental design, or
missing relevant study
inclusion
(n = 2,018)

Studies included in meta-analyses

Included

(n = 41 studies; n = 63 effect sizes)

Cognitive Outcomes (N = 23 studies) Socioemotional Outcomes (N = 24 studies)

Language (n = 9) Emotion Regulation ( n = 7)

Cognitive Ability (n = 9) Externalizing Problems (n = 19)
Executive Function ( n = 8) Internalizing Problems (n = 8)
Theory of Mind (n = 2)
Academic Achievement (n = 1)

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

assessed (coded in years), child sex (% female in
sample), and study year of publication. Categorical
moderators included sample SES, categorized as (a)
middle or upper, (b) low, or (c) diverse. These
classifications were typically based on how sam-
ples were defined by the authors (e.g., a low-in-
come sample, a middle to high SES sample, etc.).
If the authors did not provide a classification, the
reported income of the sample was used to desig-
nate an income category. A coding rule was
applied wherein 80% or more of the sample had
to fall within one category for it to be endorsed. If
< 80% of the sample fell within a given category,
the sample was coded as “diverse.” For the
internalizing and externalizing problems meta-
analyses only, informant type indicated whether the
outcome was reported by multiple individuals
(coded as “1”) or a single informant (coded as
“0”). As described previously, this moderator was
not relevant for the language, cognitive ability,
executive function, and emotion regulation meta-
analyses as these outcomes were assessed using
standardized assessments and hence, all infor-
mants were trained as research assistants. Consis-
tent with other parenting and child development
meta-analyses, categorical moderators were only
tested when there were 10 or more studies with at
least four studies per category (Bakermans-
560 Rodrigues et al.
Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003; Madigan
et al., 2016).
Effect Size Extraction
We use the term “effect” to refer to the degree of
association between fathers’ sensitivity and chil-
dren’s adjustment, as is common in quantitative
syntheses (Barger, Kim, Kuncel, & Pomerantz,
2019). The associations between paternal sensitive
responding and children’s functioning were exam-
ined in eight meta-analyses: two more broadly on
cognitive and socioemotional functioning, three for
the separate subdomains of children’s cognitive
functioning (i.e., language, cognitive ability, execu-
tive function) and three for the separate subdo-
mains of children’s socioemotional functioning (i.e.,
emotion regulation, externalizing problems, inter-
nalizing problems).
Multiple Publications Based on the Same Sample
To ensure independence of data within each
meta-analysis, we extracted notable characteristics
pertaining to sample and recruitment, including
sample size and whether the sample was part of a
longitudinal study (e.g., Family Life Project,
NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development). Consistent with other meta-analyses
in child development research, when sample over-
lap was identified, the study with the largest sam-
ple size and most comprehensive data extraction
information was selected for inclusion (Burt, 2009).
Multiple Effect Sizes Within a Sample
To maintain independence of data, when multi-
ple effect sizes were reported within a publication,
only one effect size was extracted. The following
decision rules were applied. In the broad cognitive
functioning and socioemotional functioning meta-
analyses, if a study assessed multiple outcomes
within the same category (e.g., two cognitive out-
comes such as language and executive function),
correlations were reverse coded if necessary and
then pooled. In a longitudinal study, if the paternal
sensitivity and child outcome were assessed at mul-
tiple time points, we selected the statistic with the
shortest time between the parent and child assess-
ments (i.e., concurrent over longitudinal), as this
resulted in the least missing data. If a longitudinal
study only reported correlations between paternal
sensitivity and the child outcome with a time lag
over multiple time points (i.e., no concurrent
correlation), we selected the correlation with the
shortest time lag. The decision was checked in a
sensitivity analysis (see Table S9) and did not affect
substantive conclusions. When studies employed
multiple measurement types of the same outcome
(e.g., questionnaire and structured assessment to
assess child language), we selected the most
methodologically sound measurement: direct test-
ing over observation over questionnaire (Campbell,
Brown, Cavanagh, Vess, & Segall, 2008). If a single
study provided multiple measures of an outcome
using the same assessment type (e.g., assessing
internalizing problems based on separate question-
naires for anxiety and depression) these effect sizes
were pooled based on research showing high
correlations between anxiety and depression
(Cummings, Caporino, & Kendall, 2014). When a
single study used multiple informants to assess an
outcome (e.g., mother, father, and teacher sepa-
rately reported on child externalizing behavior),
correlations across informants were pooled to pro-
vide a methodologically rigorous, multi-informant
outcome (van Dulmen & Egeland, 2011). If within a
study, effect sizes from independent cohorts were
provided (e.g., clinical sample versus control sam-
ple), they were entered into the meta-analysis sepa-
rately. In one instance, a study within the
externalizing problems meta-analysis reported two
separate effect sizes for children in the same family
(younger versus older siblings). In this case, we
selected the sample with the earliest age for which
the outcome could be reliably assessed, checked
results when substituting the other sibling sample,
and found that results were identical (see Table S9).
In addition, when a single study used multiple
tasks to assess paternal sensitivity (e.g., book read-
ing, free play), correlations were pooled.
Data Preparation and Analyses
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version
3.0; Borenstein, Rothstein, & Cohen, 2005) was used
to estimate pooled effect sizes and conduct modera-
tor analyses. Effect sizes were calculated directly
from the information provided in each study (i.e.,
correlations). When studies only presented the
results from multivariate analyses (e.g., regression
analyses, structural equation modeling) that
adjusted for other variables in the relation between
fathers’ sensitivity and children’s adjustment,
authors were emailed for correlations.
Pooled effect sizes are represented as correlations
with 95% CIs. Calculations are based on a random-
effects model, which considers each study to have

its own population parameters and measurement
methods and thus, more accurately reflects
between-study heterogeneity (Russo, 2007). Outlier
detection was examined in SPSS (Version 25) using
visual inspection of box plots (SPSS IBM, 2017). To
formally assess for heterogeneity of effect sizes, the
Q and I2 statistics were computed. A significant Q
statistic and an I2 > 50% suggest moderators should
be explored. Since the ability to detect heterogeneity
is affected by sample size (Borenstein, Hedges,
Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011), we also tested modera-
tors even when heterogeneity was not indicated,
although caution should be used when interpreting
these results. Heterogeneity of effect size and signif-
icance of continuous moderators (i.e., child age,
child sex, study year of publication) was deter-
mined by mixed-effects–model meta-regressions
(Thompson & Higgins, 2002), whereas heterogene-
ity of categorical moderators (i.e., sample SES, mul-
ti-informant) was determined by Q-statistics
(Borenstein et al., 2011).
Given the publication bias toward significant
findings, there is a risk of meta-analyses overesti-
mating overall effect sizes. Thus, in addition to
including a dissertation database search in our
search strategy, the Egger test and funnel plots
were used to examine publication bias. A funnel
plot that exhibits asymmetry, such that fewer stud-
ies fall along the bottom left of the mean effect size,
and an Egger’s test with a significant p-value
(a < .05), indicate publication bias. When publica-
tion bias was evident, Duval and Tweedie’s trim
and fill procedure was utilized (Duval & Tweedie,
2000). In the trim and fill method, the studies on
one side of the funnel plot are considered to be
unmatched and therefore, symmetrical extreme val-
ues are imputed to balance the funnel plot. An
adjusted mean effect size is then computed and
reflects the combined effect size when no publica-
tion bias is present.
Results
Demographic characteristics of all included studies
are provided in Table 1.
Detailed study characteristics for each meta-
analysis are provided in Tables S3–S8. Results
for each meta-analysis and moderator analyses
are provided below (see Table 2 for summary).
For detailed results for all moderator analyses,
see Table S2. Of 68 studies examining the
relation between paternal sensitivity and child
functioning, 41 studies were included in the
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 561
meta-analyses, as 27 authors did not provide
data upon request.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Broad
Cognitive Functioning
Of the 23 studies included in the broad child
cognitive functioning meta-analysis, sample size
within studies ranged from 17 to 629 dyads, and
publication year ranged from 1998 to 2018. The
mean child age across samples was 1.24 years old
at the time of the paternal sensitivity assessment
and 2.34 years old at the time of the outcome
assessment. Child sex was on average 47.8%
female.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child cognitive
functioning across 23 samples (3,193 father–child
dyads) was significant and positive (r = .19; CI
[.14, .24]; see Figure 2). Thus, sensitive fathering
was found to be associated with better cognitive
functioning in children. No outliers were detected.
Examination of the funnel plot (see Figure S1) as
well as the Egger test (p = .01) revealed evidence of
publication bias. Using Duval and Tweedie’s trim
and fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), the
adjusted effect size was r = .16 (CI [.11, .21]), with
five studies trimmed (see Figure S2). The Q statistic
was significant (Q = 36.02; p = .03), indicating
between-study heterogeneity. Effect sizes varied by
age of child at the time of the outcome measure
(k = 23; b = .04; CI [.01, .07]), wherein the associa-
tion between father sensitivity and child cognitive
functioning was found to be stronger among sam-
ples of older children. In addition, child age at the
time of the paternal sensitivity assessment was also
significant (k = 23; b = .05; CI [.01, .08]), wherein
the association between father sensitivity and child
broad cognitive functioning was stronger when
paternal sensitivity was assessed in the toddlerhood
and preschool period compared to infancy. No
other significant continuous or categorical modera-
tors emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Child
Language
Of the nine studies included in the child lan-
guage meta-analysis (see Table S3), sample size
within studies ranged from 31 to 98 dyads, and
publication year ranged from 1998 to 2015. The
mean child age across samples was 2.24 years old
at the time of the paternal sensitivity assessment
and 3.17 years old at the time of the outcome
562 Rodrigues et al.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analyses

Father
Socioeconomic education Father Child
Study status (years)a mean age Country Ethnicity % female outcome

Benzies (1996) 14.51 32 Canada NR 43.2 EXT

Bernier (2012) High/middle 15.1 33.3 Canada Diverse 61.3% EF
Boyd-Soisson (2002) High/middle 31.5 USA Majority Caucasian 39.2 INT; ER
Bureau (2017) Diverse Canada Majority Caucasian 55.1 INT; EXT
Coffey (2013) High/middle 33 UK NR 49 CA
Deater-Deckard (2004) 12.56 UK Diverse 48.8 EXT
Domoney (2013) 35 UK NR 55 EXT
Eiden (2007) High/middle 13.72 32.9 USA Majority Caucasian 48.9 EXT; EF
Fagan (1999) Low 12 30.9 USA Ethnic minority 50 AA
Gagne (2018) Diverse 34 Canada Majority Caucasian 48.9 EF
Garrett-Peters (2011) Low 30.6 USA Majority Caucasian 48.6 EF
Goffin (2018) Diverse 15.6 USA Majority Caucasian 50 EXT
Golombok (2014) 40.2 UK Majority Caucasian 22 INT; EXT
Hall (2014) 34.7 Netherlands NR 50 RL
Hazen (2010) Diverse 31.6 USA Majority Caucasian 50 INT; EXT; ER
Ingle (2005) Diverse USA Majority Caucasian 48.8 CA
Kelley (1998) Low 12.52 27.3 USA Ethnic minority 55.6 CA
Keown (2011) Diverse 15.64 39.1 New Zealand NR 0 RL; EXT
Keown (2012) Diverse 15.64 41.4 New Zealand Majority Caucasian 0 EXT
Kochanska (2008) Diverse 15.28 32.2 USA Majority Caucasian 49.4 EF
Kochanska (2013) Diverse USA Majority Caucasian 47.1 EXT
Kwon (2008) High/middle 33.8 USA Diverse 41.8 EXT
Lindahl (1992) High/middle 16.4 35.4 USA NR 45 ER
Lundy (2013) Diverse 33.9 USA Majority Caucasian 43.6 RL; TOM
Macdonald (1998) 15.34 33.2 Canada Majority Caucasian 45.2 EL; CA
Magill-Evans (2001) High/middle 36.1 Canada NR 40.9 RL + EL; CA
Malmberg (2015) 36 UK NR 51.5 RL + EL; CA
Martins (2016) High/middle 33.7 Portugal NR 40.4 ER
Mattanah (2001) Diverse 16.72 42.6 USA Majority Caucasian 43.9 INT; EXT
McElwain (1999) High/middle 17.4 35.5 USA Majority Caucasian 50 ER; TOM
Melnick (1997) Diverse USA NR 0 ER
Meuwissen (2015) High/middle 36 USA NR 48.2 RL; EF
Mills-Koonce (2015) Low 13.1 30.8 USA Diverse 49.5 CA
Parfitt (2014) 34.2 UK NR 54.8 RL + EL; CA
Schueler (2011) Diverse 15.32 35.2 USA Diverse 48.6 EXT
Shannon (2002) Low 25.9 USA Ethnic minority sample 47.7 CA
Stevenson_2014 Diverse USA Diverse 48.4 INT; EXT; ER
St. George (2017) High/middle 37.4 Australia NR 29 INT; EXT; EF
Towe-Goodman (2014) Low 13.15 USA Diverse 49 EF
van der Pol (2016) 36.8 Netherlands NR 48 EXT
Zvara (2018) Diverse 15 USA Majority Caucasian 50.4 INT; EXT

Note. CA = cognitive ability; RL = receptive language; EL = expressive language; EF = executive function; TOM = theory of mind;
AA = academic achievement; ER = emotion regulation; EXT = externalizing problems; INT = internalizing problems.
a
When mean was not reported by the authors, a mean was calculated based on percentage of sample having completed different levels
of education. Refer to Supporting Information for details.

assessment. Child sex was on average 40.4%
female.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child language
across nine samples (552 father–child dyads) was
significant and positive (r = .21; CI [.13, .29]; see
Figure 3). Thus, sensitive fathering was found to be
associated with better language skills in children.
No outliers were detected. Examination of the fun-
nel plot (see Figure S3) as well as the Egger test
 Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 563

Table 2
Pooled Effect Sizes and Significant Moderators for Each Meta-analysis

Pooled effect Number Number of

size (r) 95% CI of studies father–child dyads Significant moderator(s)

Broad cognitive functioning .19 [.14, .24] 23 3,193 Child Age at Outcome Assessment
b = .04
CI [.01, .07]
Child Age at Parenting Assessment
b = .05
CI [.01, .08]
Language .21 [.13, .29] 9 552
Cognitive ability .18 [.10, .25] 9 1,180
Executive function .19 [.09, .28] 8 1,761 Child Age at Outcome Assessment
b = .08
CI [.04, .11]
Child Age at Parenting Assessment
b = .10
CI [.02, .17]
Broad socioemotional functioning .03 [ .09, .03] 24 2,924 Child Age at Outcome Assessment
b = .04
CI [ .06, .01]
Emotion regulation .22 [.07, .36] 7 487
Externalizing problems .08 [ .14, .03] 19 2,634 Child Age at Outcome Assessment
b = .03
CI [ .05, .01]
Internalizing problems .02 [ .13, .09] 8 1,057 Child Age at Outcome Assessment
b = .07
CI [ .12, .01]
Study Year
b = .02
CI [.00, .03]

(p = .27) revealed no evidence of publication bias.
Heterogeneity of effect sizes was not detected. No
significant continuous moderators emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Child
Cognitive Ability
Nine studies were included in the child cognitive
ability meta-analysis (see Table S4). The sample size
ranged from 31 to 629 dyads, and the publication
year ranged from 1998 to 2015. Children were on
average 1.06 years old at the time of the paternal
sensitivity assessment and 2.00 years old at the
time of the outcome assessment. Child sex was on
average 49.1% female.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child cognitive abil-
ity across nine samples (1,180 father–child dyads)
was significant and positive (r = .18; CI [.10, .25];
see Figure 3). A box-plot inspection of effect sizes
did not reveal any outliers. Children of fathers who
displayed sensitivity showed higher cognitive abili-
ties. Examination of the funnel plot (see Figure S4)
as well as the Egger test (p = .86) revealed no evi-
dence of publication bias. The Q statistic was not
significant, indicating no heterogeneity of effect
sizes. Due to the small number of studies, no cate-
gorical moderator analyses were conducted, and no
significant continuous moderators emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Executive
Function
Eight studies were included in the executive
function meta-analysis (see Table S5). The sample
size ranged from 24 to 620 dyads, and the publica-
tion year ranged from 2007 to 2018. One study
assessed infant’s early attention orientation, which
was described as a precursor to early executive
function (Garrett-Peters, Mills-Koonce, Zerwas, Cox,
& Vernon-Feagans, 2011). As executive function is
not usually assessed below the age of two, we
564 Rodrigues et al.
Figure 2. Meta-analysis for child broad cognitive functioning.
Note. Observed effect sizes and 95% CIs are indicated for each sample. The overall summary estimate was r = .19 for broad cognitive
functioning.
checked whether the inclusion of the study altered
conclusions (see Table S9), and it did not and there-
fore, was kept in the final dataset. Average child
age was 1.09 years old at the time of the paternal
sensitivity assessment and 2.36 years old at the
time of the outcome assessment (3.15 years old
without Garrett-Peters et al., 2011). On average,
49.0% of children were female.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child executive
function across eight samples (1,761 father–child
dyads) was significant and positive (r = .19; CI [.09,
.28]; see Figure 3). Results revealed that children of
fathers who displayed sensitivity were more likely
to exhibit higher executive function skills. No out-
liers were detected. The funnel plot inspection (see
Figure S5) revealed asymmetry and the Egger test
(p = .02) confirmed the presence of publication bias.
Using Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure
(Duval & Tweedie, 2000), the adjusted effect size
was r = .12 (CI .03, .20), with four studies trimmed
(see Figure S6). The Q statistic was significant
(Q = 18.84; p < .01), indicating between-study
heterogeneity. Effect sizes varied by age of child at
 Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 565

Figure 3. Meta-analyses for language, cognitive ability, and executive function.

Note. Observed effect sizes and 95% CIs are indicated for each sample. The overall summary estimate was r = .21 for language, r = .18
for cognitive ability, and r = .19 for executive function.

the time of the outcome measure (k = 8; b = .08; CI

[.04, .11]), wherein the association between father
sensitivity and child executive function was found
to be stronger among samples of older children.
Similarly, child age at the time of the paternal sensi-
tivity assessment was also significant (k = 8; b = .10;
CI [.02, .17]), wherein the association between
father sensitivity and child executive function was
found to be stronger when parenting was assessed
in the toddlerhood and preschool period compared
to the infancy period. No other significant continu-
ous moderators emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Broad
Socioemotional Functioning
Of the 24 studies included in the broad child
socioemotional functioning meta-analysis, sample
size within studies ranged from 20 to 578 dyads,
and publication year ranged from 1992 to 2018. The
mean child age across samples was 4.27 years old
at the time of the paternal sensitivity assessment
and 4.94 years old at the time of the outcome
assessment. Child sex was on average 44.4%
female.
566 Rodrigues et al.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child socioemotional
functioning across 24 samples (2,924 father–child
dyads) was not significant (r = .03; CI [ .09, .03];
see Figure 4). Thus, sensitive fathering was not
found to be associated with broad socioemotional
functioning in children. One outlier was detected (in-
ternalizing problems study) but its removal did not
change the results. Examination of the funnel plot
(see Figure S7) as well as the Egger test (p = .85) did
not reveal evidence of publication bias. The Q statis-
tic was significant (Q = 52.32; p < .01), indicating
Figure 4. Meta-analysis for child broad socioemotional functioning.
Note. Observed effect sizes and 95% CIs are indicated for each sample. The overall summary estimate was r =
tional functioning.
between-study heterogeneity. Moderator analyses
were conducted and revealed that effect sizes varied
by age of child at the time of the outcome measure
(k = 24; b = .04; CI [ .06, .01]), wherein effects
were stronger among samples of older children. No
other significant moderators emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Child Emotion
Regulation
Seven studies were included in the emotion reg-
ulation meta-analysis (see Table S6). The sample
.03 for broad socioemo-

size ranged from 20 to 128 dyads, and the publica-
tion year ranged from 1992 to 2016. Children were
approximately 3.05 years old at the time of the
paternal sensitivity assessment and 3.51 years old
at the time of the outcome assessment. Child sex
was on average 40.6% female.
The pooled effect size for the association between
father sensitive responding and child emotion regu-
lation across seven samples (487 father–child dyads)
was significant and positive (r = .22; CI [.07, .36];
see Figure 5). Children of fathers who displayed
sensitivity tended to exhibit higher emotion regula-
tion skills. No outliers were detected. Examination
of the funnel plot (see Figure S8) as well as the
Egger test (p = .40) revealed no evidence of publica-
tion bias. The Q statistic was significant (Q = 14.55;
p = .02), but no continuous moderators explained
the between-study variation.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Child
Externalizing Problems
Nineteen studies were included in the externaliz-
ing problems meta-analysis (see Table S7). The sam-
ple size ranged from 24 to 578 dyads, and the
publication year ranged from 1996 to 2018. Chil-
dren were approximately 4.39 years old at the time
of the paternal sensitivity assessment and 5.03 years
old at the time of the outcome assessment. Child
sex was on average 45.5% female.
A total of 19 studies (2,634 father–child dyads)
produced a significant and negative pooled effect
size of r = .08 (CI: .14, .03; see Figure 5). No
outliers were detected and results revealed that
children of fathers who displayed sensitive
responding were less likely to exhibit externalizing
symptoms. Examination of the funnel plot (see Fig-
ure S9) as well as the Egger test (p = .09) did not
suggest publication bias. The Q statistic was signifi-
cant (Q = 29.60; p = .04), indicating heterogeneity of
effect sizes. Effect sizes varied by age of child at the
time of the outcome measure (k = 19; b = .03; CI
[ .05, .01]), wherein the association between
father sensitivity and child externalizing problems
was found to be stronger among samples of older
children. No other significant continuous or cate-
gorical moderators emerged.
Meta-analysis of Paternal Sensitivity and Child
Internalizing Problems
Eight studies were included in the internalizing
problems meta-analysis (see Table S8). The sample
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 567
size ranged from 24 to 578 dyads, and the publica-
tion year ranged from 2001 to 2018. Children were
approximately 5.51 years old at the time of the
paternal sensitivity assessment and 6.42 years old
at the time of the outcome assessment. Child sex
was on average 48.2% female.
The pooled effect size for the association
between father sensitive responding and child
internalizing problems across eight samples (1,057
father–child dyads) was not significant (r = .02;
CI [ .13, .09]; see Figure 5). One outlier was
detected and a sensitivity analysis revealed that
the pooled effect size did not change substantially
with its removal (see Table S9). Effect sizes varied
by age of child at the time of the outcome mea-
sure (k = 8; b = .07; CI [ .12, .01]), wherein the
association between father sensitivity and child
internalizing problems was found to be stronger
among samples of older children. The study year
of publication was also a significant moderator.
The association between paternal sensitivity and
child internalizing problems was weaker among
more recently conducted studies (k = 8; b = .02; CI
[.00, .03]).
Differences in Effect Size Across Children’s Outcomes
To assess the statistical differences between
pooled effect sizes for partially overlapping studies,
as some studies reported multiple child outcomes,
the 85% confidence intervals were computed for a
more conservative estimate (Fearon, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman,
2010; Julious, 2004). Nonoverlapping confidence
intervals demonstrate a significant difference in the
effect sizes. When comparing the 85% confidence
intervals, the associations between paternal sensitiv-
ity and children’s broad cognitive functioning
(k = 23; r = .19; 85% CI [.15, .23]) were found to be
significantly stronger than the associations between
paternal sensitivity and children’s broad socioemo-
tional functioning (k = 24; r = .03; 85% CI [ .08,
.01]). When examining specific outcomes, the associ-
ations between paternal sensitivity and children’s
language (k = 9; r = .21; 85% CI [.15, .27]), cognitive
ability (k = 9; r = .18; 85% CI [.12, .23]), executive
function (k = 8; r = .19; 85% CI [.12, .25]), and emo-
tion regulation (k = 7; r = .22; 85% CI [.11, .33])
were found to be significantly stronger than the
associations between paternal sensitivity and chil-
dren’s externalizing (k = 19; r = .08; 85% CI [ .12,
.04]) and internalizing (k = 8; r = .02; 85% CI
[ .10, .06]) problems.
568 Rodrigues et al.

Figure 5. Meta-analyses for emotion regulation, externalizing problems, and internalizing problems.
Note. Observed effect sizes and 95% CIs are indicated for each sample. The overall summary estimate was r = .22 for emotion regula-
tion, r = .08 for externalizing problems, and r = .02 for internalizing problems.

Discussion Research has identified sensitive parenting to be a

Cognitive skills and socioemotional competencies
acquired in early childhood serve as the foundation
for positive adjustment over the life course (Gertler
et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2015; Moffitt et al., 2011).
key building block of this foundation and one
which contributes to healthy developmental trajec-
tories (Britto et al., 2017; Landry & Smith, 2011).
The current series of meta-analyses examined the
magnitude of the associations between fathers’

sensitive responding and children’s cognitive and
socioemotional functioning, and examined which
moderators explained the variation in effect sizes.
We synthesized effects from 41 studies, examining
both published and unpublished studies spanning
close to three decades of research. This represents
most, but not all, studies that have measured pater-
nal sensitivity and children’s outcomes. Specifically,
27 study authors who were contacted with a
request for correlations to be included in the meta-
analyses, as they were not sufficiently provided in
individual studies, did not reply. The accuracy of
the effect size estimates would have been improved
if all authors had responded to requests for addi-
tional data.
Paternal Sensitivity and Children’s Cognitive Outcomes
Results indicate that, on average, children whose
fathers show higher levels of sensitive fathering dis-
play better cognitive functioning (r = .19), including
stronger language skills (r = .21), cognitive ability
(r = .18), and executive functioning (r = .19).
According to Funder and Ozer (2019), these associa-
tions are considered to be small to moderate in
magnitude, which are similar although slightly
weaker, when compared with meta-analyses exam-
ining the link between maternal sensitivity and chil-
dren’s cognitive outcomes (e.g. language, r = .27;
Madigan et al., 2019; executive function, r = .25;
Valcan et al., 2018). Although the Valcan et al.
(2018) sensitivity meta-analysis also included
fathers in the sample, it was predominantly made
up of mothers. The smaller associations in the cur-
rent meta-analyses may be a result of lower average
levels of paternal involvement in caregiving com-
pared to mothers (Craig & Mullan, 2010). Although
no meta-analysis exists examining the association
between maternal sensitivity and children’s cogni-
tive ability, associations from individual studies
have shown small to moderate associations, consis-
tent with results found herein (Feldman, Eidelman,
& Rotenberg, 2004; Lemelin, Tarabulsy, & Provost,
2006; Pearson et al., 2011).
Current findings are in line with theoretical
frameworks describing how parental sensitivity
supports child learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Sensitive
parents have been shown to use rich and contin-
gent language, encourage joint attention, scaffold
emerging skills, and provide opportunities to prac-
tice developing capacities, all within the context of
the child’s interests and needs (Hoff, 2006; Landry,
Smith, & Swank, 2006). In this manner, sensitive
fathers “meet their children where they are at” both
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 569
affectively and cognitively, which provides the
ideal context for learning. Over time, increasing
competence in the presence of attuned interactions
provides the foundation for learning in independent
problem-solving situations (Landry et al., 2006;
Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, sensitive paternal par-
enting has been shown to be associated with
increased brain volume and cortical thickness (Kok
et al., 2015), thereby building the neural architec-
ture essential for healthy cognitive development.
Moreover, it has been shown that fathers who are
sensitive tend to promote children’s “willing
stance” toward others—children’s motivation to be
engaged in social interactions (Goffin et al., 2018).
Children who display a willing stance are more
exploratory and enthusiastic to seek out new infor-
mation and learn from others in their environment
(Goffin et al., 2018), which supports the develop-
mental progression of language and cognitive abil-
ity (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004).
In the broad cognitive function and executive
function meta-analyses, associations between
fathers’ sensitivity and children’s outcomes were
stronger among samples of older children (i.e., pre-
school period), relative to younger children (i.e.,
infants, toddlers). Explanations for the age modera-
tion may relate to the rapid development of the
prefrontal cortex in the preschool period (Zelazo &
Carlson, 2012). Another explanation for the age
effect is related to measurement. The reliability of
children’s task performance increases with age and
therefore, the stronger correlation between paternal
sensitivity and children’s general cognitive and
executive function among older samples of children
may reflect reductions in measurement error
(Anderson & Reidy, 2012; Mulder, Hoofs, Verhagen,
van der Veen, & Leseman, 2014). In both meta-
analyses, associations between paternal sensitivity
and child functioning were stronger when parenting
was assessed in the toddlerhood and preschool per-
iod compared to infancy. These findings were not
surprising given that father involvement increases
during the toddler and preschool period (Cabrera &
Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). If a father is sensitive but
not highly involved with an infant, the effect of
paternal sensitivity may be relatively lower during
that developmental period. Finally, in both the lan-
guage and cognitive ability meta-analyses, no signif-
icant between-study heterogeneity in effect sizes
was found. Moderator analyses did not reveal any
significant effects and therefore, father sensitivity
appears to be equally important for children of dif-
ferent ages and sex when considering these out-
comes. It should be noted, however, that these
570 Rodrigues et al.
meta-analyses included a small set of studies, espe-
cially because of author nonresponse to requests for
data, and therefore, heterogeneity may be underesti-
mated. Moreover, due to the small sample size in
each meta-analysis, categorical moderators were not
tested.
Paternal Sensitivity and Children’s Socioemotional
Functioning
When considering children’s socioemotional
functioning, results of the current meta-analyses
indicate that on average, paternal sensitivity is not
significantly related to children’s broad socioemo-
tional functioning (r = .03). However, when exam-
ining individual socioemotional outcomes, children
whose fathers show higher levels of sensitivity dis-
play increased emotion regulation skills (r = .22)
and reduced externalizing problems (r = .08).
These associations can be considered small to mod-
erate in magnitude (Funder & Ozer, 2019).
Although no meta-analyses exist examining the
associations between maternal sensitivity and chil-
dren’s internalizing and externalizing problems,
individual studies show that associations are gener-
ally small to moderate in magnitude (Bradley &
Corwyn, 2007; Kok et al., 2013).
The results of the specific meta-analyses on
paternal sensitivity and child emotion regulation
and externalizing behaviors suggest that sensitive
fathers who are emotionally available, attentive to
children’s emotional states, and offer consistent and
appropriate responses form secure attachments with
children, likely serve a key role as co-regulators of
affect and behavior (Brown, Mangelsdorf, & Neff,
2012; Calkins & Keane, 2009). Through many suc-
cessful experiences in which securely attached chil-
dren regulate emotions and behavior effectively
with the help of a parent, children are gradually
able to take over the regulatory processes them-
selves (Thompson & Meyer, 2007). By displaying
sensitivity, fathers play an important role in sup-
porting children’s regulatory capacities, a funda-
mental capacity for adaptive socioemotional
functioning during childhood and into adolescence
and adulthood (Gross, Uusberg, & Uusberg, 2019).
Although some studies have found a significant
negative association between father sensitivity and
child internalizing problems (Hazen et al., 2010;
Mattanah, 2001), the pooled effect sizes from this
meta-analysis revealed no significant association
between father sensitivity and the level of anxiety
and depression symptoms children display
(r = .02). One possible explanation for this null
finding may be related to the fact that internaliz-
ing problems are less prevalent in the early and
middle childhood period compared to externaliz-
ing problems (Georgiades, Duncan, Wang,
Comeau, & Boyle, 2019). The average age of chil-
dren in the internalizing problems meta-analysis
was 6.42 years and thus, the lack of association
between paternal sensitivity and children’s inter-
nalizing problems may be due to the compara-
tively lower levels of internalizing problems in
early and middle childhood versus adolescence
(Merikangas et al., 2010). Moreover, sensitive
fathers have been shown to engage in high
amounts of stimulation, play, and exploratory
behaviors with children (Paquette, 2004). This
type of caregiving has been shown to be espe-
cially beneficial to children’s regulation of aggres-
sion as opposed to affect, and may underlie the
nonsignificant association between paternal sensi-
tivity and children’s internalizing problems in the
current meta-analysis (Leidy, Schofield, & Parke,
2013; Parke et al., 2002). Finally, as the current
studies all used parent or teacher report, the lack
of association with paternal sensitivity may be
attributable to difficulties in the assessment of
internalizing problems, which are more difficult to
“see” and hence report compared to overt exter-
nalizing behaviors. Future research should assess
internalizing problems using self-report and diag-
nostic assessments in addition to parent and tea-
cher reports to clarify the association.
Across the broad socioemotional functioning,
externalizing problems, and internalizing problems
meta-analyses, associations between paternal sensi-
tivity and child functioning were found to be stron-
ger among samples of older children. The same
explanations of age moderation as offered for gen-
eral cognitive development and executive function
may be operating here including brain develop-
ment, increased father involvement, and measure-
ment issues (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;
Pagliaccio, Luby, Luking, Belden, & Barch, 2014).
Although between-study heterogeneity in effect
sizes was detected in the emotion regulation meta-
analysis, no moderators tested in this study
explained these differences.
Comparing the Effect of Paternal Sensitivity Across
Children’s Outcomes
Findings from the current series of meta-analyses
reveal that there is a notable difference in the mag-
nitude of associations between paternal sensitivity
and broad child cognitive functioning compared to

socioemotional functioning. Stimulation and
exploratory play behaviors by fathers likely foster
children’s learning and cognitive development to a
larger extent than socioemotional outcomes. Fur-
thermore, the associations between paternal sensi-
tivity and children’s language, cognitive ability,
executive function, and emotion regulation are all
similar in magnitude and different from associa-
tions with children’s externalizing and internalizing
problems. Cognitive outcomes and children’s emo-
tion regulation skills are directly observable and
less context-dependent and are thus easier con-
structs to measure. In contrast, internalizing and
externalizing problems may be more difficult to
measure as symptoms are often context-dependent
(Johnston, Propper, Pudney, & Shields, 2014). For
instance, children may manifest symptoms differ-
ently across various settings such as showing
aggressive or withdrawn behavior at home but not
at school. It is also plausible that less sensitive par-
ents are less attuned to their children’s mental
health and hence, not as accurate in rating these
outcomes. This bias may affect the strength of the
associations observed.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of this series of meta-analyses
should be noted. First, meta-analyses of observa-
tional studies are correlational in nature and there-
fore, do not permit conclusions about causality.
Studies that allow for causal claims regarding the
influence of paternal sensitivity, such as those based
on randomized controlled trials, are scarce (Lawr-
ence, Davies, & Ramchandani, 2013). Increasing this
line of research will bolster the understanding of
the causal role of father sensitivity on children’s
development and allow for a better understanding
of how to best train this skill in fathers. Second,
most of the studies examined paternal sensitivity in
relation to child functioning without controlling for
maternal sensitivity. In the future, it is important to
examine the effects of sensitive fathering while con-
trolling for maternal sensitivity, both in individual
studies and ultimately meta-analyses, to highlight
the unique contributions of fathers to children’s
outcomes. Relatedly, future research should aim to
assess the effects of maternal sensitivity while con-
trolling for paternal sensitivity as a means of fur-
ther elucidating the unique effects of mother–child
and father–child relationships on children’s func-
tioning. Third, studies rarely reported the levels of
paternal involvement and therefore, we were
unable to test this factor as a moderating variable.
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 571
In the future, it will be important to assess and
report levels of paternal involvement and to explore
whether such data would be available for an indi-
vidual participant data meta-analysis. Fourth, the
overall number of studies in each meta-analysis
was small, suggesting the importance of continuing
to study father sensitivity, and extending the inves-
tigation to atypical samples. Caution should be
used when interpreting effect sizes for meta-analy-
ses with a small sample size as well as moderator
effects for the meta-analyses with the fewest studies
(i.e., cognitive ability, internalizing problems). To
mitigate this problem in future meta-analyses, it is
critical for developmental researchers to standardize
the reporting of sample descriptives and include
correlation matrices for all study variables, now
easily implemented through the online publication
of Supporting Information. Fifth, most studies
assessing paternal sensitivity have focused on the
early childhood period and to a smaller extent, the
middle childhood period. Thus, conclusions cannot
be generalized to adolescents. As studies show that
sensitive parenting is associated with adolescent
adjustment (van der Voort et al., 2014), future stud-
ies should investigate father sensitivity and its rela-
tion to multiple developmental outcomes in
adolescence. Finally, most studies included biologi-
cal resident fathers and therefore, findings may not
be generalizable to other samples such as nonresi-
dent or nonbiological fathers. Relatedly, within the
studies included in the current meta-analyses, infor-
mation regarding the ethnic composition of the
sample was sometimes missing (30% not reported),
and when reported, a greater proportion of studies
included White families compared to diverse or eth-
nic minority families. Moving forward, it is neces-
sary to examine sensitive fathering in diverse
family compositions (e.g., gay father families) and
from diverse ethnic backgrounds for an integrated
understanding of the role of paternal sensitivity in
children’s cognitive and socioemotional develop-
ment (Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020).
Conclusions
This study is the first series of meta-analyses to
examine the associations between observed paternal
sensitivity and children’s functioning across multi-
ple domains. This study is an important response
to developmental researchers emphasizing the need
to broaden the focus on parenting for children’s
development (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2019;
Cabrera et al., 2018). Findings from this study sug-
gest that the father–child subsystem within the
572 Rodrigues et al.
family unit is an important correlate of children’s
cognitive development and some aspects of emo-
tional and behavioral regulation. Understanding
parental factors that are associated with individual
differences in children’s competencies across vari-
ous developmental domains is critical for informing
the policy and practice guidelines that aim to lay
the foundation for healthy developmental trajecto-
ries. Evidently, sensitive paternal parenting is one
factor to which we need to pay attention, especially
given the modifiability of the risk (Lawrence et al.,
2013). Indeed, building fathers’ sensitivity may be
one way to promote children’s well-being.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. F. (1974).
Infant–mother attachment and social development:
Socialization as a product of reciprocal responsiveness
to signals. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The integration of a
child into a social world (pp. 99–135). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
N. (2015). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of
the strange situation (classic ed.). London, UK: Rout-
ledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Anderson, P. J., & Reidy, N. (2012). Assessing executive
function in preschoolers. Neuropsychology Review, 22,
345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-012-9220-3
Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observational mea-
sures of parent-child interaction: An introductory
review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8, 136–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00061
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Lotz, A., Dijk, K. A., &
van IJzendoorn, M. (2019). Birth of a father: Fathering
in the first 1,000 days. Child Development Perspectives,
13, 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12347
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., &
Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitiv-
ity and attachment interventions in early childhood.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.129.2.195
Barger, M. M., Kim, E. M., Kuncel, N. R., & Pomerantz,
E. M. (2019). The relation between parents’ involvement
in children’s schooling and children’s adjustment: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 855–890.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000201
Barnett, M. A., Deng, M., Mills-Koonce, W. R.,
Willoughby, M., & Cox, M. (2008). Interdependence of
parenting of mothers and fathers of infants. Journal of
Family Psychology, 22, 561–573. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0893-3200.22.3.561
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., &
Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H., & Cohen, J. (2005). Compre-
hensive metaanalysis computer program and manual. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Biostat.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. II: Separa-
tion, anxiety and anger. In The international psycho-ana-
lytical library. Retrieved from https://www.pep-web.
org/document.php?id=IPL.095.0001A
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2007). Externalizing
problems in fifth grade: Relations with productive
activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting from
infancy through middle childhood. Developmental Psy-
chology, 43, 1390–1401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1390
Britto, P. R., Lye, S. J., Proulx, K., Yousafzai, A. K.,
Matthews, S. G., Vaivada, T., . . . Bhutta, Z. A. (2017).
Nurturing care: Promoting early childhood develop-
ment. The Lancet, 389, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(16)31390-3
Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Neff, C. (2012).
Father involvement, paternal sensitivity, and father–
child attachment security in the first three years. Journal
of Family Psychology, 26, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0027836
Burt, S. A. (2009). Are there meaningful etiological differ-
ences within antisocial behavior? Results of a meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 163–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.12.004
Buttitta, K. V., Smiley, P. A., Kerr, M. L., Rasmussen,
H. F., Querdasi, F. R., & Borelli, J. L. (2019). In a
father’s mind: Paternal reflective functioning, sensitive
parenting, and protection against socioeconomic risk.
Attachment & Human Development, 21, 445–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1582596
Cabrera, N. J. (2020). Father involvement, father–child
relationship, and attachment in the early years. Attach-
ment & Human Development, 22, 134–138. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1589070
Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H., Bradley, R., & Roggman, L.
(2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An
expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6,
336–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054
Cabrera, N. J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2013). Handbook
of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cabrera, N. J., Volling, B. L., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers
are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for
children’s development. Child Development Perspectives,
12, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275
Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Developmental ori-
gins of early antisocial behavior. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 21, 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S095457940999006X
Campbell, F., Conti, G., Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H.,
Pinto, R., Pungello, E., & Pan, Y. (2014). Early child-
hood investments substantially boost adult health.
Science, 343, 1478–1485. https://doi.org/10.1126/scie
nce.1248429

Campbell, J. M., Brown, R. T., Cavanagh, S. E., Vess, S.
F., & Segall, M. J. (2008). Evidence-based assessment of
cognitive functioning in pediatric psychology. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 33, 999–1014. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jpepsy/jsm138
Carter, A. S., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., & Davis, N. O. (2004).
Assessment of young children’s social-emotional devel-
opment and psychopathology: Recent advances and
recommendations for practice. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 45, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.
1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00316.x
Chak, A. (2001). Adult sensitivity to children’s learning in
the zone of proximal development. Journal for the The-
ory of Social Behaviour, 31, 383–395. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1468-5914.00166
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and
work-family time in the United States, Australia, Italy,
France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72, 1344–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2010.00769.x
Cummings, C. M., Caporino, N. E., & Kendall, P. C.
(2014). Comorbidity of anxiety and depression in chil-
dren and adolescents: 20 years after. Psychological Bul-
letin, 140, 816–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034733
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links
of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to
child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44–58. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x
De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas,
S. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Burgers, D. E., & Rabinowitz,
J. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach
to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 141, 858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0038498
Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2007). Language, social
behavior, and the quality of friendships in adolescents
with and without a history of specific language impair-
ment. Child Development, 78, 1441–1457. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01076.x
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple
funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–
463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
Eiden, R. D., Edwards, E. P., & Leonard, K. E. (2007). A
conceptual model for the development of externalizing
behavior problems among kindergarten children of
alcoholic families: Role of parenting and children’s self-
regulation. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1187–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1187
Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzen-
doorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.-M., & Roisman, G. I. (2010).
The significance of insecure attachment and disorgani-
zation in the development of children’s externalizing
behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81,
435–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.
01405.x
Feldman, R., Eidelman, A. I., & Rotenberg, N. (2004). Par-
enting stress, infant emotion regulation, maternal
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 573
sensitivity, and the cognitive development of triplets: A
model for parent and child influences in a unique ecol-
ogy. Child Development, 75, 1774–1791. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00816.x
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M.
(2005). Show me the child at seven II: Childhood
intelligence and later outcomes in adolescence and
young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 46, 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2005.01472.x
Flynn, J. R. (2016). Does your family make you smarter?:
Nature, nurture, and human autonomy. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size
in psychological research: Sense and nonsense.
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological
Science, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2515245919847202
Garrett-Peters, P., Mills-Koonce, R., Zerwas, S., Cox, M.,
& Vernon-Feagans, L. (2011). Fathers’ early emotion
talk: Associations with income, ethnicity, and family
factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 335–353.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00810.x
Georgiades, K., Duncan, L., Wang, L., Comeau, J., &
Boyle, M. H. (2019). Six-month prevalence of mental
disorders and service contacts among children and
youth in Ontario: Evidence from the 2014 Ontario child
health study. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64, 246–
255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719830024
Gertler, P., Heckman, J., Pinto, R., Zanolini, A., Vermeersch,
C., Walker, S., . . . Grantham-McGregor, S. (2014). Labor
market returns to an early childhood stimulation inter-
vention in Jamaica. Science, 344, 998–1001. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1251178
Goffin, K. C., Boldt, L. J., & Kochanska, G. (2018). A
secure base from which to cooperate: Security, child
and parent willing stance, and adaptive and maladap-
tive outcomes in two longitudinal studies. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 1061–1075. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10802-017-0352-z
Goldberg, S., Grusec, J. E., & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). Confi-
dence in protection: Arguments for a narrow definition
of attachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 475–483.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.4.475
Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. M. P., van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Roisman, G. I. (2017).
Attachment in the early life course: Meta-analytic evi-
dence for its role in socioemotional development. Child
Development Perspectives, 11, 70–76. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cdep.12213
Gross, J. J., Uusberg, H., & Uusberg, A. (2019). Mental ill-
ness and well-being: An affect regulation perspective.
World Psychiatry, 18, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wps.20618
Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., Mesman, J., Groeneveld, M. G.,
Endendijk, J. J., van Berkel, S. R., van der Pol, L. D., &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2014). Mothers, fathers,
sons and daughters: Parental sensitivity in families
574 Rodrigues et al.
with two children. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 138–
147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036004
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F.,
& McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational
aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Par-
enting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 34, 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.
4.687
Hazen, N. L., McFarland, L., Jacobvitz, D., & Boyd-
Soisson, E. (2010). Fathers’ frightening behaviours and
sensitivity with infants: Relations with fathers’ attach-
ment representations, father–infant attachment, and
children’s later outcomes. Early Child Development and
Care, 180, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430
903414703
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape
language development. Developmental Review, 26, 55–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Hughes, C., & Graham, A. (2002). Measuring executive
functions in childhood: Problems and solutions? Child
and Adolescent Mental Health, 7, 131–142. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1475-3588.00024
Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Trentacosta, C. J., Morgan, J. K.,
Laurenceau, J.-P., Krauthamer-Ewing, E. S., & Finlon,
K. J. (2008). Accelerating the development of emotion
competence in Head Start children: Effects on adaptive
and maladaptive behavior. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 20, 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579408000175
Johnston, D., Propper, C., Pudney, S., & Shields, M.
(2014). Child mental health and educational attainment:
Multiple observers and the measurement error prob-
lem. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 880–900.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2359
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early
social-emotional functioning and public health: The
relationship between kindergarten social competence
and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health,
105, 2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.
302630
Julious, S. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around
individual means to assess statistical significance
between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics: The Jour-
nal of Applied Statistics in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 3,
217–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.126
Kok, R., Linting, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van
IJzendoorn, M. H., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., . . .
Tiemeier, H. (2013). Maternal sensitivity and internaliz-
ing problems: Evidence from two longitudinal studies
in early childhood. Child Psychiatry & Human Develop-
ment, 44, 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-
0369-7
Kok, R., Thijssen, S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jad-
doe, V. W. V., Verhulst, F. C., White, T., . . . Tiemeier,
H. (2015). Normal variation in early parental sensitivity
predicts child structural brain development. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
54, 824–831.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2015.07.
009
Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2011). Brain plasticity and behaviour
in the developing brain. Journal of the Canadian Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20, 265–276.
Landry, S. H., & Smith, K. E. (2011). Maternal sensitivity
and responsiveness: A conceptual framework with
empirical evidence. In D. W. E. Davis & M. Logsdon
(Eds.), Maternal sensitivity: A scientific foundation for prac-
tice (pp. 31–44). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006).
Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations
for social, communication, and independent problem-
solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42, 627–642.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627
Lawrence, P. J., Davies, B., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2013).
Using video feedback to improve early father–infant
interaction: A pilot study. Clinical Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 18, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1359104512437210
Leidy, M. S., Schofield, T. J., & Parke, R. D. (2013).
Fathers’ contributions to children’s social development.
In Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary per-
spectives (2nd ed., pp. 151–167). London, UK: Rout-
ledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lemelin, J. P., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Provost, M. A. (2006).
Predicting preschool cognitive development from infant
temperament, maternal sensitivity, and psychosocial
risk. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 779–806. https://doi.
org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0038
Letourneau, N. L., Duffett-Leger, L., Levac, L., Watson,
B., & Young-Morris, C. (2013). Socioeconomic status
and child development: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 211–224. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1063426611421007
Lucassen, N., Kok, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van
IJzendoorn, M. H., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., . . .
Tiemeier, H. (2015). Executive functions in early child-
hood: The role of maternal and paternal parenting
practices. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33,
489–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12112
Lucassen, N., Tharner, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Volling, B. L., Verhulst,
F. C., . . . Tiemeier, H. (2011). The association between
paternal sensitivity and infant–father attachment secu-
rity: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 25, 986–992. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0025855
Madigan, S., Brumariu, L. E., Villani, V., Atkinson, L., &
Lyons-Ruth, K. (2016). Representational and question-
naire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of rela-
tions to child internalizing and externalizing problems.
Psychological Bulletin, 142, 367–399. https://doi.org/10.
1037/bul0000029
Madigan, S., Prime, H., Graham, S. A., Rodrigues, M.,
Anderson, N., Khoury, J., & Jenkins, J. M. (2019). Par-
enting behavior and child language: A meta-analysis.

Pediatrics, 144, e20183556. https://doi.org/10.1542/ped
s.2018-3556
Magill-Evans, J., & Harrison, M. J. (2001). Parent–child
interactions, parenting stress, and developmental out-
comes at 4 years. Children’s Health Care, 30, 135–150.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326888CHC3002_4
Malmberg, L.-E., Lewis, S., West, A., Murray, E., Sylva,
K., & Stein, A. (2015). The influence of mothers’ and
fathers’ sensitivity in the first year of life on children’s
cognitive outcomes at 18 and 36 months. Child: Care
Health and Development, 42, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cch.12294
Mattanah, J. F. (2001). Parental psychological autonomy
and children’s academic competence and behavioral
adjustment in late childhood: More than just limit-set-
ting and warmth. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 355–376.
https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0017
Merikangas, K. R., He, J., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A.,
Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., . . . Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime
prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents:
Results from the national comorbidity survey replica-
tion–adolescent supplement (ncs-a). Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49,
980–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017
Mesman, J., & Emmen, R. A. G. (2013). Mary Ainsworth’s
legacy: A systematic review of observational instru-
ments measuring parental sensitivity. Attachment &
Human Development, 15, 485–506. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14616734.2013.820900
Mileva-Seitz, V. R., Ghassabian, A., Bakermans-Kranen-
burg, M. J., van den Brink, J. D., Linting, M., Jaddoe, V.
W. V., . . . van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Are boys
more sensitive to sensitivity? Parenting and executive
function in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 130, 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jec
p.2014.08.008
Miller-Lewis, L. R., Searle, A. K., Sawyer, M. G.,
Baghurst, P. A., & Hedley, D. (2013). Resource factors
for mental health resilience in early childhood: An anal-
ysis with multiple methodologies. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1753-2000-7-6
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Willoughby, M. T., Zvara, B., Bar-
nett, M., Gustafsson, H., Cox, M. J.; Investigators, F. L.
P. K. (2015). Mothers’ and fathers’ sensitivity and
children’s cognitive development in low-income, rural
families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 38,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.01.001
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N.,
Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . . Caspi, A. (2011). A
gradient of childhood self-control predicts health,
wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108,
2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Mulder, H., Hoofs, H., Verhagen, J., van der Veen, I., &
Leseman, P. P. M. (2014). Psychometric properties and
convergent and predictive validity of an executive
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 575
function test battery for two-year-olds. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00733
Pagliaccio, D., Luby, J. L., Luking, K. R., Belden, A. C., &
Barch, D. M. (2014). Brain–behavior relationships in the
experience and regulation of negative emotion in
healthy children: Implications for risk for childhood
depression. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1289–
1303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001035
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relation-
ship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes.
Human Development, 47, 193–219. https://doi.org/10.
1159/000078723
Parke, R. D., McDowell, D. J., Kim, M., Killan, C., Dennis,
J., Flyr, M. L., & Wild, M. N. (2002). Fathers’ contribu-
tions to children’s peer relationships. In C. S. Tamis-
LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father
involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–167).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearson, R. M., Heron, J., Melotti, R., Joinson, C., Stein,
A., Ramchandani, P. G., & Evans, J. (2011). The associa-
tion between observed non-verbal maternal responses
at 12 months and later infant development at 18
months and IQ at 4 years: A longitudinal study. Infant
Behavior and Development, 34, 525–533. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.07.003
Raby, K. L., Freedman, E., Yarger, H. A., Lind, T., & Doz-
ier, M. (2019). Enhancing the language development of
toddlers in foster care by promoting foster parents’ sen-
sitivity: Results from a randomized controlled trial.
Developmental Science, 22, e12753. https://doi.org/10.
1111/desc.12753
Russo, M. W. (2007). How to review a meta-analysis. Gas-
troenterology & Hepatology, 3, 637–642.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Diener, M. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C.,
Brown, G. L., McHale, J. L., & Frosch, C. A. (2006).
Attachment and sensitivity in family context: The roles
of parent and infant gender. Infant and Child Develop-
ment, 15, 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.449
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Fagan, J. (2020). The evolution
of fathering research in the 21st century: Persistent
challenges, new directions. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily, 82, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12645
Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., London, K., &
Cabrera, N. (2002). Beyond rough and tumble: Low-in-
come fathers’ interactions and children’s cognitive
development at 24 months. Parenting, 2, 77–104.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0202_01
Smith, M. (2011). Measures for assessing parenting in
research and practice. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 16, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
3588.2010.00585.x
SPSS IBM. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version
25. Armonk, NY: IBM SPSS Corp.
Stgeorge, J., & Freeman, E. (2017). Measurement of
father–child rough-and-tumble play and its relations to
child behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 38, 709–725.
https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21676
576 Rodrigues et al.
Suldo, S. M., Gormley, M. J., DuPaul, G. J., & Anderson-
Butcher, D. (2014). The impact of school mental health
on student and school-level academic outcomes: Cur-
rent status of the research and future directions. School
Mental Health, 6, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12310-013-9116-2
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, 1806–
1820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x
Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of
emotion regulation in the family. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),
Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 249–268). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should
meta-regression analyses be undertaken and inter-
preted? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1559–1573. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sim.1187
Towe-Goodman, N. R., Willoughby, M., Blair, C.,
Gustafsson, H. C., Mills-Koonce, W. R., & Cox, M. J.
(2014). Fathers’ sensitive parenting and the develop-
ment of early executive functioning. Journal of Family
Psychology, 28, 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0038128
Valcan, D. S., Davis, H., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2018). Par-
ental behaviours predicting early childhood executive
functions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 30, 607–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
017-9411-9
van der Pol, L. D., Mesman, J., Groeneveld, M. G., Enden-
dijk, J. J., van Berkel, S. R., Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2016). Sibling gender
configuration and family processes. Journal of Family
Issues, 37, 2095–2117. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0192513X15572369
van der Voort, A., Linting, M., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kra-
nenburg, M. J., Schoenmaker, C., & van IJzendoorn, M.
H. (2014). The development of adolescents’ internaliz-
ing behavior: Longitudinal effects of maternal sensitiv-
ity and child inhibition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43, 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9976-7
van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Egeland, B. (2011). Analyzing
multiple informant data on child and adolescent behav-
ior problems: Predictive validity and comparison of
aggregation procedures. International Journal of Behav-
ioral Development, 35, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165025410392112
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A. G. (1995).
Attachment, intelligence, and language: A meta-analy-
sis. Social Development, 4, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00055.x
Van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., Stolk, M. N.,
. . . Alink, L. R. A. (2006). Attachment-based interven-
tion for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1-
to 3-year-old children at risk for externalizing behavior
problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 994–1005. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.994
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M.
P., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., . . . van IJzendoorn,
M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A syn-
thesis of three decades of research on intergenerational
transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142,
337–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000038
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Zaslow, M. J., Weinfield, N. S., Gallagher, M., Hair, E. C.,
Ogawa, J. R., Egeland, B., . . . De Temple, J. M. (2006).
Longitudinal prediction of child outcomes from differ-
ing measures of parenting in a low-income sample.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.42.1.27
Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Aber, J. L. (2011).
Roots of adult attachment: Maternal caregiving at 18
months predicts adult peer and partner attachment.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 289–297.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610389822
Zeegers, M. A. J., Colonnesi, C., Stams, G.-J.-J.-M., &
Meins, E. (2017). Mind matters: A meta-analysis on par-
ental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of
infant–parent attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 143,
1245–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000114
Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool exec-
utive function in childhood and adolescence: Develop-
ment and plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6,
354–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.
00246.x
Zvara, B. J., Sheppard, K. W., & Cox, M. (2018). Bidirec-
tional effects between parenting sensitivity and child
behavior: A cross-lagged analysis across middle child-
hood and adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 32,
484–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000372
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in
the online version of this article at the publisher’s
website:
Figure S1. Funnel Plot for Child Broad Cognitive
Functioning Meta-analysis
Figure S2. Funnel Plot for Child Broad Cognitive
Functioning Meta-analysis with Trimmed and Filled
Studies
Figure S3. Funnel Plot for Child Language Meta-
analysis
Figure S4. Funnel Plot for Child Cognitive Abil-
ity Meta-analysis
Figure S5. Funnel Plot for Child Executive Func-
tion Meta-analysis

Figure S6. Funnel Plot for Child Executive Func-
tion Meta-analysis Including Trim and Filled Study
Outcomes
Figure S7. Funnel Plot for Child Broad Socioe-
motional Functioning
Figure S8. Funnel Plot for Child Emotion Regu-
lation Meta-analysis
Figure S9. Funnel Plot for Child Externalizing
Problems Meta-analysis
Table S1. Search Strategy
Table S2. Results of Moderators for the Associa-
tion Between Father Parenting and Child Function-
ing
Paternal Sensitivity and Child Outcomes 577
Table S3. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Language Meta-analysis
Table S4. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Cognitive Ability Meta-analysis
Table S5. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Executive Function Meta-analysis
Table S6. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Emotion Regulation Meta-analysis
Table S7. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Externalizing Meta-analysis
Table S8. Characteristics of Studies Included in
the Internalizing Meta-analysis
Table S9. Sensitivity Analyses