Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes

Abstract

Fatherhood scholars are increasingly recognizing the need for theory to guide research. This chapter's objective is to advance theory concerning paternal involvement in two ways. First, I propose a revised conceptualization of the construct of paternal involvement. The reconceptualization includes three primary components: (a) positive engagement activities, (b) warmth and responsiveness, and (c) control. It also includes two auxiliary domains: (d) indirect care, and (e) process responsibility. The primary components reflect the predominant ways that involvement is actually operationalized in most current fathering research. Use of these core dimensions also integrates investigation of father involvement more closely with the broader field of parenting research. The auxiliary domains clarify the two distinct aspects of the original responsibility component. Data on the empirical interrelationships among the five components, their levels, and the extent to which these levels have changed in recent decades are then reviewed. Second, the chapter considers why and how, from a theoretical viewpoint, components of father involvement might have direct positive influences on child development. At the outset, recent empirical research on these influences is reviewed, identifying some important recent methodological advances. The most rigorously designed studies provide some evidence for direct paternal effects among both resident and nonresident fathers. Then, several possible sources for theorizing paternal influences are examined. I develop a "parental capital" framework for understanding the possible direct influences of the paternal involvement and its components on child outcomes. This parental capital model employs concepts from social capital theory, parental style research, and Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective. Some restrictions in scope should be noted. Although the chapter includes some material on nonresident fathers when available, most of the data referenced pertains to married fathers in residential contexts. In addition, most of the chapter's empirical material concerns fathers who are heterosexual, did not have a first child as a teen, are not disabled, and live in the United States. It is the chapter's hope, however, that the theoretical ideas advanced may have relevance to other fathers.