On June 2022, as the world was trying to recover from the isolation imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a video of rapper and producer Jay-Z kissing his ten-year-old daughter on the cheek during a game went viral on Twitter. Although most of his public appearances attract a lot of publicity, this loving gesture toward his daughter received even more attention than usual. It showed a contrasting side of the music icon: as a nurturing and caring father. Positive images of men, especially of men of color, as loving parents are rarely, if ever, seen in the media. The reality is different: ethnically and economically diverse fathers are loving and affectionate toward their children and want the best for them.
The public narrative of fathers in the US is better understood in the broader sociocultural and demographic context. At the turn of the twentieth century, the family in the US underwent tremendous transformation due to several major social changes: Women’s increased labor force participation, increased number of nonresidential fathers and out of wedlock births, increased involvement of fathers in two-parent families, increased “family complexity,” and increased cultural diversity in the US (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Manning and Stykes2015; Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth and Lamb2000; Diniz et al., Reference Diniz, Brandao and Verissimo2023). Higher rates of divorce, cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, repartnering, and remarriage have changed family life in the last fifty years or so and have resulted in increased family complexity (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Manning and Stykes2015; Kreider & Ellis, Reference Kreider and Ellis2011; Gates, Reference Gates2015). More than two decades later, we see the emergence of the “modern family” (Golombok, Reference Golombok2015); this term refers to new family forms that include lesbian mother families, gay father families, families headed by single mothers by choice, and families created by assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, egg donation, sperm donation, embryo donation, and surrogacy (Golombok, Reference Golombok2015; Brown, Reference Brown2017). Collectively, these social trends have broadened the definition of what it means to be a family and have fundamentally changed the roles of mothers and fathers in these families.
Our focus in this book is threefold. First, we focus on two-parent, heterosexual, and biological families with fathers who are either resident or nonresident with children during early childhood. Despite the steady decline in the number of two-parent families, most children in the US live in two-parent families (US Census Bureau, 2020), and consequently most of the research, programs, and policies have been motivated by these families and their children. Second, we discuss resident and nonresident fathers separately because the ways “money and love” from fathers play out in children’s lives depends on the type of families in which they are reared. Different types of families make different types of investments for their children (Hofferth, Reference Hofferth2006). Children growing up with two-parent biological and heterosexual families often receive a greater share of parental resources and caregiving time compared to children living in single-parent families (Hofferth, Reference Hofferth2006). Changes in family structure are inherently tied to family resources, therefore including money and time spent with children in the discussion help us understand how children fare in different types of families. Moreover, resident fathers’ earnings constitute most of the household income in many two-parent households, while nonresident fathers contribute much less to household income in single-parent households, especially when nonresident fathers provide such support informally (Sariscsany et al., Reference Sariscsany, Garfinkel and Nepomnyaschy2019). As a result, resident fathers exercise much more influence over child-related expenditures than do nonresident fathers. Because nonresident fathers do not reside with their children all the time, they have more difficulty than resident fathers engaging in a variety of activities that constitute everyday parenting (e.g., bathing, dressing, reading, and sharing meals). Nonetheless, their involvement should matter as well as the money they provide for their children. Importantly, our focus on these types of families does not in any way suggest that other types of families are not important or worthy of study. On the contrary: There is an urgent need to acknowledge in scholarship the diversity of families in which children are being reared in our modern society.
Third, although parents, including fathers, have a profound impact on their children’s lives from cradle to grave, in this book we focus on the early years (birth to age nine), for a couple of reasons. First, children’s development during the early years is foundational for outcomes along the life span (National Academies of Sciences, 2016). Early experiences are critical for brain development and so investments of time and money during the early years are most likely to have a profound and enduring effect on children. Second, most of the research on father–child relationships has been conducted with young children.
1.1 Fathers in Resident Families
Who are resident fathers in the US? When we examine the demographic profile of fathers from the living arrangement of children we find this: In 2020, 67% of children aged 0–17 lived with two married parents, and 4% lived with two unmarried but cohabiting parents; 21% lived with their mothers only; 5% lived with their fathers only; and 4% lived with no parent (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2022, Family Structure and Children’s Living Arrangements section). Most children who lived with neither of their parents were living with grandparents or other relatives. Among children living with two parents, national data from 2020 show that the majority (91%) lived with both of their biological or adoptive who were married (only 5% were cohabiting), and only 9% lived with a stepparent (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2022, Family Structure and Children’s Living Arrangements section). In the same year, most children living with one parent lived with their mothers, some of whom had cohabiting partners who were not the biological fathers of their children. Older children were less likely to live with two parents: 67% of children aged 15–17, compared with 69% of children aged 6–14 and 75% of those aged 0–5. In terms of diversity, in 2020 the majority (76%) of White non-Hispanic and Hispanic (62%) children lived with two married parents, compared with less than half (38%) of Black children.
When we look at the demographic profile using a father’s lens, we find that in 2020, more than 28,000 fathers in the US lived with children under eighteen, and the majority (86.5%) of those fathers also lived with a married spouse (US Census Bureau, 2020, table A3). Only 5.2% of those fathers cohabited with the mothers of their children; 3% cohabited with a partner with whom they do not share a child and 6% lived with their children as single fathers. Among all fathers living with children under eighteen, more than half (59%) were non-Hispanic Whites (hereafter, White), 10% were Black, and less than a quarter (21%) were Hispanic. A notable finding is the similarities among and differences between racial and ethnic groups.
Among White fathers living with children under eighteen, the majority (88%) also lived with a married spouse. Only 4% of those fathers cohabited with the mother of the child; 3% cohabited with a partner with whom they did not share a child and 6% lived with their children as single fathers. Among Black fathers who lived with their children under eighteen, the majority (74%) also lived with a married spouse. Only 10% cohabited with the mother of the child; 5% cohabited with a partner with whom they did not share a child and 12% lived with their children as single fathers. Similarly, among Hispanic fathers who lived with children under eighteen, the majority (80%) also lived with a married spouse. Only 10% of those fathers cohabited with the mother of the child; 3% cohabited with a partner with whom they did not share a child and 6% lived with their children as single fathers. Among all fathers who lived with children under eighteen, less than half had one or two biological children (42% and 38%, respectively); 14% had three biological children; and only 5% had four or more children. There are some interesting insights from these statistics. Among resident fathers, there are few differences by race and ethnicity: Most fathers reside with their children and are married, and only a small percentage are cohabitors. A noteworthy difference among ethnic and racial groups is that the number of fathers who are single fathers is double for Black families as compared to White and Hispanic families.
1.2 Fathers in Nonresident Families
In contrast, nearly one in four (27%) of American men aged between fifteen and forty-four are nonresident fathers of children aged less than eighteen (Jones & Mosher, Reference Jones and Mosher2013). According to the Congressional Research Service (Landers, Reference Landers2021), more than 9.7 million parents do not live with their children, 75% of which are fathers. The majority (81%) of nonresident fathers are men of color, and the majority (72%) have at most a high school diploma or GED. Just over two-thirds are younger than thirty-four years old (Arsenault & Stykes, Reference Arsenault and Stykes2019). That is, most nonresident fathers are economically disadvantaged. One recent simulation using modern child support guidelines found that most nonresident fathers would be unable to meet their taxes and basic expenses for food, clothing, housing, and transportation if they paid their formal child support obligations in full (Mincy & Um, Reference Um2019). Despite these difficult circumstances, Black and Hispanic nonresident fathers are more likely to see their children than White nonresident fathers, suggesting that residency may not be a requirement for paternal engagement for ethnic minority men (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Ryan, Mitchell, Shannon and Tamis-Lemonda2008; Ellerbe et al., Reference Ellerbe, Jones and Carlson2018; Tach et al., Reference Tach, Mincy and Edin2010). However, the limited human capital of nonresident fathers and the fact that they may be supporting several children from different households make it challenging for these men to invest money and time equally for all their children.
1.3 How Do Fathers Matter for Children? Money Versus Love
Being a father in contemporary US society is a story best told in two parts. The first part of the story is based on cultural and social expectations that men must support their children financially. This is what we call the “money story” of being a father, wherein fathers have mostly economic value. From this perspective, being a “good dad” is rooted in a man’s ability to support his children financially. Researchers have extensively focused on the type and consequences of men’s financial contribution for their children’s well-being. Not surprisingly, this view is prominent in the US and in most of Western Europe, and it is at the center of most of our policies and programs directed toward men.
The second part of the story is about fathers’ emotional support for their children, or what we call the “love story” of being a father. Through this lens, the social value of fathers lies in their ability to nurture and support their children emotionally through building strong and healthy relationships that last a lifetime. In the USA, this view is almost completely underplayed in the public narrative of what makes a “good father,” especially for fathers of color. This perspective, which minimizes men’s emotional support for their children, is striking and is not supported by the empirical evidence. A large body of research has shown that fathers who have loving and supportive relationships with their children have children who are socially competent, have friends, perform well academically, and have productive lives. Also, not surprisingly, the emotional contributions that fathers make to their children is not the focus of policies and programs directed at them.
It is the disconnect between the research on the “love story” and that on the “money story” of being a father, and the policies and programs designed for fathers, that we wish to highlight in this book. The traditional view that fathers are the providers and mothers the nurturers is outdated (Golombok, Reference Golombok2015). A more updated version of the story of what it means to be a “good” father is that modern fathers provide for their children financially and emotionally, just like mothers. Fathers are important for their children’s well-being in multiple ways, and their financial contributions and their love and emotional support are essential to the development of healthy and socially well-adjusted children (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley and Roggman2014).
1.3.1 The Money Story: The Economic Perspective
Economists study the effects of families on child well-being using approaches closely related to the core questions with which they are concerned: How do societies use their scarce resources to produce, consume, and distribute the goods and services that their members want or need? (Krugman & Wells, Reference Krugman and Wells2021). One of society’s most important resources is the labor of its members, many of whom are parents. Economic theory suggests that parents use their earnings and other sources of income to consume goods and services and invest in the human capital of their children (Becker & Tomes, Reference Becker and Tomes1986). Doing so enables children to be more productive (and better paid) when they become workers and parents. In the economic literature there is no distinction between mothers and fathers; instead, economists assume that mothers and fathers want the same things for their children.
Of course, parents can use their own time to produce their children’s human capital. For every hour they do so, they sacrifice wages, which they could use to buy goods and services from others (e.g., tutors and childcare providers). Whether mothers or fathers are more productive in child rearing, and whether the wages they earn exceed the cost of paying others to care for and educate their children, determine how much time mothers and fathers spend engaged in caregiving activities at home. According to the standard economic theory of the division of labor within households, biology and socialization make women more productive than men in child-rearing activities, beginning with breastfeeding and recognizing the cues infants provide about their needs. Gender socialization also extended this comparative advantage to the activities required to care for children of all ages (Becker, Reference Becker1991). In parallel, developmental psychologists assumed that, during the early years, children formed stronger attachments to their mothers than to their fathers. Because of their comparative disadvantage in household production, men spend less time than women in household production and more of their time in work outside the home. This specialization increases their wages relative to women in external work. In turn, men’s higher pay for outside the home encourages men to invest heavily in human capital, which tends to increase their productivity.
Changes in the productivity of mothers and fathers in market work and changes in conditions that affect their productivity – and, therefore, their wages – have important policy implications for child-related policies and practices. For example, such changes influence policies that affect the amount of time (e.g., parental leave) fathers and mothers spend engaged in child-rearing activities; who should get physical custody of children following a divorce or separation and who should pay child support; and who should be the focus of efforts designed to improve parents’ effectiveness in child-rearing activities (home-visiting programs, Head Start, and Early Head Start).
In this book, we use “money story” as an overarching umbrella term to refer to fathers’ ability to support their children financially. Fathers’ financial responsibility is typically assessed as household income or socioeconomic status (SES), including proxy indicators of SES such as level of education, income, and occupation. At the core of the “money story” is the timeless question of what it means to be a “good”, which has preoccupied scholarly inquiry since the nineteenth century (Pleck, Reference Pleck1983). From an economic perspective, the concept that a “good father” supports their children financially is straightforward. Money is essential for children’s well-being and critical for their survival because it underwrites the material and educational opportunities needed to succeed in school and in life (Becker & Tomes, Reference Becker and Tomes1986). Money can be used to pay for necessities such as food and shelter, as well as to buy learning materials such as toys, books, and enriching activities that promote children’s development. Therefore, focusing on money is justified because children depend entirely on household income for their development. This is most evident in how we consider resident fathers’ earnings when determining benefits designed to reduce poverty (Eissa & Hoynes, Reference Eissa and Hoynes2004; for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit), and in our efforts to design and implement child support policies that require nonresident fathers to pay child support (Hodges & Vogel, Reference Hodges and Vogel2021). It is not surprising, then, that a voluminous empirical body of research has consistently shown that money matters for children’s well-being (Duncan et al., Reference Duncan, Morris and Rodrigues2011; Duncan et al., Reference Duncan, Magnuson, Murnane and Votruba‐Drzal2019; Wimer & Wolf, Reference Wimer and Wolf2020). What is less clear from this literature is how or why money matters. Research on this question is comparatively less extensive, has reached inconsistent conclusions, and has been less concerned with other important determinants of children’s well-being, such as fathers’ emotional support and children’s own characteristics.
1.3.2 The Love Story: The Developmental Science Perspective
The bond between parents and children is the foundation of development, and so it is the most important thing parents can provide for their children. Attachment, or developing a strong bond with parents that is characterized by love, trust, and security, is based on strong and healthy relationships between parents and children. Even if parents spend time with their children on learning activities (e.g., reading versus watching TV) that have large impacts on their well-being, this time spent together will matter most when the relationship between them is strong, healthy, and reciprocal. The amount of money parents provide is, at best, a third-order concern for children’s relationships with their fathers.
In contrast to the economic perspective, the developmental science literature has answered the question of who is a “good parent” by focusing mostly on the “love story,” largely rooted in attachment theory (Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1969). Children’s developmental needs are embedded in basic needs for safety, love, support, and opportunities for learning. The emotional bond between parents and children and the reciprocal, responsive, and supportive care that parents provide are essential for child well-being in both the short- and the long-term. To assess the bond between parents and children as well as the quality of the relationship between them, scholars use a variety of research designs (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal), methods (e.g., surveys and observational studies), and data (including nationally representative datasets with large samples and small-scale observational studies with small samples of convenience; Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley and Roggman2014; Volling & Cabrera, Reference Volling and Cabrera2019). An extensive and diverse literature has shown that caregivers, who are mostly biological parents, are most influential because they are most proximal to the child, especially in the early years. This proximity ensures that parents develop meaningful, enduring, and loving relationships with their children that promote their well-being. Competent, sensitive, and supportive interactions between parents and their children are essential for relationship building, which, in turn, supports children’s development across the lifespan (Teti et al., Reference Teti, Cole, Cabrera, Goodman and McLoyd2017).
But the “love story” of how fathers’ relationships with their children enhance their growth and development is not easy to tell because the empirical evidence is limited, especially on certain groups of families. Research on the “love story” includes normative parenting practices, such as engaging in literacy activities (reading, telling stories), and meeting children’s basic needs, such as food and shelter. What is considered optimal parenting for children’s well-being has been mostly conducted with White middle-class, two-parent (mostly married), heterosexual families. That is, to date, most parenting studies have focused on White middle-class families (more specifically, WEIRD families: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), thus there is little representation in the literature of the child-rearing practices, values, and norms of non-White families and how these result in happy and well-adjusted children (Volling & Palkovitz, Reference Volling and Palkovitz2021). The information we have on non-White families – who, because of structural inequalities in the USA, are more likely to be poor – comes from studies that compare their parenting behaviors to those of White parents – who, because of White privilege, are more likely to be middle class. These studies essentially tell us how parents of color measure up to White families. This deficit approach is not only scientifically flawed, but also yields a very skewed understanding of what is optimal parenting, for whom, and under what conditions. Researchers need to do a better job at chronicling “good” parenting in non-White middle-class communities to access a full spectrum of the multiple ways in which fathers under different social and economic circumstances rear happy and well-adjusted children.
Another difficulty in telling fathers’ “love story” is that parenting research has taken an almost exclusive focus on mothers. Consequently, there is not as much information on fathers as there is on mothers. Until recently, studies of parent–child relationships did not include fathers. The near exclusive focus on mothers derived from the outdated belief that fathers are instrumental (i.e., should pay), and that mothers are nurturant (e.g., emotionally supportive) and the “spokespersons” for the family. It has been assumed that in two-parent families, fathers and mothers converged on their parenting practices and behaviors; accordingly, there was no need to include fathers in the research. This approach led to the general conclusion that mothers’ parenting was paramount for children’s development whereas fathers’ was optional, or at least not essential. Excluding fathers from parenting research created a gap in our knowledge about what exactly it is that fathers do for their children, or what they should do for them (in terms of emotional support) to help them grow and develop. As families become more diverse, and as fathers’ residency is not a prerequisite for parenting, the need to understand the independent or complementary contributions of fathers and mothers to their children’s well-being has become more critical. There is hope that as evidence of the unique value that fathers have for their children’s development increases, we will begin to fill in our knowledge gap about how and why fathers’ love for their children is important for their development.
In recent years, the research community has tried to correct course by conducting more studies on normative patterns of parenting among families of color that take a strength-base perspective and include fathers (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley and Roggman2014; Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, Reference Schoppe‐Sullivan and Fagan2020). Despite this progress, as a field we are still not at the point where we have enough empirical evidence on the “love story” for non-White families with resident or nonresident fathers to extract important insights about the types of fathering behaviors that are to be encouraged and promoted because they support positive child development. As is evident from a quick glance at several past issues of the Journal of Child Development (the flagship journal for developmental science researchers), most parenting studies today still do not include both parents, nor do they consistently identify the ethnicity, race, and SES of the samples. There is much work to be done, and we urge readers of this book to continue this work.
1.3.3 Bringing Together Economist and Developmental Science Perspectives
In an episode of the podcast Freakonomics (June 18, 2021; http://bit.ly/40yPC7q), psychologist Angela Duckworth lamented to the cohost, Steven Levitt, that one of the problems in research is that there are no collaborations between psychologists and economists. This comment cannot be further from the truth. We (the authors of this book) are living proof of this, and just one example of the fact that economists and psychologists who care about children’s and family issues collaborate in research, although probably not as much as we should. In the tradition of the collaboration between Greg Duncan, a prominent economist, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, an eminent psychologist (authors of the Reference Duncan and Brooks-Gunn1997 ground-breaking book Consequences of Growing Up Poor), we write this book to bring our expertise on children, family, and policies designed to support them to bear on the question of how fathers best support their children’s development. Our respective disciplines can further the cause of fathers and children by integrating our insights into a cohesive message.
As with most collaborations, this one was not easy and it took many years to get to this point. We each come from disciplinary traditions that espouse different theories, methodologies, and statistical methods. We have not overcome these differences; instead, we present information on fathers from each discipline and try to show that both perspectives are to some extent correct, but that neither one is correct on its own. We hope to motivate future researchers to collaborate across disciplines and produce research that is ecologically valid and that reflects families with all their complexities.
Despite our different disciplines, we agree on three things. First, society should find the best way to improve child well-being. Second, finding the best approach to promote and support children’s well-being involves considering all resources that could make substantial contributions. Third, fathers’ time spent on child-rearing activities and father–child relationships are among the most important neglected resources for children’s well-being. Though economists often consider how productive inputs achieve a given outcome, they have thought less about how the time fathers spend with their children affects the child’s well-being. Said differently, economists have thought little about the productivity of fathers’ time in the child’s well-being production function. Further, the absence of markets for fathers’ time spent in child-rearing activities makes it difficult to apply the strategies economists normally use to proxy the productivity of inputs that are difficult to measure. Fortunately, developmental psychologists spend most of their time developing theories and methods to assess the productivity of the time parents spend in various child-rearing activities. In recent years, much of this thinking has focused on fathers’ time. If we draw upon these theories and methods, we can provide guidance to policymakers and practitioners tasked with improving the well-being of America’s children. However, to do this well requires attention not just on fathers’ financial contributions, but also on the quality of relationships between fathers and their children.
The collective interest among researchers to focus on both money and love was aided by a significant development in the late 1990s that changed the field of fatherhood research. In 1997, the National Fatherhood Research Network Initiative, a collaboration between private and private sectors, called attention to the lack of national data on fathers and urged researchers and the private sector to acknowledge fathers’ emotional contribution to their children’s development and to include them into research, policies, and programs (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Brooks-Gunn, Moore, West, Boller, Tamis-LeMonda, Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera2002). The Fatherhood Initiative, as it was called, resulted in the inclusion of fathers in national datasets that collected data directly from fathers: not just about their financial responsibilities to their children (income and child support), but also about their parenting behaviors (aka the love story). These national datasets (e.g., The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort; Early Head Start Evaluation; the Future of Families and Child Well-being Study) were huge accomplishments because they provided researchers with unprecedented national father-reported data on fathers’ parenting behaviors about becoming a dad and being a dad (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Brooks-Gunn, Moore, West, Boller, Tamis-LeMonda, Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera2002). These datasets changed the field of fatherhood research because, perhaps for the first time, they made available information about fathering behaviors obtained directly from the men themselves rather than from their partners, as had been the practice up to that point.
These large national datasets are not without limitations, however. They don’t have in-depth measures of fathering behaviors or collect observational data on father–child interactions that give us the “love story.” They collect information about the frequency of behavior, but not about quality of behaviors. Nevertheless, these datasets are widely used today and underpin much of the research that policymakers use to guide their programs and policies, as they enable researchers to generalize findings to the population level.
The limitation of these datasets was somewhat offset by the proliferation of small-scale studies that collected in-depth observational data – the gold standard in this type of developmental research – about father–child relationships (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Brooks-Gunn, Moore, West, Boller, Tamis-LeMonda, Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera2002). Although findings from small-scale studies are difficult to generalize to broader populations, they can facilitate the telling of the “love story” more comprehensively when used in the context of national data. Some new insights include the findings that that some fathers’ parenting behaviors are the same as mothers’, others are different from mothers’, and still others are complementary to mothers’ (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley and Roggman2014). The most insightful revelation is that fathers matter in different ways, and perhaps for different outcomes, at different points along children’s developmental journeys. Importantly, there is now some evidence that the relationship between fathers and children is important and may be protective against risk and adversity in children’s lives (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, Reference Cabrera and Tamis-LeMonda2014; Lamb, Reference Lamb2010).
1.4 Caveats: What This Book Does Not Cover
There are several caveats that should be kept in mind when reading this book. First, the reader will notice a lack of balance in the coverage of certain topics. This imbalance reflects the availability of research rather than the importance of the topic. In this way, it mirrors the biases, beliefs, and norms of the research community. For instance, in terms of children’s outcomes there is more research conducted on social adaptation in younger children than older, especially when considering the role of the fathers. In comparison, there is little information about the relationship between fathers and adolescents or fathers and emerging adults.
Second, we take for granted that fathering and fatherhood unfold in a network of relationships with significant others, which are embedded in dynamic ecological systems that have reciprocal influence on fathers and children (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979; Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley and Roggman2014). From this perspective, fathers’ behaviors, including parenting practices, are conditioned on their own past histories, biology, and current social and economic circumstances that include multiple contexts such as work, neighborhood, and community. In other words, everything matters to some degree. It would be impossible to do justice to all these forces to understand how fathers matter for children. Some of the studies on how money and love matter for children that we include in this book control for these contextual factors to isolate the effects of love and money, net of additional factors, but others do not. We have pointed this out whenever possible. Our focus on “love and money” should not be taken to mean that nothing else matters. Instead, the focus on these two aspects of parenting reflects the public policies and social preoccupations that dichotomize fathers’ influences into these two domains.
Third, we also acknowledge that the parent–child relationship and how parents and children influence each other involve more than attachment bonds. Parenting is dynamic and complex: it involves major decisions (e.g., what college to attend), minor ones (e.g., what to have for dinner), and everything in between. The parent–child relationship is made up of the day-to-day parenting behaviors, feelings, and decisions and is determined by multiple factors, ranging from biological to cultural, social, and economic, that vary and interact with each other along the life span. Moreover, these aspects of parenting have been investigated using a variety of theories, including self-determination and social learning theory. These topics are not covered here because they are not commonly investigated in fatherhood research.
1.5 Conclusion: Both Money and Love Matter
In this book, we bring the economic and developmental perspectives to answer one critical question: Why do fathers matter for children? Fathers, like all parents, are emotionally and financially invested in their children’s well-being and development. Most fathers view fatherhood as requiring not just financial support, but also emotional and long-lasting commitment to their children. Thus, treating fathers primarily as financial providers (and mothers primarily as nurturers) does not align with the realities of children and their caregivers. Moreover, research on fathers has shown that fathers’ emotional contribution to children’s development is unique and independent from mothers’ contributions (Cabrera et al., Reference Cabrera, Shannon and Tamis-LeMonda2007). That is, mothers and fathers are not the same, and mothers are not substitute for fathers.
We have three overarching goals for this book. First, we challenge the one-dimensional view of fathers that the economic and developmental psychology literatures have adopted: namely, that fathers are mostly providers but not nurturers, and vice versa. We also challenge the relative silence in the developmental science literature regarding the influence of having resources on fathering and child well-being and the view that children are more attached to their mothers than to their fathers. And we challenge the exclusion of parenting and developmental processes in the economic models that address the important question of how fathers (their love for their children or their money) matter for children’s development. We need theoretical perspectives that can be adopted into economic/policy research that acknowledge that children thrive when they receive financial and other kinds of support from their fathers.
Second, and relatedly, we argue that we must pay attention to how fathers’ money and love for their children are implicated in children’s welfare. Children develop optimally when they have access to financial resources from their families and spend quality time with their fathers and mothers in a variety of enjoyable and enriching activities. Consequently, policies that promote and support either the “money story” or the “love story” miss the mark as they are not optimizing resources to benefit children. We make the case that to optimize development we must support and encourage both stories.
In Chapter 1, we present a discussion of who are fathers in the US and how the money versus love story has been told about them and their impact on children’s development. In Chapter 2, we discuss the dominant theoretical perspectives drawn from economics (family investment model, family stress model) and developmental psychology (the developmental cascade model) about why money and love matter for children’s development. In Chapter 3, we review the existing literature that tests theoretical models about why money matters for children’s development, and in Chapter 4 we do the same thing for why love matters for children. Because most of the existing literature does not allow for associations between money and children’s outcomes through father’s interactions with them (love), in Chapter 5 we provide our own preliminary tests of these associations, using empirical models that integrate the three theoretical perspectives and allow for indirect effects of money on children’s outcomes through father’s and mother’s engagement with children’s learning activities. We test these models separately for resident and stably nonresident families using samples drawn from The Future of Families and Child One Well-Being Survey. In Chapter 6, we present new analysis that tests the idea that both money and love are important and that children are also active participants in their own development. These analyses were conducted specifically to address this shortcoming in the field and are meant to be preliminary and illustrative of the type of research that we need to do to really understand how fathers’ contributions of love and money help their children thrive. These tests have limitations, especially regarding the absence of measures of the quality of parental engagement with children in learning activities. Nevertheless, we hope that they can provide researchers with some guidance regarding how they might develop a more balanced view of fathers’ roles in children’s development. We also hope our test results will inform policymakers about the policies and programs that can improve children’s well-being not only by increasing the amount of money fathers provide, but also by engaging them more effectively in children’s early development.
In our concluding chapters we review the status of policies that affect the financial and emotional support resident and nonresident fathers provide for their children (Chapter 7) and make recommendations for changes based upon our findings about the effects of money and love on young children’s well-being (Chapter 8).
