Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship: Mechanisms and Developmental Outcomes

Abstract

The aim of this article is to propose a theorization of the father‐child relationship based on our current understanding of attachment, interactions between fathers and their young children, and human‐specific adaptations. The comparison of mother‐child and father‐child interactions suggests that fathers play a particularly important role in the development of children’s openness to the world. Men seem to have a tendency to excite, surprise, and momentarily destabilize children; they also tend to encourage children to take risks, while at the same time ensuring the latter’s safety and security, thus permitting children to learn to be braver in unfamiliar situations, as well as to stand up for themselves. But this dynamic can only be effective in the context of an emotional bond between father and child; this relationship is termed the father‐child activation relationship, in contrast to the mother‐child attachment relationship aimed at calming and comforting children in times of stress. The activation relationship is developed primarily through physical play. It is postulated, in particular, that father‐child rough‐and‐tumble play encourages obedience and the development of competition skills in children.

Full text

Fax + 41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com
Ó2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
0018–716X/04/0474–0193$21.00/0
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/hde
D. Paquette, Institut de recherche pour le développement
social des jeunes, Centre jeunesse de Montréal
1001 de Maisonneuve Est, Montréal, H2L 4R5 (Canada)
Tel. +1 514 896 3493, Fax +1 514 896 3400
E-Mail dpaquette@mtl.centresjeunesse.qc.ca
Paper
Human Development 2004;47:193–219
DOI: 10.1159/000078723
Theorizing the Father-Child
Relationship: Mechanisms and
Developmental Outcomes
Daniel Paquette
Centre jeunesse de Montréal, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
Key Words
Activation ` Attachment ` Competition ` Father ` Rough-and-tumble play
Abstract
The aim of this article is to propose a theorization of the father-child rela-
tionship based on our current understanding of attachment, interactions be-
tween fathers and their young children, and human-specific adaptations. The
comparison of mother-child and father-child interactions suggests that fathers
play a particularly important role in the development of children’s openness to
the world. Men seem to have a tendency to excite, surprise, and momentarily
destabilize children; they also tend to encourage children to take risks, while at
the same time ensuring the latter’s safety and security, thus permitting children
to learn to be braver in unfamiliar situations, as well as to stand up for them-
selves. But this dynamic can only be effective in the context of an emotional
bond between father and child; this relationship is termed the
father-child acti-
vation relationship,
in contrast to the mother-child attachment relationship
aimed at calming and comforting children in times of stress. The activation rela-
tionship is developed primarily through physical play. It is postulated, in particu-
lar, that father-child rough-and-tumble play encourages obedience and the de-
velopment of competition skills in children.
In many cultures, fathers give very little or no direct care to children [Hewlett,
2000]. However, they generally assume an important provider role as well as vari-
ous responsibilities related to the child’s adaptation to the physical and social envi-
ronment, depending on the culture. The aim of this paper is to explore the biologi-
Copyright © 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

194 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
cal necessity of fatherhood, independent of the fact that paternal roles are more
culturally variable than maternal roles. Thus, in the first part of the article, an evo-
lutionist perspective of adaptation with regard to fathers will be put forth, consider-
ing current knowledge of both human and non-human primates. In the second part,
a number of indicators of the importance of paternal authority in past and present
Western societies will be described. In the third part, comparisons of fathers and
mothers in studies of parent-child interaction will serve as the focus, so as to illus-
trate the paternal function of fostering openness to the outside world in children.
Finally, a theorization of the father-child attachment relationship will be presented,
illustrating the father-child activation relationship by presenting the mechanism of
rough-and-tumble play and its potential effects on the child’s acquisition of social
competencies, specifically competition skills.
Mating and Parenting in Human and Nonhuman Primates
In the wild, most nonhuman male primates have little contact with youngsters
[Biben & Suomi, 1993]. There seems to be a relation between paternal involve-
ment, sexual dimorphism, and mating systems in primates as in other mammals
[see Hamilton III, 1984]. Polygynous species (the most frequent species-type
among mammals) are characterized by pronounced sexual dimorphism, with males
being bigger and more aggressive than females (e.g. baboons). This dimorphism
can be explained by strong competition among males for exclusive access to fe-
males, and also by the fact that females choose males with the most potential
[Barash, 1982; Fedigan, 1982]. Polygynous primate males generally provide no
paternal care, being either indifferent to youngsters or aggressive toward pre-
pubescent youngsters; they do however protect their group of females. In promiscu-
ous species (e.g. macaques and chimpanzees), both males and females engage in
sexual relations with many partners, but dominant males have priority of access to
females. Here too we observe a sexual dimorphism favoring the males, but it is less
pronounced than in polygynous species. Males are tolerant of youngsters in the
group, and may sometimes play with them, but provide no paternal care. Finally,
while the vast majority of bird species are monogamous, there are few monoga-
mous primate species. Nonhuman monogamous primate species (e.g. siamangs,
titis) show little or no sexual dimorphism with respect to size or aggressiveness.
Moreover, males provide intensive parental care [Mehlman, 1988]. Monogamy in
animals is observed essentially in difficult environmental conditions requiring a
sizable investment by both parents to ensure the survival of offspring [Wilson,
1975].
What about humans? Humans live longer than other primates, and are also
dependent on their parents for longer as children. Large brain size and a prolonged
development period (requiring a high degree of parental investment) allow humans
to learn the great number of things necessary to their adaptation to an environment
which has become increasingly complex over the course of history [MacDonald,
1993]. As a result of humans having developed a high degree of flexibility in their
responses to environmental variation through natural selection, modes of mating
and parental investment differ according to culture.

Father-Child Relationship 195 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Humans are close phylogenetic relatives of chimpanzees. Our common ances-
tor was probably a promiscuous species, even if, according to Murdock’s [1967]
highly exhaustive survey, under favorable demographic and socio-economic condi-
tions, 85% of human societies tend towards a polygynous form of union. Humans
are also sexually dimorphic with respect to size, strength and aggressiveness. On
average, men are taller, stronger and more aggressive than women. With regard to
behavior, dimorphism appears during the early stages of human ontogenesis. Sex
differences are observed during infancy, with males being more active [Campbell
& Eaton, 1999] and females more verbal [Yogman, 1994]. By preschool age, be-
sides being more active than girls, boys also begin to display more physical aggres-
sion and a greater tendency to dominate their peers, and are more impulsive, de-
manding and adventurous [Block, 1983; Coie & Dodge, 1997]. Physical aggression
is the most consistent and most widely documented cross-cultural sex difference
[Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974], with girls engaging in more indirect aggression, isola-
tion and crying [Sanchez-Martin et al., 2000]. Dimorphism regarding size and
strength, however, occurs towards the onset of puberty.
In addition to an ancient human tendency towards polygyny or promiscuity,
many anatomical and physiological characteristics would seem to support the hy-
pothesis of a recent evolutionary trend towards monogamy [see Lévy & Baruffaldi,
1991], independent of the social imposition of monogamy that has occurred since
the Roman Empire [Taub & Mehlman, 1991]. Fossils show sexual size dimorphism
to be less pronounced in humans today than it was in our hominoid ancestors
[McHenry, 1996]. Further, relative testicle size in primates is generally related to
the number of potential sexual partners, and of all current primate species, the hu-
man male has the smallest testicles [Campbell, 1985]. Moreover, human beings
differ from other primate species with respect to the relative importance of sexual-
ity. Indeed, many human characteristics are related to the establishment of continu-
ous sexual activity [Hamilton III, 1984] and are interpreted by sociobiologists as
evolutionary strategies to induce the male to stay with the female for as long as
possible [Alexander & Noonan, 1979], so that he will bond with her, and eventually
become involved on both a conjugal and a parental level.
Another selective pressure that has played an important role in this recent ten-
dency towards monogamy and hence paternal investment is related to the phenome-
non of neoteny [Lovejoy, 1981]. Neoteny is the conservation of juvenile character-
istics in adulthood. Resemblance of the human adult male skull with that of the
young male chimpanzee shows a reduction in the growth rate of the human brain
over the course of human evolution. The juvenilization of the brain of our ancestors
made possible an extraordinary increase in its volume. Due to the difficulty of
childbirth, natural selection would have favored women who gave birth prema-
turely [Fisher, 1983; Shepher, 1978]. Thus, the brain of the human baby is not com-
pletely developed at birth and continues to develop during the first year of life. Fur-
thermore, human babies are less physically developed, more vulnerable, and there-
fore, more dependent on their mothers than other primate babies. This need for a
greater maternal investment in caregiving, which would leave the mother less time
to find food, would in turn act as a selective pressure for greater paternal invest-
ment, at least with regard to protection from predators and the provision of food
(especially game) necessary to the survival of the mother-child dyad [Benshoff &
Thornhill, 1979; Ellis, 1992]. This division of labor would increase the reproduc-

196 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
tive success of the human species by enhancing children’s chances of survival,
while reducing mortality and the lapse of time between births (one to two years for
humans versus five to six years for chimpanzees). Thus, the human species has
evolved along a unique and highly complex path that distinguishes it from other
primates. An increased need for parental care would account for the type of indirect
male parental contribution found in humans but not in other primates [Mehlman,
1988], permitting women to have many young children at the same time [Lancaster
& Lancaster, 1987]. According to evolutionary biology, fathers have two means of
directly promoting reproductive fitness: the quantity reproductive strategy consist-
ing of increasing mating efforts with various partners in order to have more chil-
dren, and the quality reproductive strategy consisting of investing in parenting in
order to increase the chances of one’s offspring surviving long enough to have chil-
dren of their own [see Josephson, 2002]. The children of polygynous men would
seem to have a somewhat lower rate of survivorship than the children of monoga-
mous men, and polygynous women would seem to have fewer children on average
than monogamous women [see Josephson, 2002].
The notion of parental investment introduced by sociobiologists is very inter-
esting, for it includes the notion of parental involvement or direct interaction with
children (caregiving, proximity, protection, education, feeding, etc.) as well as
more indirect contributions (maintenance of the home, provision of resources,
socio-emotional support of the mother, etc.) which may have a non-negligible in-
fluence on the health and development of children. The literature supports the no-
tion that paternal provisioning permitted the improvement in child physical health
and the reduction of child mortality risks in pre-industrial and industrializing
Europe as well as the United States, and plays the same role in developing nations
today [Geary, 2000].
The Importance of Paternal Authority
Now that we have touched on the possible importance of paternal provisioning
over the course of human evolution, let us examine whether fathers play specific,
more direct roles with children. In general, biological relatedness accounts for pa-
ternal involvement with children [Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002]. Given that
the vast majority of studies on paternal involvement have been conducted in West-
ern societies, let us focus for the moment on the latter. It would appear that biologi-
cal fathers in our societies tend to be warmer and to monitor their children more
carefully than stepfathers or mothers’ boyfriends [Hofferth, Stueve, Pleck, Bianchi
& Sayer, 2002], with stepfathers tending to be more authoritarian, and boyfriends
more permissive.
Until recently in Western societies, the parental roles of the father and the
mother were entirely distinct: the mother provided care and tenderness while the
father represented authority and discipline [Bourçois, 1993]. The massive entry
of women into the workforce and the important changes in family structure that
have occurred since the 1970s have transformed parental roles. Surveys have
shown that, over the course of the 1990s, the sharing of caregiving-related tasks
in two-parent families became customary for a large number of families in certain
socio-demographic categories. The new nurturant father continues to enforce au-

Father-Child Relationship 197 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
thority, while both mother and father tend to share in emotional support, monitor-
ing and discipline of children as well as in parent-child play [Hofferth et al.,
2002].
We do not as yet know much of the effects of these new family structures on
child development. One of the consequences of these transformations in family
structure is the absence or intermittent presence of the father which, combined with
a tendency towards the standardization of parenting practices, and the parental per-
missiveness which most likely developed in reaction to the excessive parental au-
thority in families of yesteryear, may at least partially explain the increase in social
adaptation problems among children, especially boys. Indeed, externalizing behav-
iors, school drop out, substance addiction and suicide are far more prevalent prob-
lems among boys than girls [Dumas, 1999]. Externalizing behaviors, consisting on
the one hand of attention disorders and hyperactivity, and on the other, of so-called
anti-social behaviors such as aggressive behavior, theft, failure to respect rules,
impulsivity, opposition, lying, and vandalism, are indications of a young person’s
lack of control over his or her emotions [Kazdin, 1987]. Parenting practices are
among the primary precursors of externalizing behaviors in school-age children
[see Shaw & Vondra, 1995]. Externalizing behaviors are as closely associated with
a lack of disciplinary rules as with the use of coercive and abusive disciplinary
practices [Greenberg, Speltz & DeKlyen, 1993; Rubin, Stewart & Chen, 1995].
Indeed, parents who are too lax are more likely to engage in coercive cycles of in-
teraction [Shaw & Bell, 1993]. It is especially difficult for single mothers, for ex-
ample, to maintain consistent discipline, especially under stressful and impover-
ished conditions.
A number of studies in the past suggested a relation between paternal absence
in single-parent families and behavioral difficulties in children. Girls growing up in
homes from which the father is absent have been found to tend to display internal-
izing behaviors, while boys have a tendency to develop externalizing behaviors, be
less popular and more reluctant to engage in rough play [see Parke et al., 2002].
However, these studies were not able to distinguish between the effects of the lack
of significant father-child relationship and the co-occurring effects of a reduction in
family revenues and an increase in stress subsequent to parental separation
[McLanahan, 1997]. More recently, Amato and Rezac [1994] have demonstrated
that boys from single-parent families who continue to have contact with their fa-
thers have fewer behavioral problems than those who have no contact with their
fathers. Coley [1998] has shown that a certain degree of parental control by a father
figure (whether he is the child’s biological father or not) is a predictor of fewer
behavioral difficulties at school and more pro-social behaviors towards peers. Other
research has shown that paternal antisocial personality is more highly correlated to
externalizing problems in children, especially boys, than to internalizing problems
[Phares & Compas, 1993]. Fathers who recalled an early attachment relationship
with their parents characterized as ‘low’ in the expression of love and ‘high’ in the
expression of anger have children who tend to be rated as more externalizing in
kindergarten [Cowan, Cohn, Cowan & Pearson, 1996]. Jaffee’s [2002] study with
1,116 five-year-old twins and their parents demonstrated the antisocial personality
of the father (and not the mother) to be a predictor of child behavioral difficulties,
even after controlling for genetic factors, especially when the antisocial father lives
with his children. In short, while the father’s absence affects the child’s social de-

198 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
velopment, the study of the quality of the father-child relationship is a more prom-
ising means of explaining why fathers exert authority over boys more easily than
do mothers.
The impact of mothers on child development has been the topic of a great deal
of study over the past fifty years. The models and methods developed for studying
the mother-child relationship have also been applied to fathers, and indicate that
fathers also contribute to the cognitive and emotional development of children [see
Lamb, 1996]; however, little is known about the specific contribution of fathers to
children’s social competence [Parke et al., 2002]. Growing numbers of researchers
now believe that it is essential to develop theories and methods specific to fathers.
This might contribute to overcoming the well-known difficulty in eliciting paternal
involvement in both research projects and intervention with children and adoles-
cents experiencing social adaptation-related problems.
The Function of Opening Children to the Outside World
There are data supporting the idea that the different parental roles played by
the father, including that of authority figure [see Le Camus, 2000], are part of a
more general function, that of opening the child to the world. This function of
opening children to the outside world is an integral part of the psychoanalytical
model. According to the tenets of this approach, in introducing the child to the so-
cial world, the father enables the child to separate from the mother, mediating the
child’s transition away from a fusional relationship with the mother. The paternal
function of opening children to the world assumes its full importance in light of the
complexity of the social world of the human species, and the numerous lessons
human children must learn in order to adapt to their environment, especially given
that their mothers, in the past at least, could be quite busy caring for their numerous
offspring. However, I would posit that this mother-child separation might be no
more than a secondary effect of the opening of children to the world, which fathers,
in my opinion, simply facilitate, with children being naturally driven towards ever-
increasing autonomy (it should be remembered that young monkeys generally be-
come autonomous without paternal intervention).
The first studies comparing father-child and mother-child interaction involved
infants. They demonstrated that if the behavior of fathers is often less sensitive than
that of mothers, both fathers and mothers are able to respond to infants’ signals,
and to interact and communicate competently with their babies [Parke & O’Leary,
1976; Pedersen, 1980; Yogman, 1981]. An important difference is that fathers tend
to try to excite their children whereas mothers try to contain them [Dixon, Yogman,
Tronick, Adamson & Brazelton, 1981]. Moreover, fathers have a tendency to en-
gage infants in non object-mediated interaction that is both physical and stimulat-
ing, as well as in unpredictable or idiosyncratic play, while mothers tend to be more
didactic and verbal with infants and engage primarily in visual object-centered play
so as to attract and keep their babies’ attention [Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Yogman,
1981, 1982; Power & Parke, 1983]. Fathers are also more physical than mothers
with preschool age children [MacDonald & Parke, 1986].
One of the most interesting results of empirical studies on paternal involve-
ment has to demonstrate that fathers are generally less involved than mothers in all

Father-Child Relationship 199 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
aspects of parenting with the exception of physical play. Mothers spend more time
than fathers with their infants, but the time devoted to physical play in relation to
other activities is proportionally more important for fathers [Bronstein, 1984;
Keyes & Scoblic, 1982; Russell & Russell, 1987]. Also, from the first to the tenth
year of their children’s lives, fathers engage more frequently than mothers in vigor-
ous physical play, with mothers engaging primarily in cognitive object-mediated
play and role-playing [Crawley & Sherrod, 1984; MacDonald & Parke, 1986]. Fa-
thers engage in more physical play with their sons than with their daughters
[Jacklin, DiPietro & Maccoby, 1984], whereas mothers encourage the pretend play
of daughters more than that of sons [Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991]. Mothers
are primarily perceived by children as sources of well-being and security, while
fathers are the preferred playmates, particularly by boys [Lamb, 1997].
Labrell’s [1996, 1997] research reveals that, in play involving toys, fathers use
objects as a pretext for physical contact with children and propose more unconven-
tional games than mothers; for example, fathers often use objects in an incongruous
way, i.e. not accordingly to everyday usage patterns. Moreover, during physical
play, fathers use teasing to destabilize children both emotionally and cognitively.
As pointed out by Labrell [1996], both irregularities and regularities are important
to cognitive development, and children need to learn to deal with unexpected
events. According to Le Camus [1995a], the need of children to be stimulated,
pushed and encouraged to take risks is as great as their need for stability and secu-
rity. Comparing the interactions of fathers and mothers with their one-year-old off-
spring during infant swimming classes, Le Camus [1995b] showed that fathers tend
to stand behind their children so the children face their social environment, whereas
mothers tend to position themselves in front of their children, seeking to establish
visual contact with the children, who in turn are constantly looking at the other
parent-child dyads. Moreover, fathers act as catalysts for risk-taking [Kromelow,
Harding & Touris, 1990], inciting children to take initiative in unfamiliar situa-
tions, explore, take chances, overcome obstacles, be braver in the presence of
strangers, and stand up for themselves. In other words, fathers seem to play an es-
sential role in the empowerment of children and the opening of children to the out-
side world [Le Camus, 1995a].
This function of opening children to the world is also mediated by language.
Fathers have a tendency to use more unfamiliar words with young children than
mothers [Ratner, 1988], and to ask for clarification more often, inciting children to
reformulate their thoughts in order to be understood by social partners other than
their mothers [Tomasello, Conti-Ramsden & Ewert, 1990]. Fathers also make more
problem-solving related demands than mothers, who tend to solve problems in
place of their children [Labrell, 1992]. Finally, fathers make more action-related
demands regarding the accomplishment of tasks than mothers, while the verbaliza-
tions of mothers concern primarily emotion-related contents [Marcos, 1995].
While a relative lack of differentiation in parental roles would appear to be the
more socially desirable model, the work of researchers in Toulouse, France sug-
gests that the family structure that is most favorable to the socio-affective develop-
ment of young children is one in which both parents are involved from the early
stages, but with differentiated fields of activity involving clearly polarized maternal
and paternal functions. Le Camus, de Léonardis and Lescarret [1989] have con-
cluded from their study that, in comparison to single-parent children, dual-parent

200 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
children tend to be more mobile, active and autonomous, and have a more elaborate
sociality both in terms of competition and collaboration. More recently, Bourçois
[1997] has shown that, in dual-parent families, children from involved and differen-
tiated parents (with distinct functions such as caregiver versus playmate) present a
more highly developed sociality (are more interactive, more involved and more
open with playmates), and are better prepared for both competition and cooperation
than those with involved but undifferentiated parents. Finally, according to Ricaud
[1998], as compared to children of differentiated fathers with little involvement in
parenting, and children of two involved, undifferentiated parents, children of in-
volved and differentiated parents have fewer conflicts with peers, fewer aggressive
interactions and more affiliative interactions, primarily exercising mutual agree-
ment to resolve conflicts, and employing the dissuasive effects of speech rather
than physical violence. These results reveal the possibility that the paternal function
of opening children to the world may still be as much a reality today as in the past,
even where fathers and mothers tend to accomplish the same educational tasks [see
Ricaud, 1998]. It should be noted that children necessarily have different experi-
ences with their mothers than with their fathers, for the physical and psychological
differences between the two parents are greater than those between two individuals
of same sex: mothers and fathers do not have the same odor, voice, face, or muscle
tone, and do not give out the same messages [Le Camus, 1995a]. These differences
in parental input provide a wealth of experiences for children, and more studies
involving a systemic family approach should be undertaken in order to gain a better
understanding of the complementarity of maternal and paternal contributions.
Parent-Child Attachment
Mother-Child Attachment
In order to better understand the pathogenic effects on children’s mental health
of a lack of maternal care due to early and prolonged separation, Bowlby [1969]
looked to the experimental work of ethologists with non-human primates [e.g. Har-
low & Zimmerman, 1959]. Their studies revealed that the search for comforting
physical contact is independent of feeding needs (breastfeeding) and necessary to
future social development. The emotional bond between a mother and her child
promotes physical proximity between the two thus ensuring the care and protection
of the child. Mother-child attachment is essential to the survival of young mammals
in early life, especially in non-precocious species such as primates whose motor
and perceptual abilities are not fully developed at birth and continue to develop
slowly during infancy [Petrovich & Gewirtz, 1991].
Four major predictions of attachment theory have been verified by a number of
studies over the past twenty-five years using the well-known Strange Situation Pro-
cedure (SSP) to assess the quality of children’s attachment between the ages of 12
and 18 months [Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969]. First, mothers who are sensitive to
their children’s signals and respond to them in appropriate and contingent ways
provide the basis for a secure mother-child relationship [Ainsworth, 1984; Isabella
& Belsky, 1991; Smith & Pederson, 1988]. Second, infants who have secure rela-
tionships with their mothers tend to explore their environments more than insecure

Father-Child Relationship 201 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
children, and subsequently develop better social competencies at preschool and
school age [Jacobson & Wille, 1986; LaFrenière & Sroufe, 1985; Renken, Egeland,
Marvinney, Mangelsdorf & Sroufe, 1989]. Third, mother-child attachment is rela-
tively stable. Prospective studies found a correspondence of 64–75% between in-
fant attachment and adult attachment 20 years later [Waters, Crowell, Treboux,
Merrick & Albersheim, 1995]. Finally, there would seem to be an intergenerational
transmission of attachment from mother to child. Studies have shown a correspon-
dence of 68–80% between mothers’ classifications [with the AAI: George, Kaplan
& Main, 1985] and those of their children [Benoit & Parker, 1994; Ward & Carl-
son, 1995].
Father-Child Attachment
Attachment theory proposes a hierarchical model of attachment figures in
which the mother is the main figure, and a differential influence is attributed to
each figure [Main & Weston, 1981; Lamb, 2002]. In fact, young children are bio-
logically predisposed to develop a specific attachment to stable individuals in their
immediate environment [Grossmann & Grossmann, 1998]. Babies become attached
to both their fathers and their mothers at approximately the same time during the
first year of their lives, although most of them show a preference for their mothers,
as evidenced by their separation anxiety [see Lamb, 1997]. On the other hand, ac-
cording to Lamb [1977a, b], boys start to show a clear preference for interaction
with their fathers during the second year of life, whereas girls show no consistent
preference for either parent.
Over the years, researchers have demonstrated Strange Situation classifica-
tions obtained with mothers and fathers to be independent of each other [van IJzen-
doorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996], suggesting that children may develop a
different type of attachment with each of their parents. These results have been seen
as confirmation that attachment is a factor of the parent-child relationship and of
the specific history of the child’s interaction with a particular adult. On the other
hand, the stability and intergenerational transmission of father-child attachment
have been shown to be very weak as compared to mother-child attachment [van
IJzendoorn, 1995]. Finally, studies have shown a lack of prediction by infant-father
attachment (as evaluated by the SSP or the Q-sort) of subsequent behavior in pre-
school children [Suess, Grossmann & Sroufe, 1992; Youngblade, Park & Belsky,
1993].
In light of these results, and taking into account the fact that the SSP was de-
veloped and validated in the context of the mother-child relationship [see van
IJzendoorn, 1995], some researchers question the appropriateness of using this pro-
cedure to evaluate the quality of children’s attachment relationships with their fa-
thers [Grossmann & Grossmann, 1998]. The emphasis placed on the mother in the
basic model is so great that, until now, there has been very little exploration of pa-
ternal roles. It is essential that we now either adapt the SSP to the context of the
father-child relationship or explore other types of measures that take into account
parental roles specific to fathers. According to Grossmann and Grossmann [1998],
it seems necessary to use a method other than the SSP, places greater emphasis on
the exploration/attachment balance, to assess the quality of father-child attachment.

202 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
In addition, Dubeau and Moss [1998] have shown no association between the inter-
active characteristics of fathers and the security of father-child attachment as evalu-
ated using the Waters and Deane’s [1985] Q-sort, an alternative to the SSP. The
problem lies in identifying the theoretical premises that could provide the basis for
such a procedure and permit the generation of predictions regarding direct paternal
influence on the child’s social and emotional development, instead of viewing the
father simply as a second mother or, indirectly, as a support to the mother. Lamb
[2000], for example, has suggested that attachment theory should be developed
further by taking into account paternal deprivation literature, especially with regard
to boys who grow up in fatherless families. The time has come to develop a better
understanding of the pathogenic effects not only of paternal absence, but also of
poor quality father-child interactions.
The Father-Child Activation Relationship
As we have seen, where there is positive interaction between father and child,
an emotional bond develops as early as infancy. Also, fathers seem to prefer excit-
ing activities for children whereas mothers seem to favor quiet activities, and in-
fants respond to fathers with more excitement than to mothers when the fathers
develop heightened, arousing, and playful relationships with them [Yogman, 1994].
It would also seem that fathers change diapers, wash and feed babies in the same
vigorous, exciting manner they engage in face-to-face play with their children,
whether as primary or secondary caregivers [Yogman, 1994]. Several researchers
have proposed the concepts of phasic dialogue (versus tonic dialogue with the
mother: Le Camus, 1995a) and disruptive harmony (versus homeostatic harmony:
Herzog, 1992) to underscore the dynamic and transitory aspects of paternal behav-
ior. It would thus appear extremely important that the effects of the qualitative dif-
ference of father-child contact on child development be studied.
In reference to Bowlby’s [1969] attachment theory, I would suggest employing
the term ‘activation relationship’ to designate the attachment bond that fosters chil-
dren’s opening to the world. As the term ‘attachment’ currently has strong associa-
tions with the notion of the child’s confidence in the parent’s response to the
child’s basic needs, particularly the need to be reassured in stressful situations, it
would seem more appropriate to use a different term to describe the father-child
relationship. As opposed to the mother-child attachment relationship, which per-
mits the child to be calmed, the ‘father-child activation relationship’ satisfies the
child’s need to be stimulated, to overcome limits, and to learn to take chances in
contexts in which the child is confident of being protected from potential dangers.
Infants may be predisposed to seek an appropriate balance of both arousing and
well-modulated experiences [Yogman, 1994]. In the same way that children use
signals to maintain proximity and receive care from adults, they also seek out in-
tense stimulation and prompt both men and women to provide such stimulation in
non-stressful contexts, although they receive it primarily from men.
Attachment theory views attachment and exploration as two different and
complementary systems. Attachment ensures proximity between children and at-
tachment figures, and hence protection, while exploration ensures acquisition of
environmental knowledge and adaptation to variations in the environment

Father-Child Relationship 203 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
[Ainsworth, 1972; Bowlby, 1969]. According to attachment theory, openness to the
outside world is highly dependent on the quality of attachment [Grossmann &
Grossmann, 1998]. Exploration of the environment is possible when the child’s
needs have been met by the primary caregiver [Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall,
1978; Bowlby, 1969]. Mothers and fathers alike encourage children to explore their
environments. Most differences between mothers and fathers are not great: both
parents encourage visual exploration, object manipulation, and attention to relations
between objects, and cause and effect [Power, 1985; Teti, Bond & Gibbs 1988], but
fathers do so differently from mothers.
The father’s activation function goes far beyond the socializing function attrib-
uted to fathers by some ethologically oriented theorists [see Palmer, 1993], for it
involves the exploration of the physical as well as the social environment. In a high
quality activation relationship, the child would learn to trust his or her own ability
to deal with threats and strangeness in the physical and social environment, as the
father would encourage his child to take ever greater risks while ensuring that ex-
ploration was conducted in a secure context, i.e. protecting the child by imposing
disciplinary limits. Yogman [1994] suggests that fathers may play both an indirect
and a direct role in their children’s lives: an indirect role via the emotional and
physical support given to their children’s mothers during stressful periods; and a
direct role in their children’s development with respect to exploration and auton-
omy, beginning as early as the second year of life during non-stressful periods. The
term ‘activation’ may also be understood to refer to the triggering of emotional
arousal mechanisms stimulated by exposure to new experiences, or strangeness –
an essential step in the development of social competencies [see Carson, Burks &
Parke, 1993].
Lamb, Pleck, Charnov and Levine [1985] submit that physical father-child
play contributes to the development of children’s attachment to their fathers.
Mother-child attachment is developed primarily in a caregiving context, but while
the activation relationship could theoretically develop in various parental contexts,
it is quite possible that father-child attachment is developed primarily through
physical play. The high intensity of physical play could account for children devel-
oping strong bonds with their fathers even in situations when the father is less pre-
sent than the mother. In fact, the greater consistency in infant-parent affect during
play as opposed to feeding suggests that infants and parents may be more affec-
tively ‘tuned in’ to one another in a play context [Palmer, 1993]. According to
Schwartzman [1986], children do not necessarily need extensive amounts of play-
time in order to benefit from the activity. The quality of parent-child interaction is
more important than the quantity of involvement; this may be even truer for fathers
or adults who engage in physical play with their children [see Parke, 2000].
Hitherto, play has been studied primarily in the aim of understanding cognitive
child development [see Labrell, 1996]. Most studies on the topic deal with the on-
togeny of symbolic play with parents [see Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1995] and
sensori-motor exploration or play [see Ruff & Saltarelli, 1993] during infancy. Par-
ents and children have generally been invited to play freely together in the presence
of toys, a context which seems to have encouraged primarily maternal types of play
such as make-believe [Power, 1985]. According to Frascarolo [1997], a toyless play
situation, as opposed to the usual free play situation, would have revealed sooner
and more clearly the propensity of fathers for physical play. There has been little

204 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
research on physical parent-child play. Here, we understand the term ‘physical
play’ to include such well-known forms of play involving parent-child physical
contact as bouncing the child on the parent’s knee, playing ‘horsy,’ tickling, play-
fighting once the child is of preschool age, and so forth.
Parent-child interaction synchrony is an important antecedent to attachment
and is also an important element of physical play [Kerns & Barth, 1995]. Few
studies have examined the effects of parental sensitivity on father-infant attach-
ment security. Parental sensitivity may be different in a play context from a care-
giving context. Kerns and Barth [1995] have shown that in secure dyads fathers
use a more directive style during physical play than in insecure dyads, whereas
maternal attachment was not shown to be related to any of the measures of play
quality. Grossmann [1997] clearly illustrated the ‘paternal challenging sensitivity’
in a play situation with 2-year-old children. This way of encouraging children’s
exploration skills was shown to be stable over time, with no correlation to father-
child SSP, but tied to the attachment representations of both fathers and their chil-
dren at age 16 as evaluated using the AAI [Grossmann et al., 2002]. These results
support the hypothesis that fathers may provide more support during the explora-
tory play of toddlers whereas mothers may provide more comfort when children
are in distress.
Parent-child attachment may develop through different dimensions of parental
behavior, paternal or maternal, depending on environmental conditions. Neverthe-
less, on average, men display a greater tendency to engage in physical play with
children whereas women display a greater tendency to engage in caregiving or
cognitive play. Studies conducted in various European and North American coun-
tries demonstrate that fathers are more likely to play with infants than to feed or
clean them despite greater task-sharing than in the past [Lamb, 2002]. Distinctive
maternal and paternal styles are highly tenacious even when the father is very in-
volved in caregiving: fathers who are the primary caregiver nevertheless engage in
more play than mothers [see Lamb, 2002]. Fathers who are more involved in care-
giving and mothers who have paid employment do not alter their typical paternal
or maternal styles of play [Field, 1978; Stuckey, McGhee & Bell, 1982]. Field et
al. [1984] have shown that while working mothers play more with their infants
than fathers, they tend to engage in face-to-face play. Hossain and Roopnarine
[1994] have shown that African-American fathers spend more time playing with
than caring for their children despite an equitable division of caregiving responsi-
bilities.
According to Ainsworth [1990], parents who are capable, secure bases may
not be capable playmates. It is difficult to conceive of the parent as simultaneously
assuming the roles of both comforting and destabilizing the child. Concretely, these
are opposite processes, and we can well conceive of a father-mother complementar-
ity that would be important to child development. The two mechanisms are very
closely linked. In fact, father-child activation through play may actually be depend-
ent on mother-child attachment, given that play is more likely to occur once a
child’s basic needs (hunger, thirst, security, etc.) have been satisfied [see Millar,
1968], and that responsibility for meeting basic needs generally lies with the
mother. From this perspective, children who have developed a secure attachment to
their mothers would tend to benefit more from father-child play.

Father-Child Relationship 205 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
According to the present model, the SSP appears to be an appropriate instru-
ment for assessing the quality of father-child attachment in those instances in which
the father is the primary caregiver, i.e. where he is more involved in caregiving
than in play. Kazura [2000] found a relation in dual-parent families between the
quality of attachment (as evaluated with the SSP) and joint pretend play with the
father but not with the mother, even though the fathers spent less time than the
mothers caring for and playing with the children each day: children who were se-
curely attached to their fathers exhibited higher pretend play competency than inse-
cure children. These results suggest that the SSP may be able to evaluate at least
one dimension of father-child attachment: the dimension that, via pretend play, may
permit the development of social competencies. On the other hand, it would seem
that another procedure should be used to evaluate the father-child relationship when
the father is the primary playmate.
The father-child activation relationship will be illustrated by presenting a few
predictions regarding the impact of the most frequent form of father-child physical
play after the first year, i.e. rough-and-tumble play (RTP). Of all forms of human
play, RTP is the least studied by researchers, in part because it is often perceived by
adults as being boisterous, disruptive and potentially dangerous [Panksepp, 1993].
Father-Child RTP and Developmental Outcomes
Play is characteristic of immature members of the most recent species on the
phylogenetic ladder, i.e. mammals and birds [Reynolds, 1981], but it is in primates,
and in the human species in particular, that play is most highly developed
[MacDonald, 1993] in terms of frequency, variety and complexity. Play permits the
young brain to remain flexible, enabling it to react to an immense variety of poten-
tial stimuli [MacDonald, 1993].
Parent-child physical play has been linked to motor development in children,
but we are just beginning to consider the possibility that it may also promote socio-
emotional development in children. After a review of primate RTP, the hypothetical
impact of RTP on obedience and the acquisition of competition skills in children
will be discussed.
Rough-and-Tumble Play (RTP) in Primates
Unlike the vast majority of nonhuman primates, humans engage in physical
father-child play. We know very little about parent-child RTP. It seems that at its
peak, around the age of four, parent-child RTP accounts for only approximately 8%
of interactions [Pellegrini & Smith, 1998]. Children – especially boys – prefer
physical play with either parent to any other form of play, but their pleasure seems
to be more intense during physical play with their fathers [Ross & Taylor, 1989].
Fathers spend more time and engage in more RTP-type physical play with sons
than with daughters [Carson et al., 1993; MacDonald & Parke, 1986].
On the other hand, a certain amount of research has been done on child RTP
with peers. RTP refers to vigorous behaviors, such as wrestling, grappling, kicking
and tumbling, which happen in a play context [Pellegrini & Smith, 1998]. Studies

206 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
show that child-child RTP is observable from preschool age until the beginning of
adolescence, peaking at between the ages of 8 and 10 (at roughly 10% of interac-
tions: Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Boys tend to engage in more RTP than girls in all
cultures studied [Carson et al., 1993]. This sex difference seems to appear at a very
early stage of child development and to be due to a modification of the central
nervous system caused by prenatal testosterone judging from experiments carried
out on various animals including nonhuman primates [Goy, 1978; Ward & Stehm,
1991]. Moreover, it is interesting to note that girls exposed to higher than usual
levels of androgens before birth (CAH: Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) are more
likely to be tomboyish, and appear more interested in RTP [Hines & Green, 1991].
Since girls with CAH begin life with rudimentary male genitalia, it is possible that
parents may unconsciously encourage more masculine play in their initially mascu-
line-appearing daughters. However, Erhardt and Meyer-Bahlburg [1981] contend
that the opposite reaction is actually more likely: parents would try harder to femi-
nize daughters who displayed physical signs of masculinization at birth. In short,
sex differences with respect to the frequency of both serious and playful aggression
would seem to be due to children’s predispositions, which are reinforced to varying
extents by parents [see Boulton & Smith, 1992].
RTP and aggression are distinct categories of behaviors [Humphreys & Smith,
1987]. According to observations made in different cultures, there is no correlation
between RTP and aggression during childhood, and it is only towards the end of
childhood that RTP may occasionally escalate into real aggression [Pellegrini,
1988]. Moreover, a positive correlation has been shown between testosterone and
serious aggression, but no correlation has been shown between testosterone and
aggression in a play context [Sanchez-Martin et al., 2000]. According to Tremblay
et al. [1998], however, testosterone is primarily correlated to dominance, as well as
to serious aggression as used to increase or maintain dominance status in early ado-
lescent boys.
RTP is a system composed of mechanisms aimed at promoting physical con-
tact between participants while preventing injuries [see Paquette, 1994]. According
to MacDonald [1993], the phylogenetically ancient RTP mechanisms are the same
in all mammals and have also been observed in human children from different cul-
tures [Boulton & Smith, 1992].
Young male primates play more often and more vigorously than females
[Chalmers, 1983], as in many mammalian species [Smith, 1982]. According to Wil-
son [1975], the higher rate of male participation in physical play is related to the
greater degree of male competition observed in mammals. Studies on animals have
clearly established a relation between play and socialization, particularly in pri-
mates [see Hughes, 1999]. In monkeys, the socialization experience is provided by
peer play. Rhesus monkeys raised by their mothers but prevented from playing with
peers were later rejected by their age-mates, and even displayed many aggressive
behaviors [Novak & Harlow, 1975]. Five main functions have been attributed to
RTP: (1) the promotion of social cohesion by the formation of social ties between
youngsters [Bekoff, 1984]; (2) the development of fighting skills [Pereira &
Altmann, 1985]; (3) the familiarization of youngsters with dominant and subordi-
nate roles [Pereira & Altmann, 1985]; (4) the mutual assessment of participants’
strength and abilities [Poirier & Smith, 1974]; and (5) the establishment and main-
tenance of dominance [Paquette, 1994]. As youngsters approach sexual maturity,

Father-Child Relationship 207 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
RTP becomes more and more asymmetrical, ultimately becoming a reflection of
aggressive interactions [Humphreys & Smith, 1987]. The results of studies with
young adolescent humans confirm their use of RTP to establish dominance
[Pellegrini & Smith, 1998].
Father-Child RTP and Child Obedience
The preschool period (two to five years of age) is marked by the child’s quest
for greater autonomy. During this period, parents usually adopt behaviors that en-
courage greater autonomy in the child, and also provide the education and supervi-
sion necessary to ensure the child’s safety and healthy socialization. Parental disci-
pline therefore plays a very important role at this stage. Studies have shown that
parents who are affectionate and able to set clear rules and limits for children en-
able the latter to develop self-confidence, become responsible, and cooperate with
adults and peers at preschool age [Baumrind, 1971], as well as to have social and
academic skills at school-age [see Hastings & Rubin, 1999]. Limits help children
feel secure, as long as they are reasonable and do not impede the development of
autonomy. It would also appear that parental control is less effective and has nega-
tive consequences on child development if it is not combined with affectionate pa-
rental involvement [see from Paquette, Bolté, Turcotte, Dubeau & Bouchard,
2000]. Parents who use a lot of control to get their children to obey and respect
authority, without taking into account their children’s needs or being affectionate,
may very well cause their children to rebel and challenge their authority. Rejected,
aggressive boys reported receiving less affection from their fathers (but not from
their mothers) than did rejected, non-aggressive, neglected boys [MacDonald &
Parke, 1984].
Fathers tend to be harder on boys or punish them more than girls [see Farver &
Wimbarti, 1995] and use a more direct verbal form of control (imperative form of
requests) instead of the suggestive or interrogative forms favored by mothers
[McLaughlin, 1983]. Because boys are more aggressive, more active, more impul-
sive, and more adventurous than girls, they take more risks and consequently have
more accidents requiring medical treatment. Thus, fathers may play a particularly
important protective role with respect to boys.
Some authors [including Frascarolo, 1997 and Ross & Herzog, 1985] have
asked whether the physical play of fathers, at least with their sons, might be the
expression of a certain form of rivalry on the part of fathers toward their sons. The
fact that fathers succeed more easily than mothers in obtaining obedience from their
sons [Lytton, 1979] may be due in part to a relationship of dominance established
through RTP.
According to scientific literature, mothers are more likely than fathers to allow
toddlers to lead, while fathers have repeatedly been found to encourage stereotypic
gender-appropriate play in both sexes [Jacklin, DiPietro & Maccoby, 1984], and
have a greater tendency to be more directive during both physical and pretend play,
especially with sons [Farver & Wimbarti, 1995; Kazura, 2000]. In fact, father-child
RTP seems to include the two main dimensions of parental behavior: warmth and
control. Warmth and control are linked to optimal child development [see Hofferth
et al., 2002]. In quality RTP, the father can in fact communicate a double message

208 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
to his child: ‘I love you’ (affective component) and ‘I am stronger than you’
(agonistic component). Consequently, quality father-child RTP should include at
least two characteristics: it should be highly pleasurable for the child, and should
involve the use of moderate control on the father’s part. For example, in RTP, the
father must be sensitive to the child’s emotional state and permit a reciprocal ex-
change of ‘dominant’ and ‘subordinate’ roles, i.e. regularly allow the child the
pleasure of being on top. In nonhuman primates, the rare males who engage in RTP
with youngsters allow the younger primates to be on top, which increases the lat-
ter’s self-confidence while also making them want to play again another time
[Biben & Suomi, 1993]. If, due to a lack of sensitivity, the father does not adjust
his level of control, the child will sense coercion and find the interaction highly
disagreeable, which will result in the termination of play. Results from Paquette et
al. [2000] have shown that physical play occurs less frequently with authoritarian
fathers, i.e. those who tend not to be very affectionate and who frequently use con-
trol (even physical punishment) to obtain obedience and respect for authority. Con-
trary to Lindsey [1997], I would suggest that it is important that the father regularly
allow his child to be on top, but not to have an equal share of power. In order to
maintain dominance and facilitate discipline, the father must let the child know
that, in any case, the father is still stronger than the child. In short, quality father-
child physical play can be expected to be indicative of sensitive paternal discipline
and to facilitate obedience in children, especially boys.
Father-Child RTP and Child Aggression and Competition
Parents often consider RTP to be a form of aggression that must be discour-
aged in children to avoid the development of social problems [see Hughes, 1999].
On the contrary, RTP is an important source of learning for children. Children who
have had more positive interactions with their fathers at age 3 have been shown to
interact more positively with peers 2 years later [Youngblade & Belsky, 1992].
Parents’ playing styles may influence their children’s ability to recognize and regu-
late emotions and/or may foster their children’s sense of self-efficacy, which in turn
may promote more positive interaction with peers. Some evidence suggests that
variations in the ability to encode and decode signals may be linked to parent-child
play [Parke, MacDonald, Beitel & Bhavnagri, 1988], and that children who experi-
ence greater difficulty in decoding emotions are less willing to engage in RTP with
peers [Pellegrini & Smith, 1998]. Father-child play may foster the development of
the ability to decode other people’s emotional states and to clearly encode one’s
own emotional signals [Carson et al., 1993]. The children of fathers who exhibit
high levels of physical play with boys and girls 3-4 years old and elicit high levels
of positive feelings during play sessions receive the highest peer popularity ratings
[MacDonald & Parke, 1984]. Recent work suggests that fathers play a much larger
role than mothers in the socialization of children’s emotions, especially in anger
regulation [see Parke et al., 2002].
MacDonald [1993] emphasizes the importance of seeing the capacity for par-
ent-child play as a developmental universal. On the one hand, due to their experi-
ence, parents are a very rich source of stimulation; they are in a better position than
siblings to facilitate more mature and varied play [Baskett & Johnson, 1982]. On

Father-Child Relationship 209 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
the other hand, early parent-child play may influence later peer play [Carson et al.,
1993]. For example, parents who use more directive and coercive play engagement
techniques have unpopular children who also tend to use more directive and physi-
cally coercive initiating styles in their play with peers [see Kerns & Barth, 1995].
Many researchers have related paternal absence [Furstenburg, Morgan & Alli-
son, 1987] as well as poor quality father-child relationships [Johnson, 1987] to the
well-known higher incidence of conduct problems (including aggression) among
boys. The higher rate of aggression in boys can be explained in part by a lack of
parental supervision [Goldstein, 1984]. It may also be explained by learning that
has not taken place. Ross and Herzog [1985] have postulated that play has a role in
the organization of aggressive impulses. Fathers teach children, particularly boys,
to modulate and contain their aggressive behaviors through RTP [Herzog, 1982], at
least between infancy and the age of six [see Simmons, 1991]. As paternal parent-
ing tends to be disruptive, in contrast to maternal parenting which is more soothing,
fathers help their children learn to modulate intense affect by increasing the inten-
sity level of RTP and then reducing it when it exceeds what their children can toler-
ate. Both mothers and fathers play roles in stimulating and inhibiting nascent ag-
gressiveness, but in the second half of their children’s second year, fathers becomes
more clearly associated with its activation [see Simmons, 1991]. We would there-
fore expect a negative correlation between the quality of father-child RTP and the
frequency of peer aggression in children (especially boys).
Fathers must avoid over- or under-stimulating their children. Families in
which children are entirely responsible for the structure of play may reflect an un-
dercontrol of offspring, whereas families in which parents decide the type and con-
tent of play regardless of their children’s input may reflect a certain parental au-
thoritarianism [Levine, 1988]. It is known that authoritarian parents (more control,
less affection) have children who are more likely to be insecure, submissive,
power-oriented in their personal relationships, and obedient to authority figures
[Peretti & Statum, 1984]. On the other hand, children of neglectful parents (less
control, less affection) tend to become extremely hostile and rebellious adolescents
who are prone to antisocial or delinquent acts [Patterson, DeBaryshe & Ramsey,
1989]. It has been demonstrated that young monkeys lacking adequate experience
in being dominant during RTP may lack assertiveness in their later social interac-
tions, or may avoid interactions [Biben & Suomi, 1993]. Furthermore, studies show
that parents of popular children engage in more physical play with their sons than
parents of rejected or neglected children [MacDonald, 1987].
To date, research has presented the attachment relationship as a mechanism for
the intergenerational mother-child transmission of a sense of security, fostering the
development of social competencies (sociability, popularity, positive social orienta-
tion, etc.). However, the competencies that have been shown to be associated with
secure mother-child attachment are primarily concerned with cooperation and shar-
ing abilities. The few studies that have been able to demonstrate an association be-
tween mother-child attachment and conduct or aggression problems have done so
only in boys [Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog & Jaskir, 1984; Renken et al., 1989]. Ac-
cording to Carson et al. [1993], early father-child RTP may be important in the
regulation of agonistic and aggressive interactions. It is important that we now
study the father-child activation relationship as a mechanism for the transmission of
self-confidence enabling children to develop another type of social competencies:

210 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
competition skills. Here, we understand competition skills to include not only
physical fighting skills, but also and especially those psychological attributes that
permit individuals to defend themselves, to face adversity and environmental
threats, a level of self-esteem that enables individuals to confront others when it is
necessary to fight for their rights. Some researchers have undertaken the study of
conflict and the ontogenesis of aggression but, as far as is known, none of them has
tried to understand the development of competition skills in preschool children, i.e.
how youngsters acquire the ability to deal with conflict and defend their ideas in a
socialized manner without resorting to aggression or avoiding problematic situa-
tions that it may not always be possible to resolve through cooperation and sharing.
The lack of research in this area is perhaps due to the fact that competition is gener-
ally considered to be just as socially inadequate as aggression. Studies of animals
deprived of the opportunity to engage in RTP have shown that such they seem to
have difficulty becoming successfully aggressive as adults, i.e. they do not seem to
know how or when to defend themselves against attack, they perceive threats when
there are none, and do not perceive any when they should [see Hughes, 1999].
However, as Hughes stated [1999], competitive play can help prepare children for
the necessary competition of the adult world.
The two mechanisms – attachment via a caregiving context and attachment via
a physical play context – would appear to be complementary thus ensuring the opti-
mal adaptation of humans to a very complex social environment. The progressive
increase in the complexity of social life over the course of primate evolution made
it necessary to find a balance between competition and cooperation. Individuals
who were always in a competitive mode would eventually become socially isolated,
which would prevent them from experiencing the advantages of a social life. On the
other hand, individuals who had only developed cooperation skills would not know
how to defend and assert themselves in the numerous competitive situations they
would routinely encounter. As we have seen in a previous section, the presence of a
father and mother with differentiated roles fosters the development of both compe-
tition and cooperation skills [Bourçois, 1997; Le Camus et al., 1989].
With father-child RTP having been studied mostly in families from industrial-
ized countries, particularly in North America and Europe, some researchers have
sought to verify the universality of such play in humans. Studies of Aka pygmies
(Central African Republic), Chinese, Malaysian, and Indian families have shown an
absence or low frequency of parent-child physical play [Roopnarine, Ahmeduz-
zaman, Hossain & Riegraf, 1992]. Fathers do not engage in more physical play
with their children than mothers, and indeed they participate in other kinds of play
such as object-mediated play just as much as mothers, while children appear to be
attached to both their mothers and their fathers [Roopnarine et al., 1992]. These
results caused Roopnarine et al. [1992] to reconsider the biological origin of rough
play. Given the great plasticity of human behavior, intercultural stability cannot be
considered to be the basic criterion for deciding whether physical father-child play
is of biological origin or not. In all cultures, parents behave towards their children
in such a fashion as to ensure that the latter develop the necessary abilities to adapt
and survive [see LeVine, 1970]. It is interesting to note that the three above-
mentioned societies value sharing and cooperation, whereas industrialized societies
are characterized by a high degree of competition, and value independence and
assertiveness. Cultures that are affluent, technologically advanced, and highly com-

Father-Child Relationship 211 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
plex are likely to have the highest levels of competition in their children’s play [see
Hughes, 1999]. In the United States, individualism has been purported to be valued
over collectivism, and it has been theorized that children tend to be competitive as a
group as compared to children from other cultures [see Hughes, 1999]. However,
North American children raised in communal settings, in which there is an empha-
sis on group ownership of property, and on group rather than individual achieve-
ments, rarely participate in competitive play [Plattner & Minturn, 1975]. The case
of the Aka society is particularly interesting. Aka fathers spend considerable time
(more than 50% of a 24-hour period) holding their babies, providing affection, and
engaging in face-to-face play. Children are very attached to their fathers, despite
the fact that they do not engage in RTP with them [Hewlett, 2000]. In fact, one
might hypothesize that young Aka children, and particularly boys, tend to initiate
RTP with adults and other children, but that this kind of play is discouraged by the
parents. For these fathers, it would certainly be appropriate to use the SSP to evalu-
ate the father-child attachment relationship.
Conclusion
This article suggests that children may develop their attachment to mothers
and fathers via different dimensions of parenting, that the development of different
types of social competencies (cooperation versus competition) is linked to the vari-
ous dimensions of parenting (caregiving, make-believe, physical play), whether
performed by the father or the mother, but that mothers and fathers generally have a
tendency to interact differently with their children, in a manner complementary to
one another. It is therefore essential that we take into account both the father-child
relationship and the mother-child relationship, as well as the parents’ daily involve-
ment in the different parental roles (primary caregiver versus primary playmate) if
we wish to better predict the development of psychopathologies in children, par-
ticularly the development of aggressive profiles.
If research into the father-child relationship is still in its preliminary phase,
this is probably because researchers applied theoretical models and methods de-
veloped for mothers to fathers. It is difficult to develop theories specific to father
for at least two reasons. The first is related to the struggle for equal rights for
men and women. The identity differences between men and women discussed in
this article could unfortunately be used to justify inequalities or the often-
criticized traditional division of parental roles. I would hope that we would be
able both to respect our mutual differences with respect to forms of interaction
with children, as those differences are a significant asset for them, and to estab-
lish an egalitarian division of labor. The second reason is the importance to inno-
vation of setting aside mother-child theorization while still retaining the precious
contributions it has made.
Thus, this article has sought to explore the application of Bowlby’s attachment
theory to fathers by examining roles that may be specific to fathers. Our examina-
tion of the current understanding of parental involvement in nonhuman male pri-
mates, and of human-specific adaptations led to the hypothesis that the indirect
parental contribution of men may have originated from an increased need for paren-
tal care over the course of our phylogenetic history. Further, the comparison of

212 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
mother-child and father-child interactions in Western industrialized societies sug-
gests that fathers play a particularly important role in the development of children’s
openness to the outside world and their autonomy. Men seem to have a tendency to
surprise children, to destabilize them momentarily, and to encourage them take
‘risks,’ thus enabling children to learn to be brave in unfamiliar situations and to
stand up for themselves. Children seem to need to be stimulated and motivated as
much as they need to be calmed and secured, and they receive such stimulation
primarily from men, primarily through physical play. But this dynamic can only be
effective in the context of the emotional bond between father and child that I have
called the ‘activation relationship.’ Finally, it is important that we now consider the
possibility that physical father-child play may have positive effects on the adapta-
tion of children to their environment, rather than considering it simply to be a dis-
traction with no developmental consequences that puts children at risk of injury.
We submit that in the short term, quality father-child RTP encourages obedience on
the part of children, while in long term, it permits children to develop competition
skills, i.e. the ability to deal with and resolve conflict situations with peers in a so-
cialized manner without either resorting to the use of aggression or avoiding situa-
tions that cannot always be resolved through cooperation and sharing, skills which
are especially vital in highly-competitive industrialized societies like our own. This
would be of particular importance for boys, who tend to be more impulsive and
more aggressive than girls.
The sexual dimorphism favoring males found in the human species indicates
that, in earlier stages of human phylogenetic history, males had to compete for ac-
cess to sexual partners, and females chose the more dominant males in order to
transmit to their children traits that would facilitate their survival and reproduction
[see Geary, 2000]. However, the decrease in sexual dimorphism suggests that com-
petition among females for access to food and the greater vulnerability and depend-
ency of infants led females to choose male providers. Furthermore, males became
directly involved with boys by assuming responsibility for opening them to the
world so that they could develop the skills necessary for fighting, hunting and ex-
ploring the territory for resources, skills that would be vital in adulthood to ensure
the survival of their own children.
In short, the father-child activation relationship would appear to help children
be braver when they encounter new experiences, which may later enable them to
overcome obstacles to their personal success (and ultimately to their survival and
reproductive success). Fathers appear to play an important role in the development
of their sons’ desire to succeed [Yarrow et al., 1984]. The question now is to know
whether the differentiated modes of parent-child interaction of men and women are
still adaptive for children of today. The greater frequency of father-child RTP in the
most highly industrialized societies indicates the need of children to adapt to an
extremely competitive world. The children who obtain the most varied resources
will be those who adapt best. The involvement of the father as both provider and
initiator of the child’s opening to the world are undoubtedly considerable assets.
Given the ever-increasing presence of women in the workplace, girls may benefit
greatly from interactions during their childhood with father figures who open them
to the world. The extent to which parents who plays dual maternal and paternal
roles can effectively mediate the optimal adaptation of their children to their envi-
ronment remains to be determined.

Father-Child Relationship 213 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
As fascinating as it may be to study cognition, the trait that plays the greatest
role in differentiating humans from other animals, we must not underestimate the
importance of phylogenetically ancient mechanisms such as RTP if we wish to de-
velop a better understanding of the socio-affective development of children. Fur-
thermore, it seems important to go beyond the traditional cognitive/socio-affective
division to study the links between cognition and affect within the father-child acti-
vation relationship itself.
It is vital that more research be conducted in a non object-mediated play con-
text, as per Kerns and Barth [1995]. It should then be possible to determine the
characteristics of paternal sensitivity (such as directiveness and agreeableness), and
later perhaps to develop a method for evaluating the quality of the father-child acti-
vation relationship, as has been done by Ainsworth and Wittig [1969] for the
mother-child attachment relationship. It is also imperative that the relation between
the quest for autonomy that begins in the second year of a child’s life and the acti-
vation relationship be explored. This would require more research into the father-
child relationship during the preschool period, as most studies to date have focused
on infants [Levine, 1988].
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Marc Bigras, Diane Dubeau, Donald Morrisson, Sylvie Norman-
deau and Isabelle Tremblay for their encouragement and insightful comments.
References
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In J.L. Gewirtz (Ed.), Attach-
ment and dependency. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1984). Patterns of infant-mother attachment as related to maternal care. In D. Mag-
nusson, & V. Allen (Eds.), Human development: An interactional perspective (pp. 35–55). New
York: Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1990). Some considerations regarding attachment theory and assessment relevant to
attachments beyond infancy. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cichetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attach-
ment in the preschool years (pp. 463–488). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychologi-
cal study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Wittig, B.A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behaviour of one-year-olds in a
Strange Situations. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 113–136).
London: Methuen.
Alexander, R.D., & Noonan, K.M. (1979). Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social
evolution. In N.A. Chagnon, & W.G. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behav-
iour: An anthropological perspective (pp. 436–453), North Scituate: Duxbury Press.
Amato, P.R., & Rezac, S.J. (1994). Contact with nonresidential parents, interparental conflict, and
children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 191–207.
Barash, D.P. (1982). Sociobiology and behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Ed. 2.
Baskett, L.M., & Johnson, S.M. (1982). The young child’s interactions with parents versus siblings: A
behavioral analysis. Child Development, 53, 643–650.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4,
1–103.
Bekoff, M. (1984). Social play behavior. Bioscience, 34, 228–233.
Benoit, D., & Parker, K.C.H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations.
Child De velopment, 65(5), 1444–1456.
Benshoff, L., & Thornhill, R. (1979). The evolution of monogamy and concealed ovulation in humans.
Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 2, 95–106.
Biben, M., & Suomi, S.J. (1993). Lessons from primate play. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child
play: Descriptions and implications (pp. 185–196). Albany: State University of New York Press.

214 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
Block, J.H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some
conjectures. Child Development, 54, 1335–1354.
Bornstein, M.H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (1995). Parent-child symbolic play: Three theories in search of
an effect. Developmental Review, 15, 382–400.
Boulton, M.J., & Smith, P.K. (1992). The social nature of play fighting and play chasing: Mechanisms
and strategies underlying cooperation and compromise. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby,
The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 429–444). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bourçois, V. (1993). L’influence des modes d’engagement du père sur le développement affectif et
social du jeune enfant. Thèse de doctorat de Nouveau Régime. Université Toulouse-Le-Mirail,
France.
Bourçois, V. (1997). Modalités de présence du père et développement social de l’enfant d’âge présco-
laire. Enfance, 3, 389–399.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth.
Bronstein, P. (1984). Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward children: A cross-cultural
comparison. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 995–1003.
Campbell, B.G. (1985). Human evolution: An introduction to man’s adaptations. New York: Aldine
Publishing Company, Third edition.
Campbell, D.W., & Eaton, W.O. (1999). Sex differences in the activity level of infants. Infant and
Child Development, 8, 1–17.
Carson, J., Burks, V., & Parke, R.D. (1993). Parent-child physical play: Determinants and conse-
quences. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play: Descriptions & implications (pp. 197–220).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chalmers, N. (1983). The development of social relationships. In T.R. Halliday, & P.J.B. Slater (Eds.),
Animal Behaviour, Vol. 3. Genes, development and learning (pp. 114–148).
Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1978). And daddy makes three: The father’s impact on mother and young child.
Child Development, 49, 466–478.
Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1997). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 779–
862), Vol. 3. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Coley, R. (1998). Children’s socialization experiences and functioning in single-mother households: the
importance of fathers and other men. Child Development, 69(1), 219–230.
Cowan, P.A., Cohn, D.A., Cowan, C.P., & Pearson, J.L. (1996). Parents, attachment histories and chil-
dren’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Exploring family systems models of linkage.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53–63.
Crawley, S.B., & Sherrod, K.B. (1984). Parent-infant play during the first year of life. Infant Behavior
and Development, 7, 65–75.
Dixon, S., Yogman, M., Tronick, E., Adamson, L., Als, H., & Brazelton, T.B. (1981). Early infant
social interaction with parents and strangers. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychia-
try, 20, 32–52.
Dubeau, D., & Moss, E. (1998). La théorie d’attachement résiste-t-elle au charme des pères? Approche
comparative des caractéristiques maternelles et paternelles durant la période préscolaire. Enfance,
3, 82–102.
Dumas, J.E. (1999). Psychopathologie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent. Paris, Bruxelles: De Boeck Uni-
versité.
Ellis, B.J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J.H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
generation of culture (pp. 267–288). New York & London: Oxford University Press.
Erhardt, A.A., & Meyer-Bahlberg, H.F.L. (1981). Effects of prenatal sex hormones on gender-related
behavior. Science, 211, 1312–1316.
Farver, A.M., & Wimbarti, S. (1995). Paternal participation in toddlers’ pretend play. Social Develop-
ment, 4(1), 17–31.
Fedigan, L.M. (1982). Primate paradigms. Sex roles and social bonds. Montreal: Eden Press Inc.
Field, T. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary versus secondary caretaking fathers. Developmental
Psychology, 14, 183–184.
Field, T., Gewirtz, J.L., Cohen, D., Garcia, R., Greenberg, R., & Collins, K. (1984). Leave-takings and
reunions of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Child Development, 55, 628–635.
Fisher, H. (1983). La stratégie du sexe: l’évolution du comportement humain. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
Frascarolo, F. (1997). Les incidences de l’engagement paternel quotidien sur les modalités d’interaction
ludique père-enfant et mère-enfant. Enfance, 3, 381–387.
Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., & Allison, P.D. (1987). Paternal participation and children’s well-
being after marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 52, 695–701.
Geary, D.C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(1), 55–77.

Father-Child Relationship 215 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California, Berkeley.
Goldstein, H.S. (1984). Parental composition, supervision, and conduct problems in youths 12 to 17
years old. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23(6), 679–684.
Goy, R.W. (1978). Development of play and mounting behaviour in female rhesus virilized prenatally
with esters of testosterone or dihydrotestosterone. In D.J. Chivers, & J. Herbert (Eds.), Recent
advances in primatology (pp. 449–462). New York: Academic Press.
Greenberg, M.T., Speltz, M.L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early development
of disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191–213.
Grossmann, K. (1997). Infant-father attachment relationship: Sensitive challenges during play with
toddler is the pivotal feature. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting. Washington, D.C.
Grossmann, K.E., & Grossmann, K. (1998). Développement de l’attachement et adaptation psychologi-
que du berceau au tombeau. Enfance, 3, 3–12.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K.E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zim-
merman, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive
and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development,
11(3), 307–331.
Hamilton III, W.J. (1984). Significance of paternal investment by primates to the evolution of adult
male-female associations. In D.M. Taub (Ed.), Primate paternalism (pp. 309–335). New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Harlow, H.F., & Zimmerman, R.R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkeys. Science, 130,
421–432.
Hastings, P.D., & Rubin, K.H. (1999). Predicting mothers’ beliefs about preschool-aged children’s
social behavior: Evidence for maternal attitudes moderating child effects. Child Development,
70(3), 722–741.
Herzog, J.M. (1982). On father hunger: The father’s role in the modulation of aggressive drive and
fantasy. In S. Cath, A. Gurvitt, & J. Ross (Eds.), Father and Child (pp. 163–174). Boston: Little
Brown.
Herzog, J.M. (1992). L’enseignement de la langue maternelle: Aspects du dialogue développemental
fille-père. Journal de la Psychanalyse de l’Enfant, 11, 47–60.
Hewlett, B.S. (2000). Culture, history, and sex: Anthropological contributions to conceptualizing father
involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2–3), 59–73.
Hines, M., & Green, R. (1991). Human hormonal and neural correlates of sex-typed behavior. Review of
Psychiatry, 10, 536–555.
Hoffert, S.L., Stueve, J.L., Pleck, J., Bianchi, S., & Sayer, L. (2002). The demography of fathers: What
fathers do. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Mul-
tidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 63–92). New Jersey & London: LEA.
Hossain, Z., & Roopnarine, J.L. (1994). African-American fathers’ involvement with infants: Relation-
ship to their functional style, support, education, and income. Infant Behavior and Development,
17, 175–184.
Hughes, F.P. (1999). Children, play, and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ed. 3.
Humphreys, A.P., & Smith, P.K. (1987). Rough-and-tumble, friendship, and dominance. Schoolchil-
dren: Evidence for continuity and change with age. Child Development, 58, 201–212.
Isabella, R.A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother attach-
ment: A replication study. Child Development, 62, 373–384.
Jacklin, C.N., DiPietro, J.A., & Maccoby, E.E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing pressure in
child/parent interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 413–425.
Jacobson, J.L., & Wille, D.E. (1986). The influence of attachment pattern on development changes in
peer interaction from the toddler to the preschool period. Child Development, 57, 338–347.
Jaffee, S.R. (2002). Life with father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the
father’s antisocial behavior. Society for Life History Research in Psychopathology, September
2002, New York.
Johnson, R.E. (1987). Mother’s versus father’s role in causing delinquency. Adolescence, 22(86), 305–
315.
Josephson, S.C. (2002). Fathering as reproductive investment. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, & N. Cabrera
(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 359–382). New
Jersey & London: LEA.
Kazdin, A.E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current status and future directions.
Psychological Bulletin, 102(2), 187–203.
Kazura, K. (2000). Fathers’ qualitative and quantitative involvement: An investigation of attachment,
play, and social interactions. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(1), 41–57.
Kerns, K.A., & Barth, J.M. (1995). Attachment and play: Convergence across components of parent-
child relationships and their relations to peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 12(2), 243–260.

216 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
Keyes, C.B., & Scoblic, M.A. (1982). Fathering activities during early infancy. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 3(1), 28–42.
Kromelow, S., Harding, C., & Touris, M. (1990). The role of the father in the development of stranger
sociability during the second year. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 521–530.
Labrell, F. (1992). Contributions paternelles au développement cognitif de l’enfant dans la deuxième
année de vie. Thèse de doctorat Nouveau Régime, Paris-V.
Labrell, F. (1996). Paternal play with toddlers: Recreation and creation. European Journal of Psychol-
ogy of Education, 11(1), 43–54.
Labrell, F. (1997). L’apport spécifique du père au développement cognitif du jeune enfant. Enfance, 3,
361–369.
LaFrenière, P.J., & Sroufe, L.A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in preschool: Interrelations be-
tween measures, influence of social ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 56–69.
Lamb, M.E. (1977a). The development of mother-infant and father-infant attachments in the second
year of life. Developmental Psychology, 13, 637–648.
Lamb, M.E. (1977b). The development of parental preferences in the first two years of life. Sex Roles,
3, 495–497.
Lamb, M.E. (1996). The role of the father in child development (Ed. 3.) New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M.E. (1997). L’influence du père sur le développement de l’enfant. Enfance, 3, 337–349.
Lamb, M.E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family
Review, 29(2–3), 23–42.
Lamb, M.E. (2002). Infant-father attachments and their impact on child development. In C.S. Tamis-
LeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 93–117). New Jersey & London: LEA.
Lamb, M.E., Pleck, J.H., Charnov, E.L., & Levine, J.A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American
Zoologist, 25, 883–894.
Lancaster, J.B., & Lancaster, C.S. (1987). The watershed: Change in parental investment and family-
formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In J.B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, et al. (Eds.),
Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 187–205). Hawthorne: Aldine Publish-
ing.
Le Camus, J. (1995a). Le dialogue phasique: Nouvelles perspectives dans l’étude des interactions père-
bébé. Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance, 43(1–2), 53–65.
Le Camus, J. (1995b). Les interactions père-enfant en milieu aquatique. Revue Internationale de Pédia-
trie, 255, 7–17.
Le Camus, J. (2000). Le vrai rôle du père. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.
Le Camus, J., de Léonardis, M., & Lescarret, O. (1989). Effets de la transformation des rôles parentaux
sur la construction de la personnalité de l’enfant. La psychiatrie de l’enfant, XXXII, 1, 31–54.
Levine, J.B. (1988). Play in the context of the family. Journal of Family Psychology, 2(2), 164–187.
Levine, R.A. (1970). Cross-cultural study in child psychology. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s
manual of child psychology. Vol. II, Ed. 3 (pp. 559–612). New York: Wiley.
Lévy, J., & Baruffaldi, M.G. (1991). La sexualité humaine. Perspectives phylogénétiques et culturelles.
Montréal: Éditions du Méridien.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in six-year-olds
from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123–136.
Lindsey, E.W. (1997). Parents as play partners: Mechanisms linking parent-child play to children’s
social competence. Doctoral dissertation. Auburn University, Alabama. Unpublished.
Lovejoy, O.C. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211(4480), 341–350.
Lytton, H. (1979). Disciplinary encounters between young boys and their mothers and fathers: Is there a
contingency system. Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 256–268.
Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected, and popular boys. Develop-
mental Psychology, 23, 705–711.
MacDonald, K. (1993). Parent-child play: An evolutionary perspective. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-
child play: Descriptions & implications (pp. 113–143). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R.D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interactions and peer inter-
active competence. Child Development, 55, 1265–1277.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R.D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of chil-
dren and parents. Sex Roles, 15, 367–378.
McHenry, H.M. (1996). Sexual dimorphism in fossil hominids and its socioecological implications. In
J. Steele, & S. Sherman (Eds.), The archaelogy of human ancestry: Power, sex and tradition (pp.
91–109). New York: Routledge.
McLanahan, S.S. (1997). Paternal absence or poverty: Which matters more? In G. Duncan, & J. Brooks-
Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Father-Child Relationship 217 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
McLaughlin, B. (1983). Child compliance to parental control technique. Developmental Psychology,
19(5), 667–673.
Main, M., & Weston, D.R. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father:
Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationship. Child Development,
52, 932–940.
Marcos, H. (1995). Mother-child and father-child communication in the second year: A functional
approach. Early Development and Parenting, 2, 49–61.
Mehlman, P. (1988). The evolution of paternal care in primates and homonids. Anthropologie et So-
ciétés, 12(3), 131–149.
Millar, S. (1968). The psychology of play. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Novak, M., & Harlow, H. (1975). Social recovery of monkeys isolated for the first year of life. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 11, 453–465.
Palmer, S.A. (1993). Infant-mother and infant-father interactions during caregiving and play: Effects
on cognitive and emotional development. Doctoral dissertation. University of California. Unpub-
lished.
Panksepp, J. (1993). Rough and tumble play: A fundamental brain process. In K. MacDonald (Ed.),
Parent-child play: Descriptions & implications (pp. 147–184). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Paquette, D. (1994). Fighting and playfighting in captive adolescent chimpanzees. Aggressive Behavior,
20, 49–65.
Paquette, D., Bolté, C., Turcotte, G., Dubeau, D., & Bouchard, C. (2000). A new typology of fathering:
Defining and associated variables. Infant and Child Development, 9, 213–230.
Parke, R.D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage and
Family Review, 29(2–3), 43–58.
Parke, R.D., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A., & Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the develop-
ment of peer relationships. In R. DeV. Peters, & J.J. McMahan (Eds.), Marriages and families:
Behavioral treatments and processes (pp. 17–44). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Parke, R.D., McDowell, D.J., Kim, M., Killan, C., Dennis, J., Flyr, M.L., & Wild, M.N. (2002). Fa-
thers’ contributions to children’s peer relationships. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, & N. Cabrera
(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–167). New
Jersey & London: LEA.
Parke, R.D., & O’Leary, S.E. (1976). Father-mother-infant interaction in the newborn period: Some
findings, some observations and some unresolved issues. In K. Riegel, & J. Meacham (Eds.), The
developing individual in a changing world: Social and environmental issues (pp. 653–663). The
Hague: Mouton.
Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe, B.D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial
behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Pedersen, F.A. (1980). The father-infant relationship: Observational studies in the family setting. New
York: Praeger.
Pellegrini, A.D. (1988). Elementary school children’s rough-and-tumble play and social competence.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 802–806.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Smith, P.K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected
aspect of play. Child Development, 69(3), 577–598.
Pereira, M.E., & Altmann, J. (1985). Development of social behavior in free-living nonhuman primates.
In E.S. Watts (Ed.), Nonhuman primate models for human growth and development. Monographs
in Primatology (pp. 217–309), Vol. 6. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Peretti, P.O., & Statum, J.A. (1984). Father-son inter-generational transmission of authoritarian paternal
attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality, 12(1), 85–90.
Petrovich, S.B., & Gewirtz, J.L. (1991). Imprinting and attachment: Proximate and ultimate considera-
tions. In J.L. Gewirtz, & N.M. Kurtines (Eds.). Intersections with attachment (pp. 69–93). Have
and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Phares, V., & Compas, B.E. (1993). Fathers and developmental psychopathology. Currents directions
in psychological science, 2(5), 162–165.
Plattner, S., & Minturn, L. (1975). A comparative and longitudinal study of the behavior of commun-
ally-raised children. Ethos, 3, 469–480.
Poirier, F.E. & Smith, E.O. (1974). Socializing functions of primate play. American Zoology, 14, 275–
287.
Power, T.G. (1985). Mother- and father-infant play: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 56,
1514–1524.
Power, T.G., & Parke, R.D. (1983). Patterns of mother and father play with their 8-month-olds infant: A
multiple analysis approach. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 453–459.
Ratner, N.B. (1988). Patterns of parental vocabulary selection in speech to very young children. Journal
of Child Language, 15(3), 481–492.

218 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
Paquette
Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, A. (1989). Early childhood antece-
dents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality,
57(2), 257–281.
Reynolds, P.C. (1981). On the evolution of human behavior: The argument from animals to man.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
Ricaud, H. (1998). Influence de l’implication diférenciée du couple parental sur les modalités de réso-
lution des conflits interpersonnels des enfants de 3 à 5 ans en milieu scolaire. Thèse de doctorat
Nouveau Régime. Université Toulouse II, France.
Roopnarine, J.L., Ahmeduzzaman, M., Hossain, Z., & Riegraf, N.B. (1992). Parent-infant rough play:
Its cultural specificity. Early Education and Development, 3(4), 298–311.
Ross, H., & Taylor, H. (1989). Do boys prefer daddy or his physical style of play? Sex Roles, 20(1–2),
23–33.
Ross, J.M., & Herzog, J.M. (1985). The sins of the fathers: Notes on fathers, aggression, and patho-
genesis. In E.J. Anthony, & G.H. Pollack (Eds.), Parental influences in health and disease (pp.
477–510). Boston: Little Brown.
Rubin, K.H., Stewart, S.L. and Chen, X. (1995). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M.H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 1. Children and parenting (pp. 255–284), Hillsdale,
N.J.: LEA.
Ruff, H.A., & Saltarelli, L.M. (1993). Exploratory play with objects: Basic cognitive processes and
individual differences. In M. Bornstein, & A.W. O’Reilly (Eds.), The role of play in the develop-
ment of thought (pp. 5–15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, G., & Russell, A. (1987). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood.
Child Development, 58, 1573–1585.
Sanchez-Martin, J.R., Fano, E., Ahedo, L., Cardas, J., Brain, P.F., & Azpiroz, A. (2000). Relating tes-
tosterone levels and free play social behavior in male and female preschool children. Psychoneu-
roendocrinology, 25, 773–783.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1986). A cross-cultural perspective on child-structured play activities and materi-
als. In A.W. Gottfried, & C.C. Brown (Eds.), Play interactions: The contribution of play materi-
als and parental involvement to children’s development (pp. 13–30). Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Shaw, D.S., & Bell, R.Q. (1993). Chronic family adversity and infant attachment security. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1205–1215.
Shaw, D.S. & Vondra, J.I. (1995). Infant attachment security and maternal predictors of early behavior
problems: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
23(3), 335–357.
Shepher, J. (1978). Reflections on the origin of the human pair-bond. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures, 1, 253–264.
Simmons, J.B. (1991). Correlates of fathers’ play with 5–6 year old children. Doctoral dissertation.
Boston University Graduate school. Unpublished.
Smith, P.K. (1982). Does play matter? Functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and human play.
The Behavioral and Brain Science, 5, 139–184.
Smith, P.B., & Pederson, D.R. (1988). Maternal sensitivity and patterns of infant-mother attachment.
Child Development, 59, 1097–1101.
Stuckey, M.F., McGhee, P.E., & Bell, N.J. (1982). Parent-child interaction: The influence of maternal
employment. Developmental Psychology, 18, 635–644.
Suess, G.J., Grossmann, K.E., & Sroufe, L.A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father
on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization of self. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 43–65.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., & Bornstein, M.H. (1991). Individual variation, correspondence, stability, and
change in mother and toddler play. Infant Behavior and Development, 14, 143–162.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., & Cabrera, N. (2002). Cross-disciplinary challenges to the study of father in-
volvement. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Mul-
tidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 599–620). New Jersey & London: LEA.
Taub, D., & Mehlman, P. (1991). Primate paternalistic investment: A cross-species view. In J.D. Loy,
& C.B. Peters (Eds.), Understanding behavior: What primate studies tell us about human behav-
ior (pp. 51–89). New York: Oxford University Press.
Teti, D.M., Bond, L.A., & Gibbs, E.D. (1988). Mothers, fathers, and siblings: A comparison of play
styles and their influence upon infant cognitive level. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment, 11, 415–432.
Tomasello, M., Conti-Ramsden, G. & Ewert, B. (1990). Young children’s conversations with their
mothers and fathers: Differences in breakdown and repair. Journal of Child Language, 17(1),
115–130.
Tremblay, R.E., Schaal, B., Boulerice, B., Arsenault, L., Soussignan, R.G., Paquette, D., & Laurent, D.
(1998). Testosterone, physical aggression, dominance and physical development in early adoles-
cence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4), 753–777.

Father-Child Relationship 219 Human Development
2004;47:193–219
van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant
attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 117, 387–403.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1996). Attachment representations in mothers,
fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative data. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(1), 8–21.
Ward, M.J., & Carlson, E.A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment representations, maternal
sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development,
66, 69–79.
Ward, I.L. & Stehm, K.E. (1991). Prenatal stress feminizes juvenile play patterns in male rats. Physiol-
ogy and Behavior, 50, 601–605.
Waters, E., Crowell, J., Treboux, D., Merrick, S., & Albersheim, L. (1995). Attachment Security from
Infancy to Early Adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study. Poster, Biennial Meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Waters, E., & Deane, K.E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relation-
ship: Q-methodology and organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Brether-
ton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research (pp. 41–65), Mono-
graphs of the society for research in child development, 50 (1–2, Serial no 209).
Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
Yarrow, L.J., MacTurk, R.H., Vietze, P.M., McCarthy, M.E., Klein, R.P., & McQuiston, S. (1984).
Developmental course of parental stimulation and its relationship to mastery motivation during
infancy. Developmental Psychology, 20, 492–503.
Yogman, M.W. (1981). Games fathers and mothers play with their infants. Infant Mental Health Jour-
nal, 2(4), 241–248.
Yogman, M.W. (1982). Development of the father-infant relationship. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester, &
M.W. Yogman (Eds.), Theory and research in behavioral pediatrics (pp. 221–229). New York:
Plenum Press.
Yogman, M.W. (1994). Observations on the father-infant relationship. In S.H. Cath, A.R. Gurwitt, &
J.M. Ross, Father and child: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 101–122). Hillsdale:
The Analytic Press.
Youngblade, L.M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Parent-child antecedents of 5-year-olds’ close friendships: A
longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28, 700–713.
Youngblade, L.M., Park, K.A., & Belsky, J. (1993). Measurement of young children’s close friendship:
A comparison of 2 independent assessment systems and their associations with attachment secu-
rity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 563–587.