Resident Fathers' Positive Engagement, Family Poverty, and Change in Child Behavior Problems: Fathers' Engagement and Child Behavior Problems

Abstract

Objective
To investigate the role of fathers' positive engagement as a protective factor in the development of children's behavior problems and whether this buffering effect differs by family poverty status.

Background
Children who have behavior problems at early ages are more likely to show persistent behavior problems over time. Fathers' roles in the development and persistence of child behavior problems have been less investigated than mothers' roles.

Method
Longitudinal survey data from 762 constant‐resident‐father families participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study were used. Mothers reported on children's internalizing and externalizing behavior problems when the focal child was 5 and 9 years of age, and fathers reported on their frequency of positive engagement with children at child age 5. Data were analyzed using moderated moderation regression analyses.

Results
Children living in greater family poverty at age 5 showed more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at age 9, but greater positive engagement by fathers weakened the association between family poverty and children's later behavior problems. Moreover, fathers' positive engagement appeared to disrupt continuity in internalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood for children in families living below the poverty level.

Conclusion
Fathers' positive engagement may serve as a protective factor for children's social–emotional development.

Implications
Emphasizing fathers' positive engagement in prevention and intervention programs designed to lower children's risk for behavior problems may have potential value.

Full text

J- L  S J. S-S The Ohio State University
Resident Fathers’ Positive Engagement, Family
Poverty, and Change in Child Behavior Problems
Objective: To investigate the role of fathers’
positive engagement as a protective factor in
the development of children’s behavior problems
and whether this buffering effect differs by family
poverty status.
Background: Children who have behavior pro-
blems at early ages are more likely to show
persistent behavior problems over time. Fathers’
roles in the development and persistence of child
behavior problems have been less investigated
than mothers’ roles.
Method: Longitudinal survey data from 762
constant-resident-father families participating
in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study were used. Mothers reported on children’s
internalizing and externalizing behavior prob-
lems when the focal child was 5 and 9 years
of age, and fathers reported on their frequency
of positive engagement with children at child
age 5. Data were analyzed using moderated
moderation regression analyses.
Results: Children living in greater family pov-
erty at age 5 showed more internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems at age 9, but
greater positive engagement by fathers weak-
ened the association between family poverty
and children’s later behavior problems. More-
over, fathers’ positive engagement appeared
to disrupt continuity in internalizing behavior
Human Development & Family Science Program, Depart-
ment of Human Sciences, Ohio State University, 135
Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210
(lee.5944@osu.edu).
Key Words: Child behavior problems, fathers’ positive
engagement, family poverty.
problems from early to middle childhood for
children in families living below the poverty
level.
Conclusion: Fathers’ positive engagement may
serve as a protective factor for children’s social–
emotional development.
Implications: Emphasizing fathers’ positive en-
gagement in prevention and intervention pro-
grams designed to lower children’s risk for
behavior problems may have potential value.
Children who have internalizing and external-
izing behavior problems at early ages are more
likely to show persistent behavior problems in
later periods (Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Mesman,
Bongers, & Koot, 2001). Thus, it is important
to prevent problem behaviors in early child-
hood to avoid behavior problems as children
grow (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000). Moth-
ers’ parenting or psychological characteristics
have been implicated in child behavior problems
(Hoffman, Crnic, & Baker, 2006; Mackler et al.,
2015). Relative to studies of mothers, however,
fathers’ roles in the development and persistence
of child behavior problems have been less inves-
tigated, although benecial effects of fathers on
children’s development have been observed in
social, behavioral, and psychological domains
(Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, & Bremberg,
2008).
Focusing on the potential benecial roles of
fathers in child development, the purpose of
this study was to test the buffering effect of
fathers’ positive engagement on the develop-
ment of child behavior problems from early to
484 Family Relations 66 (July 2017): 484–496
DOI:10.1111/fare.12283

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 485
middle childhood using data from continuously
resident-father families in the Fragile Families
and Child Wellbeing Study. We also tested the
moderated moderation effect of fathers’ posi-
tive engagement by family poverty on the lon-
gitudinal links from child early to later behavior
problems to examine whether the role of fathers’
positive engagement as a potential buffer dif-
fered for families in different economic circum-
stances. Moderated moderation means testing
how the moderating effect of the rst moder-
ator (M) on the path from a predictor (X) to
an outcome (Y) can differ by a second moder-
ator (W), as depicted in Figure 1. By examin-
ing the roles of fathers’ positive engagement and
family poverty as moderators of the associations
between early and later child behavior problems,
this study contributes to broadening our knowl-
edge about important factors in the development
of child behavior problems and yields implica-
tions for intervention and prevention programs.
F’ P E  C
B P
As the emphasis for the fathering role has
expanded to include nurturing behavior (Lamb,
2010), caregiving from fathers is increasingly
regarded to be as important as caregiving
from mothers in the context of heterosex-
ual families (Fagan, Day, Lamb, & Cabrera,
2014). However, a strong cultural emphasis
on fathers’ roles in playful interactions with
children also remains persistent (Milkie &
Denny, 2014; Newland et al., 2013). Paquette
(2004) and Grossman et al. (2002) have posited
that fathers can promote children’s healthy
social–emotional development by facilitating
children’s emotional and behavioral regulation
and the development of social skills through
sensitive, playful interactions with children.
Consistent with these ideas, father involve-
ment in play seems to protect children from
increases in externalizing behavior problems
and from increases in internalizing behavior
problems as well, particularly when parents
have more supportive coparenting relation-
ships (Jia, Kotila, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2012).
Additional evidence suggests that fathers’ sen-
sitivity and support during father–child inter-
actions improves children’s social skills and
lessons externalizing and internalizing problems
(National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development Early Child Care Research Net-
work, 2004). Similarly, another study found
that children at risk for psychopathology whose
fathers were more sensitive during playful
interactions were better protected from develop-
ing externalizing problems in middle childhood
(Trautmann-Villalba, Gschwendt, Schmidt, &
Laucht, 2006).
Researchers have reported that fathers’ pos-
itive engagement could moderate the negative
effects of maternal depressive symptoms on
child behavior. Specically, Mezulis, Hyde, and
Clark (2004) reported that fathers’ develop-
mentally appropriate involvement with children
was negatively associated with internalizing
problems among children in kindergarten whose
mothers were depressed. Similarly, Boyce et al.
(2006) found that children with depressed moth-
ers experienced fewer mental health problems in
middle childhood when their fathers were more
involved in their care during infancy. However,
how fathers’ positive engagement may moderate
the effects of contextual factors such as poverty
and the trajectory of children’s developing
behavior problems is unknown.
Given that recent developmental theory and
research have emphasized the importance of
fathers’ direct and developmentally appropriate
play interactions with children, conceptualiza-
tions of father involvement have shifted from
emphasizing fathers’ total time spent interacting
with or available to children toward emphasiz-
ing aspects of father involvement that are more
likely closely linked to children’s development.
In particular, in his reconceptualization of father
involvement, Pleck (2010) dened fathers’ pos-
itive engagement as the extent of interaction
with the child in activities likely to promote the
child’s development. Accordingly, in the present
study, we focused on the potential benecial
effects of fathers’ positive engagement on child
development.
T R  F P
Children living in poverty are more likely to
have behavior problems (Zachrisson & Dear-
ing, 2015). Although potential buffers such as
social support might weaken the relationship
between family poverty and child behavior prob-
lems (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Zachrisson &
Dearing, 2015), the buffering effects of fathers’
parenting have been less investigated.

486 Family Relations
FIGURE 1. C       ’   
         .
M: 1st Moderator
W: 2nd Moderator
Child Initial Behavior Problems
(at Age 5)
X: Predictor
Child Later Behavior Problems
(at Age 9)
Y: Outcome
(at Age 5)
Father Positive Engagement
(at Age 5)
Family Poverty
On the one hand, fathers living below the
poverty level show a rm motivation to fos-
ter resilience because of their love for their
children (Maholmes, 2014). Thus, familial
emotional bonds might also motivate these
resident fathers to be positively engaged with
their children. In fact, fathers’ supportiveness
toward their children is positively associ-
ated with children’s language, cognitive, and
social–emotional development among families
of low socioeconomic status (Cabrera, Shan-
non, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007). Interestingly,
fathers’ intrusiveness was not statistically sig-
nicant, although mothers’ intrusiveness had a
negative association with children’s emotional
regulation (Cabrera et al., 2007). Thus, it is
also possible that fathers’ positive engagement
with children might be particularly benecial
for reducing child behavior problems among
families living below the poverty level, espe-
cially if children are less sensitive to fathers’
intrusiveness.
On the other hand, considering the stress
associated with poverty (e.g., Edin & Kissane,
2010), fathers’ positive engagement may be
less effective in reducing the risk of children
developing behavior problems for families living
below the poverty level. In a review focused on
the relationship between socioeconomic status
and parenting (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002),
robust ndings from previous research were that
low-income parents were less likely to be ver-
bally responsive but more likely to use harsh
punishment. So the positive inuence of father
involvement in low-income families might be
weaker because of the poorer quality of these
interactions or the high level of overall stress
in the families’ environments that overwhelms
the potential of fathers’ positive engagement to
serve a buffering role.
In a review about fathers’ differential inu-
ence on child development by socioeconomic
status, Carlson and Magnuson (2011) pointed
out that previous research reporting positive
effects of father involvement on children
generally targeted families of middle-upper
socioeconomic status. Given the lack of prior
examinations of the potential buffering role of
fathers’ positive engagement in the context of
family poverty, it would be benecial to examine
how the association between fathers’ positive
engagement and child behavior problems may
differ by family economic circumstances.
T P S
To prevent maladjustment as children grow and
develop, it is important to identify protective
factors that can reduce continuity in children’s
problem behaviors over time. The primary
purpose of this study was to test the moderation
effect of fathers’ positive engagement on the
development of child behavior problems from
early to middle childhood and the moderated
moderation effect of fathers’ positive engage-
ment by family poverty on these links (see

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 487
Figure 1). Consistent with theory and prior
research, we tested whether fathers’ greater
positive engagement would be associated with
less risk of family poverty on subsequent
child behavior problems and on the continuity
between earlier and later child behavior prob-
lems. Although we were not certain whether
fathers’ positive engagement would matter
more in families above or below the poverty
level, we anticipated that the role of fathers’
positive engagement in the continuity of chil-
dren’s behavior problems might differ by family
economic status. Therefore, we conducted an
exploratory test of moderated moderation by
family poverty.
Following Pleck’s (2010) revised con-
ceptualization, we assessed fathers’ positive
engagement, or the frequency of fathers’ direct
interactions with a specic child in daily play,
and educational activities that encourage pos-
itive interaction between fathers and children
and thus are expected to benet children’s
social–emotional development. Although close
relationships between nonresident fathers and
children are associated with fewer child behav-
ior problems (Booth, Scott, & King, 2009), we
limited the present study’s focus to children
with resident fathers because of our focus on
the frequency of fathers’ positive engagement.
Nonresident fathers experience varying levels
of access to their children, rendering measures
of frequency of positive engagement poten-
tially invalid (Fagan & Kaufman, 2015). In
addition, to reduce shared method variance,
the present research used mothers’ reports of
child behavior problems and fathers’ reports of
their positive engagement. This is particularly
appropriate given that fathers’ reports of their
own involvement have been shown to have
greater predictive validity than mothers’ reports
of father involvement (Hernandez & Coley,
2007).
In addition to these variables, we took care to
control two other covariates associated with chil-
dren’s behavior problems: mothers’ parenting
stress and child gender. The association between
mothers’ parenting stress and child behavior
problems is well established (e.g., Mackler et al.,
2015; Stone, Mares, Otten, Engels, & Janssens,
2016). Regarding child gender, a number of
studies have reported that boys show higher lev-
els of externalizing behavior problems than girls,
which may stem from several sources, includ-
ing differential susceptibility between boys and
girls, differences in parenting behaviors, and
cultural expectations of boys and girls (Barnett
& Scaramella, 2013; Rutter, Caspi, & Moftt,
2003).
M
Participants and Data Source
This study used data from the Fragile Families
and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a national
longitudinal study that oversampled nonmari-
tal births across cities in the United States.
The FFCWS was designed to study approxi-
mately 4,700 children from birth to 15 years of
age (McLanahan & Garnkel, 2000). Thus far,
data from Waves 1 to 5 are publically avail-
able, corresponding to the child’s birth and 1,
3, 5, and 9 years of age. The study team con-
ducted core parental surveys via telephone with
the child’s biological father and mother, inde-
pendently, to collect information on a number of
factors, including family demographic charac-
teristics, child well-being, and parenting. From
Wave 3, when children were 3 years of age,
more detailed information on environmental fac-
tors and child development was collected via
primary caregiver surveys conducted within the
caregiver’s home.
In the present study, the core parental sur-
veys and primary caregiver survey were used.
The primary caregiver was dened as the per-
son who had the most responsibility for chil-
drearing at home regardless of gender or age,
but almost all (99.1% of this sample) were the
focal children’s biological mothers. Behavior
problems emerge in early childhood and by the
end of the preschool years show strong persis-
tence into school age years (Ashford, Smit, van
Lier, Cuijpers, & Koot, 2008; Campbell, 1995).
In the FFCWS, the full measurement of child
behavior problems (Child Behavior Checklist
[CBCL], discussed subsequently) was included
from Wave 4 when children were 5 years of age.
Thus, data from Waves 4 and 5, corresponding
to child age 5 and 9 years, were the focus of the
present study.
We sampled 762 constantly resident-father
families from birth to 9 years not missing data
on key variables (see Table 1). The focal children
for these fathers were 409 boys (53.7%) and 353
girls (46.3%). In addition to the 54.5% among
these fathers who remained married throughout
the years of participation, 22.2% changed their

488 Family Relations
Tab l e 1 . Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
(N=762)
Characteristic n%
Father’s education
Less than high school diploma 169 22.2
High school diploma 193 25.3
Some college or technical school 208 27.3
Bachelor’s degree or more 188 24.7
Father’s race or ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 275 36.1
Black 235 30.8
Hispanic 211 27.7
Other 40 5.2
Mental health services at year 5
Mother: yes 37 4.9
Father: yes 20 2.6
Relationship status at year 5
Married 592 77.7
Cohabiting 170 22.3
Relationship status at year 9
Married 636 83.5
Cohabiting 126 16.5
Child gender
Boy 409 53.7
Girl 353 46.3
Primary caregiver at year 9
Biological mother 755 99.1
Biological father 7 0.9
Note. Child gender, father’s education, and father’s race
were measured at the child’s birth.
relationship status from cohabiting to married at
some point during the ve waves (8.5% from
child’s birth to age 1, 5.5% from age 1 to 3,
3.5% from age 3 to 5, and 4.6% from age 5 to
9); 11.3% remained in a stable cohabiting rela-
tionship throughout the ve waves. We did not
restrict the sample by marital status but rather by
residential status, assuming that if fathers were
living together with their child’s mother then
they had access to the child and an opportunity
to engage with the child on a daily basis. No
single-father families were included.
Measures
Children’s Behavior Problems. Behavior prob-
lems were reported by a primary caregiver at the
9-year home visit using the original subscales of
the CBCL 6–18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
Following the criteria of the CBCL manual
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), a mean score
for child internalizing behavior problems was
created from 32 items of the anxious/depressed,
withdrawn, and somatic problems subscales
(𝛼=.84 in the present sample). In addition, a
mean score for externalizing behavior problems
at 9 years of age was created from 35 items
of the aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors
subscales (𝛼=.89 in the present sample). The
original scale measured from not true (scored
as 1) to verytrueoroftentrue(3), but we
rescaled the item scores to range from 0 to 2,
with higher scores indicating more externalizing
or internalizing behavior.
Children’s behavior problems at age 5 were
reported by the child’s primary caregiver at the
5-year home visit or phone interview. Using the
original CBCL 4–18 (Achenbach, 1991), a mean
score for internalizing behavior problems was
created from 23 items of the anxious/depressed
and withdrawn subscales (𝛼=.79 in the present
sample) and another mean score for external-
izing behavior problems was created from 30
items of the aggressive and delinquent behav-
ior subscales (𝛼=.84 in the present sample).
As described for the 9-year wave, we rescaled
the not true (1) to very true or often true (3)
item scores to range from 0 to 2, with higher
scores indicating more externalizing or internal-
izing behavior.
Moderators. Fathers’ positive engagement at
child age 5 was asked at the phone interview for
fathers at the 5-year follow-up. Items measured
how often fathers had been participating in daily
positive engagement activities in a given week
with the focal child. Seven items were included,
each focused on an activity known to promote
children’s development: “sing songs or nurs-
ery rhymes with the child,” “read stories to the
child,” “tell stories to him/her,” “play inside with
toys such as blocks or Legos with the child,” “tell
the child that you appreciated something he/she
did,” “play outside in the yard, park, or a play-
ground with the child,” and “take the child on
an outing, such as shopping, or to a restaurant,
church, museum, or special activity or event.”
Conrmatory factor analysis afrmed that these
items compose one factor. Response options for
how often each activity was engaged in by the
father ranged from 0 days to 7 days per week
(𝛼=.75). A mean score was constructed from
the seven items, with higher scores indicating
more positive engagement by the father.
Family poverty was a constructed variable
based on the category of family poverty ratio
at child age 5. In the FFCWS data set, mothers

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 489
reported household income, and it was trans-
formed into a family poverty ratio—the ratio of
total household income to the ofcial poverty
threshold based on the denition by the U.S.
Census Bureau. In accordance with the ofcial
poverty metric, the threshold for poverty varied
according to household size (Fragile Families,
2008). The categories were originally coded
in a way that high scores corresponded with
more income relative to household size, but
we reverse coded the original scores to ease
interpretation by matching higher scores to
more severe poverty levels. Specically, 5 =0%
to 49% of poverty threshold income based on
household-size, 4 =50% to 99%, 3 =100%
to 199%, 2 =200% to 299%, and 1 =300%
or more.
Control Variables. Mothers’ parenting stress
at child age 5 was constructed using four items
such as “Being a parent is harder than I thought
it would be” and “I feel trapped by my respon-
sibilities as a parent.” Response options ranged
from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4).
We reverse coded the four items (𝛼=.64) so that
higher scores corresponded with more stress,
and calculated a mean response score.
Child gender was a binary variable indicating
whether the child was born as a girl (0) or boy
(1). Child gender was reported by mothers at the
child’s birth.
Data Analysis
To test for the moderated moderation effect
of fathers’ positive engagement on change in
child behavior problems over time, we used the
PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013)
in SPSS Version 22. The PROCESS macro is
the integrated version of several macros for
conducting moderation and mediation analyses
(Hayes, 2013). The statistical model was tested
twice: once for internalizing behavior problems
and a second time for externalizing behavior
problems.
Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macros use boot-
strap condence intervals (CIs) produced by
resampling simulations without a specic
assumption about a priori data distribution. The
PROCESS macros produce the 95% bootstrap
CIs, which are interpreted such that if the CI
does not include zero, then the predictor has
statistically signicant effects (Hayes, 2013).
According to Cumming and Fidler (2010),
reporting CIs is also a powerful way to report
effect sizes. In addition, narrower CIs are
regarded as better because they indicate that
the estimate has higher accuracy than wider
CIs (Ellis, 2010). Considering that the original
scales of continuous predictors were different, to
aid interpretation of the results and to compare
effect sizes of predictors we standardized the
predictors (except child gender) before analysis
in PROCESS. Standardization does not change
the effect sizes, statistical signicance of indi-
vidual predictors (including interaction terms),
or the variance explained by the model (Hayes,
2013).
Conceptually, a moderator can change the
direction of the association between a predictor
and the outcome. For example, if the two-way
interaction between X and M on Y is statistically
signicant and the coefcient of the interaction
is negative when the coefcient of X on Y is
positive, the effect of X on Y decreases as M
increases. A statistically signicant three-way
interaction means that the moderation effect
of M on the path from X to Y differs by
W. For example, if the three-way interaction
between initial child behavior problems, fathers’
positive engagement, and family poverty statis-
tically predicts later child behavior problems,
the effect of fathers’ positive engagement on
continuity in child behavior problems differs
by family poverty (see Figure 1). To inter-
pret statistically signicant interaction effects,
we created graphs and used results from the
Johnson–Neyman (J–N) technique produced
by PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). This technique is
an alternative to the pick-a-point approach for
probing interactions. Unlike the pick-a-point
approach, which uses select specic values
(typically the arbitrary values +1SD, mean, and
–1 SD) of the moderators and tests the statistical
signicance of the slopes at those values, the
J–N approach works backward to compute the
regions of statistical signicance where condi-
tional effects become statistically different from
zero by testing different values of the moderator
from the minimum to the maximum.
R
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Demographic characteristics of the sample are
presented in Table 1. Father education and race
or ethnicity were fairly evenly distributed, and
the vast majority of both mothers and fathers

490 Family Relations
had not used mental health services within the
past year. The percentage of married couples
increased slightly from children’s age 5 to 9.
Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics are
shown in Table 2. Child internalizing behavior
problems (r=.51) and externalizing behavior
problems (r=.45) were moderately to strongly
correlated across waves. Child internalizing
behavior problems were also moderately to
strongly correlated with externalizing behavior
problems within waves (r=.34 at age 5; r=.57
at age 9). Mothers’ parenting stress was mod-
estly correlated with child behavior problems
(r=.20 and .21 for internalizing at age 9 and 5,
respectively; r=.20 and .27 for externalizing at
age 9 and 5, respectively). Mothers’ parenting
stress was also modestly correlated with fathers’
positive engagement (r=.13). Child gender was
weakly correlated with externalizing behavior
problems at age 9 (r=.09) and age 5 (r=.08)
and with mothers’ parenting stress (r=.08). The
mean of child externalizing behavior problems
at age 5 was higher than other mean scores of
child behavior problems, and paired-samples
ttests showed that from ages 5 to 9, there
were statistical declines in child internalizing
behaviors, t(761) =10.83, p<.001, d=0.41,
and externalizing behaviors, t(761) =28.73,
p<.001, d=1.12. However, when considering
that the scale of children’s behavior problems
was from 0 to 2, mean scores under 1.00 indi-
cated that children’s behavior problems were
typically mild.
Predicting Child Behavior Problems
Child Internalizing Behavior Problems.As
shown in Table 3 and as expected, children with
higher internalizing behavior problems at age 5
were more likely to show higher internalizing
behavior problems at age 9, 𝛽=.44, 95% CI
[.38, .51], p<.001. Moreover, children who
lived in greater family poverty at age 5 also
showed statistically higher internalizing behav-
ior problems at age 9, 𝛽=.10, CI [.04, .16],
p=.002. Among control variables, mothers’
parenting stress was also statistically and pos-
itively associated with children’s internalizing
behavior problems at age 9, 𝛽=.10, CI [.03,
.16], p=.003.
The interaction between fathers’ positive
engagement and family poverty was also statis-
tically signicant, such that fathers’ greater
positive engagement appeared to reduce the
association between family poverty and child
internalizing behavior problems at age 9,
𝛽=–.08, 95% CI [–.14, –.02], p=.014. Figure 2
(left side) depicts this statistically signicant
two-way interaction. Results of the J–N tech-
nique indicated that greater fathers’ positive
engagement was statistically associated (at
p<.05) with less child internalizing behavior
problems at age 9 when family poverty was
greater than 3.52 on the 1 to 5 scale. Although in
Figure 2 it appears that fathers’ positive engage-
ment was associated with relative increases
in later internalizing problems for children in
families above the poverty level, J–N results
showed that there was no value of the fam-
ily poverty variable at which fathers’ positive
engagement was positively associated with
greater internalizing problems at p<.05.
In addition, this apparent buffering effect of
fathers’ positive engagement was superseded
by a statistically signicant three-way interac-
tion between child initial internalizing behav-
ior problems, fathers’ positive engagement, and
family poverty, 𝛽=–.08, 95% CI [–.14, –.02],
p=.008. Figure 3 shows the visual representa-
tion of the three-way interaction. The values on
the y-axis were generated from the following
regression equation:
̂
Y=i1+b1X+b2M+b3W+b4XM
+b5XW +b6MW +b7XMW +b8U1
+b9U2=i1+(b1+b4M+b5W
+b7MW)X+b2M+b3W+b6MW
+b8U1+b9U2(1)
∴𝜃X→Y=b1+b4M+b5W+b7MW (2)
Thus, 𝜃X→Yis the coefcient of child inter-
nalizing behavior problems at age 5 to child
internalizing behavior problems at age 9. In
other words, it represents the continuity of
child internalizing behavior problems over
time. The J–N results showed that when family
poverty became greater than 3.70 on the 5-point
scale (0%–99% of poverty threshold income),
fathers’ positive engagement was associated
with a reduction in the continuity of child
internalizing problems from 5 to 9 years of

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 491
Tab l e 2 . Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (N=762)
Correlations MSD 1234567
1. Internalizing behavior problems (age 9) 0.15 0.15
2. Externalizing behavior problems (age 9) 0.14 0.16 .57**
3. Internalizing behavior problems (age 5) 0.22 0.22 .51** .34**
4. Externalizing behavior problems (age 5) 0.38 0.26 .25** .50** .45**
5. Fathers’ positive engagement (age 5) 3.83 1.30 –.08*–.07*–.09*–.07
6. Family poverty (age 5) 2.31 1.32 .20** .15** .19** .12** –.03
7. Mothers’ parenting stress (age 5) 2.12 0.63 .20** .20** .21** .27** .13** .07
8. Child gender 0.54 0.50 –.01 .09*.03 .08*–.01 –.04 .08*
Note.*p<.05, **p<.01, *** p<.001.
Tab l e 3 . Standardized Ordinary Least Squares Regression Coefcient Intervals Predicting Child Internalizing and
Externalizing Behavior Problems Among Resident-Father Families
Internalizing problems
at age 9 (Yint)
Externalizing problems
at age 9 (Yext)
Variable 𝛽95% CI SD p 𝛽95% CI SD p
Constant .01 [–.08, .10] .05 .856 –.07 [–.16, .02] .05 .128
X: Initial behavior problems at age 5 .44 [.38, .51] .03 <.001 .45 [.38, .52] .03 <.001
M: Fathers’ positive engagement –.01 [–.07, .05] .03 .694 –.03 [–.09, .03] .03 .382
W: Family poverty .10 [.04, .16] .03 .002 .09 [.02, .15] .03 .006
Mothers’ parenting stress .10 [.03, .16] .03 .003 .07 [.00, .13] .03 .040
Child gender (boy =1) –.04 [–.16, .08] .03 .543 .12 [–.01, .24] .06 .067
X×M.00 [–.06, .07] .03 .953 −.06 [–.12, .01] .03 .071
X×W.00 [–.02, .10] .03 .185 .01 [–.05, .08] .03 .661
M×W–.08 [–.14, –.02] .03 .014 −.08 [–.15, –02] .03 .008
X×M×W–.08 [–.14, –.02] .03 .008 −.03 [–.09, .03] .03 .304
Model F(9, 752) =35.42, p<.001, R2=.298 F(9, 752) =32.00, p<.001, R2=.277
Note. All variables were mean-centered to zero by standardization. M =moderator; W =second moderator; X =predictor;
Y=outcome.
age. There was no value of family poverty at
which fathers’ positive engagement was sta-
tistically associated with greater continuity in
internalizing problems over time.
Child Externalizing Behavior Problems. As
shown in Table 3, child externalizing behavior
problems at age 5 (𝛽=.45, 95% CI [.38, .52],
p<.001), family poverty (𝛽=.09, CI [.02, .15],
p=.006), and mothers’ parenting stress (𝛽=.07,
CI [.00, .13], p=.040) were all statistical pre-
dictors of child externalizing behavior problems
at age 9. In addition, the two-way interaction
between fathers’ positive engagement and fam-
ily poverty (𝛽=–.08, CI [–.15, –.02], p=.008)
was negatively associated with externalizing
behavior problems at age 9. The right side
of Figure 2 depicts this statistically signicant
interaction. J–N results showed that when family
poverty became greater than 2.96 on the 5-point
scale (0%–199% of poverty threshold income),
higher fathers’ positive engagement at age 5
was statistically associated (at p<.05) with less
child externalizing behavior problems at age 9.
Effect Sizes. The estimates and 95% CIs shown
in Table 3 reect the effect sizes for the key
variables of fathers’ positive engagement, fam-
ily poverty, and their two-way and three-way
interactions (with initial behavior problems). To
provide additional information regarding effect
sizes, we also computed simple regressions in
SPSS Version 22 using children’s behavior prob-
lems at age 5 to predict their behavior prob-
lems at age 9. The adjusted R2was .254 for
internalizing and .246 for externalizing prob-
lems. As shown in Table 3, the adjusted R2in
our model was .298 for internalizing and .277

492 Family Relations
FIGURE 2. V   -   ’   (M)  
 (W)           (Y). A  
     . F’   (M)    +SD,M,
– SD,   “--” .
Family Poverty (W)Family Poverty (W)
Child Later Externalizing Behavior Problems (Yext)
Above Below
Child Later Internalizing Behavior Problems (Yint)
Around
the poverty level
Low (-1.00)
Above
Fathers’ Positive Engagement (M)
Average (0.00) High (1.00)
Below
Around
the poverty level
.30
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
.30
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
for externalizing. This means that the addition of
controls, our key variables of interest, and their
two-way and three-way interactions increased
the variance explained by 4.4% for internalizing
and 3.1% for externalizing behaviors. Although
these percentages are modest, they do represent
substantial portions (11%–15%) of the variance
accounted for in each model.
In addition, a regression coefcient shows the
power of a single predictor (Aberson, 2010). The
coefcients of the statistically signicant inter-
action terms (M ×W=–.08, X ×M×W=–.08
for internalizing, M ×W=–.08 for externaliz-
ing) were nearly as strong as the main effects of
family poverty (.10 for internalizing and .09 for
externalizing). In light of the fact that the effect
sizes of interactions are typically small (Aber-
son, 2010) and that we employed a particularly
stringent model by controlling for earlier behav-
ior problems, the effect sizes of our key variables
warrant their consideration.
D
In this study, we tested whether resident fathers’
positive engagement was associated with less
risk from family poverty to child behavior prob-
lems and disrupted the continuity from earlier
to later behavior problems. In keeping with
prior research, we found moderate to strong
consistency in behavior problems from early to
middle childhood, and children living in greater
family poverty tended to show greater behavior
problems at age 9 than did their peers living in
less family poverty. This study further demon-
strated that positive engagement by fathers may
buffer the negative effects of family poverty
on internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems among children. Moreover, fathers’
positive engagement appeared to disrupt the
continuity in internalizing behavior problems
over time, but only for children in families
experiencing greater poverty.
Children in all groups tended to show
decreases in behavior problems from 5 to
9 years of age. Children in families living in
greater poverty at age 5, however, showed
weaker relative declines in behavior problems
compared with their peers. This nding is con-
sistent with previous research reporting that
greater economic constraints are associated with
higher risk for child behavior problems (Bradley

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 493
FIGURE 3. V       ’   (M)  
 (W)         (𝜃X→Y). A  
     . 𝜃X→Y    ’ 
      . F’   (M)    (W)  
 +SD,M,–SD   ,   “--” .
Family Poverty (W)
Above the poverty level (-1.00)
Around the poverty level (0.00)
Below the poverty level (1.00)
Fathers’ Positive En
g
a
g
ement (M)
Effect of Initial Internalizing Behavior Problems on
Later Internalizing Behavior Problems (θx→y)
.60
.55
.50
.45
.40
.35
.30
-1.00 -.50 .00 .50 1.00
& Corwyn, 2002). However, two-way interac-
tions indicated that fathers’ positive engagement
moderated associations between family poverty
and child internalizing and externalizing behav-
ior problems. When children in families living
at or below 199% of the poverty level received
more frequent positive engagement from their
resident fathers, they showed relatively low
behavior problems in middle childhood. For
families experiencing less poverty, there was
no statistical relation between fathers’ positive
engagement and the magnitude of child later
behavior problems.
Fathers who frequently engage with their
children in developmentally appropriate direct
interactions may help them develop secure
attachment via their sensitivity during playful
interactions (Grossmann et al., 2002), which
may reduce risk for internalizing problems
(Madigan, Atkinson, Laurin, & Benoit, 2013).
Highly engaged fathers may also encourage
children’s curiosity about the world and moti-
vate their active exploration (Paquette, 2004),
therefore facilitating children’s development
of strong emotional and behavioral regula-
tion skills, which can protect against externa-
lizing behavior problems (Eisenberg, Spinrad,
& Eggum, 2010).
Fathers’ positive engagement was also related
to the continuity in internalizing, but not exter-
nalizing, behavior problems among children
from 5 to 9 years of age. For children living in
families at or below 199% of the poverty level,
greater fathers’ positive engagement reduced
continuity in child internalizing behavior prob-
lems. For families above 200% of the poverty
level, there was no statistical relation between
fathers’ positive engagement and continuity in
child internalizing behavior problems. In sum,
for children in families experiencing greater
poverty, the strength of the prediction from
their earlier to later levels of internalizing prob-
lems was lessened when their resident fathers
engaged with them more frequently in devel-
opmentally appropriate activities. It appears
that fathers’ positive engagement may reduce
stability from early to middle childhood in
levels of internalizing problems for children in
families experiencing greater poverty, who are
at greater initial risk when they enter school
(Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).
Taken together, ndings of the present study
suggest that resident fathers in families experi-
encing high levels of family poverty may have
the potential to make a difference in the extent
to which economic circumstances affect their
children’s risk for persistent behavior problems.

494 Family Relations
Despite the promise of these ndings, how-
ever, readers should be cautious in extrapolat-
ing from our ndings for several reasons. First,
the effect sizes observed for our interaction
effects were modest. As noted earlier, effect
sizes of interactions are typically small (Aber-
son, 2010); we employed a particularly strin-
gent model by controlling for earlier behavior
problems, and the interaction effects represent
substantial portions (11%–15%) of the variance
accounted for in each model. Thus, we have
argued that the effect sizes of our key variables
warrant their consideration. That is not to say,
however, that we can argue from these data that
fathers’ positive engagement is a critical inu-
ence on children’s behavior problems or that
it should be the primary focus of intervention
efforts.
Second, the measure of fathers’ positive
engagement used in this study assessed the
frequency of fathers’ involvement in develop-
mentally appropriate activities with children
at one point in time. The validity of frequency
measures for nonresident fathers is unclear
(Fagan & Kaufman, 2015), which inuenced
our decision to focus on resident fathers in the
present study, which in turn narrows the gener-
alizability of our ndings. Also, the observed
quality of father–child interaction was not mea-
sured in the FFCWS. Given that it is the quality
of father–child interaction that is arguably most
inuential for children’s development, stronger
effects may have been observed had we had
access to a measure of quality. In addition,
more frequent measurements of child behavior
problems and fathers’ positive engagement in
early to middle childhood are needed to exam-
ine likely transactional associations between
child behavior problems and fathers’ positive
engagement (Jia et al., 2012).
Third, PROCESS uses nonmissing data.
Given that the measure of child behavior prob-
lems was completed in an additional in-home
survey, we were not able to analyze data from
families who did not participate in the in-home
survey or use missing data imputation techni-
ques or maximum likelihood estimation because
these data were not missing at random.
Despite these limitations, this study has
revealed the potential value of fathers’ positive
engagement for reducing the risk of persistent
child behavior problems for children living in
family poverty. In future investigations sub-
sequent to this exploratory study, we plan to
more thoroughly consider the ways in which
nonresident fathers may engage with their
children to alter children’s behavior problem
trajectories. Replication of this work, extension
to nonresident fathers, and inclusion of mea-
sures of father–child interaction quality will
help build an evidence base to inform interven-
tion or prevention programs to emphasize the
relation between fathers’ positive engagement
and children’s lower risk for behavior problems.
A N
This research used the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing study data. Research reported
in this publication was supported by the Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development of the National
Institutes of Health under award numbers R01
HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as
well as a consortium of private foundations. The
content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the ofcial
views of the National Institutes of Health.
R
Aberson, C. L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the
behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203860274
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for Child Behav-
ior Checklist/4– 18 and 1991 prole. Burlington:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Man-
ual for the ASEBA school-age forms & proles.
Burlington: Research Center for Children, Youth,
& Families, University of Vermont.
Ashford, J., Smit, F., van Lier, P. A. C., Cuijpers,
P., & Koot, H. M. (2008). Early risk indicators of
internalizing problems in late childhood: A 9-year
longitudinal study. The Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry,49, 774– 780. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01889.x
Barnett, M. A., & Scaramella, L. V. (2013). Moth-
ers’ parenting and child sex differences in behav-
ior problems among African American preschool-
ers. Journal of Family Psychology,27, 773 – 783.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033792
Booth, A., Scott, M. E., & King, V. (2009). Father
residence and adolescent problem behavior: Are
youth always better off in two-parent families?
Journal of Family Issues,31, 585–605. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0192513x09351507
Boyce, W. T., Essex, M. J., Alkon, A. Goldsmith,
H. H., Kraemer, H. C., & Kupfer, D. J. (2006).
Early father involvement moderates biobehavioral

Fathers’ Engagement and Child Behavior Problems 495
susceptibility to mental health problems in middle
childhood. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,45, 1510– 1520.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000237706.50884
.8b
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socio-
economic status and child development. Annual
Review of Psychology,53, 371– 399. https://doi
.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects
of poverty on children. The Future of Children,7,
55–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda,
C. (2007). Fathers’ inuence on their children’s
cognitive and emotional development: From tod-
dlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science,
11, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088869070
1762100
Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in
preschool children: A review of recent research.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,36,
113–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610
.1995.tb01657.x
Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000).
Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers
and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment.
Development and Psychopathology,12, 467– 488.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003114
Carlson, M. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2011). Low-
income fathers’ inuence on children. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science,635, 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002716210393853
Cumming, G., & Fidler, F. (2010). Effect sizes
and condence intervals. In G. R. Hancock &
R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to
quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp.
79–91). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203861554
Edin, K., & Kissane, R. J. (2010). Poverty and the
American family: A decade in review. Journal
of Marriage and Family,72, 460– 479. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00713.x
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010).
Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to
children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clin-
ical Psychology,6, 495– 525. https://doi.org/10
.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes:
Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpre-
tation of research results.NewYork,NY:Cam-
bridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511761676
Fagan,J.,Day,R.,Lamb,M.E.,&Cabrera,N.J.
(2014). Should researchers conceptualize differ-
ently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and
mothers? Journal of Family Theory and Review,6,
390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12044
Fagan, J., & Kaufman, R. (2015). Reections on the-
ory and outcome measures for fatherhood pro-
grams. Families in Society,96, 133– 140. https://
doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2015.96.19
Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2010). Trajectories of
pure and co-occurring internalizing and externaliz-
ing problems from age 2 to age 12: Findings from
the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development Study of Early Child Care. Devel-
opmental Psychology,46, 1159–1175. https://doi
.org/10.1037/a0020659
Fragile Families. (2008, August). Introduction to
the Fragile Families public use data: Baseline,
one-year, three-year, and ve-year core tele-
phone data. Retrieved from http://fragilefamilies.
princeton.edu/sites/fragilefamilies/les/ff_public_
guide_0to5.pdf
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik,
E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zim-
mermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the
child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sen-
sitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in
a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development,
11, 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507
.00202
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation,
moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Hernandez, D. C., & Coley, R. L. (2007). Measuring
father involvement within low-income families:
Who is a reliable and valid reporter? Parenting:
Science and Practice,7, 69– 97. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15295190709336777
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeco-
nomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 2. Biol-
ogy and ecology of parenting (pp. 231– 252).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781410612144
Hoffman, C., Crnic, K. A., & Baker, J. K. (2006).
Maternal depression and parenting: Implications
for children’s emergent emotion regulation and
behavioral functioning. Parenting: Science and
Practice,6, 271– 295. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327922par0604_1
Jia, R., Kotila, L. E., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J.
(2012). Transactional relations between father
involvement and preschoolers’ socioemotional
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology,26,
848–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030245
Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers inuence chil-
dren’s development? Let me count the ways. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child
development (5th ed., pp. 1– 26). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Mackler, J. S., Kelleher, R. T., Shanahan, L., Calkins,
S. D., Keane, S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2015). Par-
enting stress, parental reactions, and externalizing

496 Family Relations
behavior from ages 4 to 10. Journal of Marriage
and Family,77, 388– 406. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jomf.12163
Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D.
(2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in
early childhood: A meta-analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 49, 672– 689. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028793
Maholmes, V. (2014). Fostering resilience and
well-being in children and families in poverty:
Why hope still matters. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
McLanahan, S., & Garnkel, I. (2000). The Fragile
Families and Child Well-being Study: Questions,
design, and a few preliminary results. Madison,
WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University
of Wisconsin– Madison.
Mesman, J., Bongers, I. L., & Koot, H. M. (2001).
Preschool developmental pathways to preado-
lescent internalizing and externalizing problems.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
42, 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610
.00763
Mezulis, A. H., Hyde, J. S., & Clark, R. (2004).
Father involvement moderates the effect of mater-
nal depression during a child’s infancy on child
behavior problems in kindergarten. Journal of
Family Psychology, 18, 575–588. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.575
Milkie, M. A., & Denny, K. (2014). Changes in the
cultural model of father involvement: Descriptions
of benets to fathers, children, and mothers in
parents’ magazine, 1926–2006. Journal of Fam-
ily Issues, 35, 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0192513x12462566
National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
opment Early Child Care Research Network.
(2004). Fathers’ and mothers’ parenting behavior
and beliefs as predictors of children’s social
adjustment in the transition to school. Journal of
Family Psychology,18, 628–638. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.628
Newland, L. A., Chen, H., Coyl-Shepherd, D. D.,
Liang, Y., Carr, E. R., Dykstra, E., & Gapp.
S. C. (2013). Parent and child perspectives on
mothering and fathering: The inuence of ecocul-
tural niches. Early Child Development and Care,
183, 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430
.2012.711598
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father– child
relationship: Mechanisms and developmental
outcomes. Human Development,47, 193 – 219.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000078723
Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised
conceptualization and theoretical linkages with
child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role
of the father in child development (5th ed., pp.
58–93). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rutter, M., Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (2003). Using
sex differences in psychopathology to study causal
mechanisms: Unifying issues and research strate-
gies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try,44, 1092–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-
7610.00194
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Brem-
berg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and chil-
dren’s developmental outcomes: A systematic
review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica,
97, 153 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227
.2007.00572.x
Stone, L. L., Mares, S. H. W., Otten, R., Engels, R.
C. M. E., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2016). The
co-development of parenting stress and childhood
internalizing and externalizing problems. Jour-
nal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-
ment,38, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-
015-9500-3
Trautmann-Villalba, P., Gschewendt, M., Schemidt,
M. H., & Laucht, M. (2006). Father– infant
interaction patterns as precursors of children’s
later externalizing behavior problems. European
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience,
256, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-
006-0642-x
Zachrisson, H. D., & Dearing, E. (2015). Family
income dynamics, early childhood education and
care, and early child behavior problems in Norway.
Child Development,86, 425– 440. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cdev.12306