Unmarried, Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement With Their Infants:A Risk and Resilience Perspective

Jay FaganTemple University

Rob PalkovitzUniversity of Delaware

The authors used a subsample of fathers (n � 652) who participated during the 1-yearfollow-up of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study to assess the influence of riskand resilience factors on unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants. Theyexamined the additive, multiplicative, and moderating models of risk and resilience inrelation to paternal involvement. Fathers’ relationship to the child’s mother was conceptu-alized as a risk or resilience factor. Fathers in acquaintance relationships with the mother andfathers who scored higher on the additive risk index were less involved in child care. Fatherswho scored higher on the additive resilience index were more involved in child care. Therewas a multiplicative effect of relationship status and the risk index on fathers’ involvement.The findings point to the importance of programs that address risk and resilience conditionsaffecting nonresident fathers in interaction with the quality of relationships they have withtheir children’s birth mother.

Keywords: nonresident fathers, risk, resilience, father involvement, fragile families

Almost 25% of American children under the age of 18live in mother-only families at any given time, and justunder one half of these children live in never-marriedmother-only households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Onecritical factor in promoting these children’s well-being isthe involvement of nonresidential fathers (Duncan &Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Lamb, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefur,1994). Research has documented the influence of nonresi-dential fathers’ quantity and quality of parenting on childoutcomes (for review, see Amato, 1998). Recent studieshave indicated that nonresident fathers play an “importantrole in their children’s lives to the extent that they provideauthoritative parenting—especially if this occurs within thecontext of cooperative relationships between the parents”(Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000, pp. 1184–1185).However, evidence reveals that never-married biologicalfathers are at considerable risk for low levels of involve-ment with nonresident children (Marsiglio et al., 2000;Stewart, 1999).

Few studies have examined predictors of paternal in-volvement among this group of fathers (see Carlson,McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2005). Further, researchershave not yet examined whether the predictors of fatherinvolvement with children are affected by the relationshiptype between father and mother (e.g., romantic involve-ment, friends). Recent findings from the Early Head Start(EHS) and Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (FF) stud-ies have provided evidence of decreasing involvement be-tween fathers and young children as the level of closeness inthe father–mother relationship decreases (Cabrera et al.,2004; McLanahan & Carlson, 2004). The first year follow-ing the child’s birth is critical for the father–child relation-ship as this is the period of time when unmarried nonresi-dent fathers are most at risk for experiencing a decline in thelevel of closeness with the mother (Nelson, 2004). At thesame time, a number of nonresident fathers manage to stayinvolved with their children despite their high-risk situa-tions (Mincy & Oliver, 2003; Stier & Tienda, 1993). Thepresent study uses the FF data to examine the extent towhich predictors of father involvement are influenced bymother–father relationship status and various risk and resil-ience variables. FF is a national, longitudinal study designedto address the conditions and capabilities of unmarriedparents, especially fathers; the nature of relationships be-tween unmarried parents; the development of children borninto these families; and the policies and environmentalconditions that affect families and children.

Theoretical Perspective

The concept of risk suggests that there are psychologicalor social factors that increase the likelihood that an individ-ual will experience poor outcomes in behavior, in health, on

Jay Fagan, School of Social Administration, Temple University;Rob Palkovitz, Individual and Family Studies, University of Del-aware.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study was supportedby National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentGrant R01HD36916. The contents of the article are solely theresponsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent theofficial views of the National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJay Fagan, School of Social Administration, Ritter Hall Annex, 5thFloor, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122. E-mail:jfagan@temple.edu

Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 21, No. 3, 479–489 0893-3200/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.479

479

measures of academic achievement, or in regard to voca-tional success (Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004). Risk factors arevariables that diminish the likelihood of attaining personalgoals or goals that society views as important (Specht,Polgar, & King, 2003). In this article, we consider riskfactors to encompass conditions that hinder a consistentpattern of fathers’ involvement with children. In contrast,resilience suggests doing well in life despite adversity (Gar-menzy & Matsen, 1991; Rutter, 1985, Specht et al., 2003).Resilience connotes that there are factors that protect indi-viduals from being negatively affected by adversity or per-sonal challenges. Risk and resilience perspectives may beparticularly appropriate for studying this population of fa-thers because of observed rates of poverty, unstable workhistories, low educational attainment, substance abuse, andlegal problems (Meyer, 1998; Sorenson & Wheaton, 2000).

Risk and resilience research typically focuses on individ-ual rather than interpersonal variables (Specht et al., 2003).In the present study we suggest that father–mother relation-ship status represents a central risk or resilience factor inrelation to father involvement. This perspective is supportedby literature that suggests the importance of the father–mother relationship to paternal involvement with childrenamong all relationship types, including married, cohabiting,divorced, and never-married fathers (Marsiglio, Roy, &Fox, 2005). Three types of relationships are common amongnonresidential fathers and the mothers of their children—romantic, friend, and acquaintance. We suggest that nonres-idential fathers’ risk for noninvolvement with children in-creases as the degree of closeness between father andmother decreases.

There are a considerable number of high-risk fathers(e.g., acquaintances) that manage to stay involved with theiryoung children. For example, EHS data reveal that 61% ofnonresident fathers who are friends with the mother and47% of fathers in acquaintance relationships provide “a lotof” caregiving help to the child (Cabrera et al., 2004). It islikely that within each relationship group, various risk andresilience factors affect paternal involvement with children.

Risk Variables

The research literature suggests eight risk variables inaddition to relationship status—low-quality mother–fatherrelationship, having biological children in other residencesbesides the target child’s home, fathers’ legal problems,history of incarceration, lack of paternity establishment,lack of payment of formal and informal child support, drugabuse, and alcohol abuse. Low-quality relationship betweenmothers and fathers is a critical risk variable (Coley &Chase-Lansdale, 1999). Research has shown that paternalinvolvement was predicted most strongly by the quality ofthe parents’ romantic relationship (Gavin et al., 2002).Fagan, Barnett, Bernd, and Whiteman (2003) found thatinterparental conflict was negatively associated with youngnonresident unmarried fathers’ prenatal involvement, re-gardless of whether the father and mother were still roman-tically involved with each other. Although relationshipquality tends to decrease among couples that have broken

up, there are some fathers and mothers that maintain goodquality relationships despite the low level of relationshipcloseness (McLanahan & Carlson, 2004).

Fathers with children from other unions may be at risk fordecreased involvement with their new children (Manning &Smock, 1999). These fathers may share their time betweencaring for other children as well as the target child in datacollection. Dividing time between children living in sepa-rate residences may decrease involvement in comparison tofathers whose children live in the same household.

Fathers’ legal problems, including incarceration or beingcharged with having committed a crime, also may have anegative influence on paternal involvement. Data reveal thatincarceration weakens unmarried fathers’ connections totheir children (Western, Lopoo, & McLanahan, 2004). Theaffects of incarceration on father involvement are complexand should be understood within the context of the relation-ship between father and mother (Roy & Dyson, 2005).

Couples that do not establish legal paternity and that donot pay formal or informal child support may also be atgreater risk for low levels of father involvement. Lack ofestablishment of paternity is associated with reduced con-tact with the child and having any overnight child visits(Mincy, Garfinkel, & Nepomnyaschy, 2005). Research hasalso shown a significant association between child-supportpayments and paternal involvement (Huang, Han, & Gar-finkel, 2003). Huang (2006) estimated that improved child-support enforcement results in a 45% increase in never-married fathers’ visitation with children.

Finally, drug and alcohol abuse may be associated withlow levels of father involvement with children. Substanceabuse is comorbid with other mental ailments in more than50% of men who are users, including passive–aggressive,obsessive–compulsive, and antisocial personality disorders(Brady, Grice, Dustan, & Randall, 1993). Such conditionsare deleterious to positive paternal involvement.

Resilience Variables

In the present study we suggest four resilience factors—employment in paid work, social network support, religiousinvolvement, and a history of involvement of one’s biolog-ical father during childhood. Wilson (1987) hypothesizedthat employment accounts for increased family roles of thefather in disadvantaged communities. Central to this notionis that fathers are more valued when they are able to providefor their families. Findings suggest that fathers who providefinancial support to their children also tend to be moreinvolved with them (Seltzer, McLanahan, & Hanson, 1998).Because providing is still central in role prescriptions forfathers, men without the means to provide acceptable levelsof material support may avoid contact with their children toevade confrontation with their perceived inadequacies. Al-ternatively, mothers may encourage the involvement offathers who are employed.

Another potential protective factor is social support (Wil-loughby, Brown, Polgar, & Havens, 2003). Network sup-port can influence fathers’ involvement by buffering men’sstress (Palkovitz, 2002) and may exert a direct influence on

480 FAGAN AND PALKOVITZ

fathers’ involvement with children (Bunting & McAuley,2004). For example, network members may actively en-courage the nonresident, not-married father to stay involvedduring times when competing interests entice the man fromfulfilling the responsibilities of parenthood.

Researchers have also suggested the potential signifi-cance of spirituality or attendance at religious services forsome individuals (Carlson & McLanahan, 2004; Chapman& Mullis, 2000). Roggman, Boyce, Cook, and Cook (2002)found a positive relationship between low-income fathers’involvement with infants and both spirituality and activeparticipation in one’s religion. Religious involvement maybe particularly significant for fathers in high-risk situations(Dollahite, 2004).

Finally, an additional resilience factor may be the posi-tive involvement of one’s own biological father duringchildhood (Beaton, Doherty, & Rueter, 2003; Palkovitz,2002). Researchers have suggested that men’s involvementwith their children is influenced by what they observed intheir family of origin (Amato & Booth, 2001; Snarey,1993). Accordingly, men whose fathers were positive pa-rental role models during their childhood may be morelikely to stay involved with their own children even whenfaced with significant barriers to maintaining a relationshipwith the child.

Models of Risk and Resilience

Risk and resilience research uses two models to examinepredictors of outcomes—the cumulative and moderating(interactive) models (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000;Rutter, 1985). The cumulative model suggests that the ac-cumulation of risk factors is associated with an increment inproblematic outcomes (Campbell, 2005). There are threeapproaches for assessing the relationship between cumula-tive risk and outcomes—additive, multiplicative, and qua-dratic approaches. The additive and multiplicative ap-proaches suggest steady linear relationships between riskfactors and problematic outcomes (Appleyard, Egeland, &van Dulmen, 2005). The quadratic approach suggests adramatic increase in problematic outcomes after a certainnumber of risks (i.e., threshold) have occurred. In thepresent study we examine both the additive and multiplica-tive approaches.

Although the additive approach to risk research suggestsa fairly gradual increase in problematic outcomes as theindividual experiences additional risk, the multiplicativeapproach suggests a steady but more dramatic increase innegative outcomes (Pungello, Kupersmidt, Burchinal, &Patterson, 1996). The essence of this approach is that riskconditions result in increased sensitivity to other risk con-ditions. We expect fathers’ risk factors to have a morenegative influence on fathers’ involvement with childrenwhen the father is in a higher risk relationship with themother. That is, fathers’ additive risk factors will have adramatically negative influence on fathers’ involvementwith the child when the father is an acquaintance or friendrelationship with the mother, compared with fathers in aromantic relationship with the mother.

The cumulative model can also be applied to examine therelationship between resilience factors and outcomes(Fraser, 2004). This model suggests that individuals withmultiple resilience characteristics are likely to experiencebetter outcomes. In the present study we expect that cumu-lative (additive) resilience factors will have a protectiveinfluence on father involvement. Luthar et al. (2000) sug-gested that resilience factors can have both main and mod-erating effects on outcomes. According to the moderationmodel, resilience factors have a relatively potent influenceon high-risk individuals and a relatively minor influence onlow-risk individuals. Fathers in the low-risk romantic in-volvement group are expected to benefit less than fathers inthe higher risk friend and acquaintance groups from per-sonal resilience factors. The moderation model also sug-gests that resilience factors may reduce the negative effectof cumulative risk factors. That is, there will be an interac-tive effect of fathers’ additive resilience score on the asso-ciation between fathers’ additive risk score and paternalinvolvement with children.

Control Variables

We controlled for the following variables: father’s age,race/ethnicity, education, child gender, child temperament,and maternal risk factors. Father’s age and education havebeen found to correlate with paternal involvement (Pleck,1997). Several recent studies have found higher levels ofpaternal child-care involvement among African Americanfathers compared with European American fathers (Sander-son & Sanders Thompson, 2002). Studies generally supportthe finding that fathers are more involved with sons thanwith daughters (Pleck, 1997). McBride, Schoppe, and Rane(2002) found consistent associations between difficult childtemperament and father involvement. We also controlledfor mothers’ risk factors—nonresident fathers may increasetheir involvement with children if the mother has many riskfactors.

On the basis of these theoretical perspectives and empir-ical findings, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1: The amount of child care provided byfathers will vary by father’s relationship status with thechild’s mother. Fathers who are acquaintances with thechild’s mother will provide the least amount of childcare, fathers who are friends with their child’s motherwill provide moderate amounts of care, and fathers inromantic relationships with their child’s mother willprovide the greatest amounts of child care.

Hypothesis 2: Fathers’ involvement in child care willbe negatively associated with an additive index of riskfactors across all three relationship groups (romantic,friend, acquaintance).

Hypothesis 3: Fathers’ involvement in child care willbe positively associated with an additive index of re-silience factors across all three relationship groups.

481NONRESIDENT, UNMARRIED FATHERS’ INVOLVEMENT

Hypothesis 4: There will be a multiplicative relation-ship between the risk index and relationship status inrelation to father involvement in child care.

Hypothesis 5: There will be a moderating relationshipbetween the resilience index and relationship statusand between the resilience index and risk index inrelation to father involvement.

Method

FF follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in theUnited States between 1998 and 2000 (McLanahan & Gar-finkel, 2000). The study over-samples births to unmarriedcouples; and, when weighted, the data are representative ofnonmarital births in large U.S. cities at the turn of thecentury. The study consists of interviews with both mothersand fathers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3,and 5. The sample is made up of 3,712 unwed couples and1,200 married couples.

Mothers and biological fathers were interviewed shortlyafter the child’s birth in the hospital. The response rate forbaseline data was 87% for mothers and 75% for fathers. Theone-year response rate was 90% for mothers and 70% forfathers who participated at baseline. The data for the presentstudy are based on the sample of unwed and noncohabitingcouples, fathers’ and mothers’ one-year follow-up inter-views. The number of nonresident biological unmarriedfathers that participated in the one-year follow-up was 835.A number of these fathers (n � 122) did not have anycontact with the child during the month preceding the fatherinterview. For these men, we recoded the father child-carevariables as providing no child care during this time period.Twenty-two percent of the 835 fathers had substantial miss-ing data that could not be easily imputed. We omitted thesefathers from the study. The final sample consisted of 652fathers with complete data or 78% of noncohabiting, un-married fathers that participated in the one-year follow-upinterview.

Participants

Table 1 reveals that the majority of nonresident biologicalfathers in the sample self-identified as Black (66.3%), andsmaller percentages identified themselves as White (8.6%)or Hispanic (15.5%). Fathers’ median education level washigh school graduate, and their mean age was approximately27 years. The majority of fathers were friends with thebaby’s mother (54.4%). About equal proportions were ro-mantically involved (22.4%) or in acquaintance relation-ships (23.2%) with the mother.

Variables

Dependent variable. The present study focuses on com-ponents of fathers’ direct engagement with children (Lamb,Pleck, Chernov, & Levine, 1987) instead of creating vari-ables that would highlight paternal availability or responsi-bility because meta-analytic reviews of father involvement

find moderate associations between indicators of paternalengagement and child outcomes (Marsiglio et al., 2000).Further, sensorimotor children do not have the capacity tomeaningfully process paternal responsibility or availability(Hawkins & Palkovtiz, 1999). Only fathers’ self-reports oftheir involvement with the child are used. We were unableto triangulate by using mother reports because mothers’reports of fathers’ involvement were not directly compara-ble in the one-year follow-up survey. All items are based ona scale with responses that ranged from 0 (no days) to 7 (7days per week). Items include how often the father playsgames such as peek-a-boo or gotcha, sings songs or nurseryrhymes, reads stories, tells stories, plays inside with toys,and hugs or shows physical affection. An item centered onputting the child to bed was omitted because nonresidentfathers are unlikely to have equal opportunity to participatein this activity. An item about taking the child to visitrelatives was omitted because it overlaps with the socialsupport measure. A composite father involvement score wascreated by summing fathers’ responses to the six involve-ment items. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .92.

Relationship status. Fathers were asked, “What is yourrelationship with (mother) now? Are you romantically in-volved, just friends, or not in any kind of relationship?” Weuse the term acquaintances to refer to fathers who said thatthey were not in any kind of relationship with the child’smother. In all, 146 noncohabiting fathers stated that theywere in romantic relationships, 355 said they were “justfriends,” and 151 fathers indicated that they were in ac-quaintance relationships with the mother.

Father risk variables. Low-quality mother–father rela-tionship was measured with one item that asked fathers,“How is your relationship with the child’s mother?” Re-sponses to this item were rated on a five-point scale, rangingfrom 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). One item asked the respon-dent how many nonresident biological children he has otherthan the target child. One item asked fathers whether theyhave established legal paternity of the child (0 � yes or 1 �

Table 1Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample

Variable n %

Relationship statusRomantic 146 22.4Friends 355 54.4Acquaintance 151 23.2

Father’s raceWhite 56 8.6Black 432 66.3Hispanic 101 15.5Asian 9 1.4American Indian 14 2.1Other 40 6.1

Father’s educationLess than high school 16 2.5Some high school 211 32.4High school graduate or GED 288 44.2Some college or technical training 122 18.7College graduate or higher 15 2.3

Father’s age (M, SD) 26.86 6.99

482 FAGAN AND PALKOVITZ

no). The FF survey included one item about payment offormal child support and one item about payment of infor-mal child support. These items were combined to form achild support variable (0 � yes or 1 � no). One itemassessed legal problems: “Have you ever been booked orcharged with breaking the law?” Responses were 1 � yes or0 � no. One item asked whether the respondent currentlyhas charges pending against him (1 � yes, 0 � no). Oneitem asked whether the father had ever been incarcerated(1 � yes, 0 � no). One item asked fathers how many daysin the past month they had at least five alcoholic drinks inone day. Responses ranged from 0 to 31. One item ad-dressed fathers’ use of marijuana and one item focused onuse of cocaine, crack, speed, LSD, heroin, or other drugsduring the last month. The scores on these variables werecombined to form a composite illegal drug use variable (0 �no, 1 � yes). The nine items were converted to z scores andthen summed to create a fathers’ risk index.

Father resilience variables. Involvement of the father’sown father was measured with one item, “Was your bio-logical father involved in your life when growing up?” Theresponse format ranged from 1(very involved) to 3 (notinvolved). The responses were reverse coded to form theresilience index. Attendance at religious services was as-sessed with one item, “How often do you go to religiousservices?” Responses ranged from 1 (more than one timeper week) to 6 (never). Responses were reversed for theresilience index. Frequency of child visits with paternalgrandparents was measured with one item: “How often doesyour child see your parents?” Responses ranged from 1 (oneor more times per week) to 5 (never). Responses wererecoded so that a high score suggests frequent visits topaternal grandparents. Finally, items from the baseline andone-year follow-up fathers’ surveys were used to measurefather’s employment. The item from the one-year follow-upasked, “Have you worked since your child’s birth?” Theitem from the baseline survey asked, “Are you currentlyworking?” Fathers who worked at baseline and follow-upwere coded as 1. Fathers who did not work at baseline butwho worked at follow-up were also coded as 1; we assumedthat these fathers were showing movement toward resilienceby increasing their ability to engage in economic provision.Fathers who worked during neither time period or duringbaseline but not during follow-up were coded as 0. Aftercalculating z scores on all items, the resilience index wascalculated by summing the recoded scores for each item.

Control variables. Fathers were asked to indicate theirage in years. The FF eight response categories for educationwere collapsed into five categories: less than high school,some high school, high school graduate or GED, somecollege or technical training, and college graduate/graduateschool. The recoded variable was treated as interval data insubsequent analyses. Three race dummy variables werecreated: Black, White, and Hispanic fathers. The omittedcategory was “others” (Asian, American Indian, and other).Child gender (1 � boy, 0 � girl) was also included as acontrol variable.

Mothers’ risk measures were obtained from the mother’sone-year follow-up survey. Though some maternal risk

items were the same as the father risk items, the surveyswere not identical, necessitating the use of several differentmother risk items. FF included one item about mother’sgeneral health. Responses to this question ranged from 1(excellent) to 5 (poor). Mothers’ illegal drug and alcohol usewere coded in a fashion directly parallel to fathers’. Werecoded mother’s age into a dichotomous variable that in-dicated whether the respondent was a teenage mother (age19 years and below) or not (0 � adult, 1 � teen). Finallyone item asked the mother whether she could count onsomeone to help with child care in an emergency (0 �available support, 1 � no available support). These fiveitems were first converted to z scores and then summed tocreate a mothers’ risk index.

We also controlled for children’s difficult temperamentsby using data obtained from the mother’s follow-up survey.Three items were available: child often fusses and cries,child gets easily upset, and child reacts strongly when upset.Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Theitems were added together to form a difficult temperamentvariable. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .60.

Results

Preliminary and Missing Data Analyses

A series of statistical tests were conducted to determinewhether unmarried nonresident fathers differed from mar-ried, coresidential; separated; or unmarried, cohabiting fa-thers in the FF study. There were no divorced fathers at thetime of the one-year follow-up. There was a significantassociation between relationship status and father’s age,F(5, 3356) � 75.30, p � .001. Scheffe’s method for mul-tiple comparisons revealed that married, coresidential fa-thers were significantly older than fathers in unmarried,cohabiting; romantic; friend; or acquaintance relationshipswith the child’s mother. There was also a significant asso-ciation between relationship status and fathers’ education,F(5, 3356) � 8.06, p � .001. Scheffe tests revealed thatmarried, coresidential fathers had completed a higher levelof education than fathers in unmarried, cohabiting; roman-tic; or friend relationships.

Analyses were performed to determine whether partici-pants that were omitted from the study because of missingdata differed from those that remained in the study (i.e., nomissing data on the study variables; see Acock, 2005).Participants with missing data did not differ from thosewithout missing data on father’s age, race/ethnicity, oreducation; child gender; child temperament; or mothers’risk index. Participants with missing data scored higher,however, on the fathers’ risk index, t(833) � 2.14, p � .05,and they scored higher on the fathers’ resilience index,t(833) � 2.13, p � .05. Participants with missing datareported lower quality relationships with the child’s motherthan those with no missing data, t(833) � 3.28, p � .001.Those with missing data reported higher levels of socialsupport from family members, t(833) � 2.66, p � .01, andgreater likelihood of engaging in continuous work, �2(1,N � 835) � 7.36, p � .01.

483NONRESIDENT, UNMARRIED FATHERS’ INVOLVEMENT

Descriptive and Bivariate Analyses

The average score for father involvement for all fatherssuggests that men provide care to their children about 2.23days per week (SD � 2.0). The first study hypothesissuggested that fathers in acquaintance relationships wouldbe significantly less involved with their children thanfriends or romantically involved fathers, and friends wouldbe less involved than romantically involved fathers. Thefindings partially supported this hypothesis (see Table 2).There was a significant univariate relationship between re-lationship status and father involvement, F(2, 649) � 13.70,p � .001. Scheffe’s method for multiple comparisons re-vealed that the mean paternal involvement score for ac-quaintance fathers was significantly lower than the meaninvolvement scores of romantic and friend-only fathers.Descriptive analyses revealed that fathers experience manyrisk factors (these data are not shown in a table). Mostfathers (60%) reported that their relationship status with themother declined in level of closeness (i.e., from romantic tofriend or acquaintance) from the baseline survey to the1-year follow-up. On the average, 48% of fathers had beenbooked or charged with breaking the law, 29% had spenttime in jail, 9% had charges pending, 30% paid no formal orinformal child support, 12% drank five or more alcoholicbeverages per day more than two times per month, 11%used illegal drugs in the last month, 40% had additionalbiological children not residing with the target child and notresiding with the father, and 48% reported fair to poorrelationships with the mother. In regard to the resiliencefactors, 65% said their own biological father was somewhator very involved while growing up, 83% worked continu-ously in paid jobs, 72% took the child to see paternalgrandparents a few times per month or more, and 44%attended religious services a few times per month or more.

Table 2 also shows the descriptive statistics (z scores) forthe risk and resilience composite scores and individualvariables across all relationship groups. There was a signif-icant univariate relationship between relationship status andthe additive risk index, F(2, 649) � 6.54, p � .01. Scheffetests revealed that the mean risk index was higher foracquaintance fathers in comparison with romantic fathersand friends. Acquaintance fathers had poorer relationshipswith the mother than romantically involved or friend-onlyfathers, and friend-only fathers had poorer relationshipsthan romantically involved fathers. There was also a signif-icant univariate relationship between relationship status andthe additive resilience index, F(2, 649) � 7.15, p � .001.The mean resilience index was greater for romanticallyinvolved and friend-only fathers compared with acquain-tance fathers. Fathers’ social support was the only resiliencevariable that was associated with relationship status, F(2,649) � 15.70, p � .001. Romantically involved and friend-only fathers were more likely than acquaintance fathers totake their child to see grandparents.

Multivariate Analyses

We used a hierarchical multiple regression procedure totest the multivariate association between father involvementand the risk index, resilience index, and control variables(see Table 3). The control variables were entered simulta-neously in Model 1; the risk and control variables wereentered in Model 2; and the resilience, risk, and controlvariables were entered in Model 3. Model 4 includes allindependent variables plus significant multiplicative andmoderating terms.

The control variables explained 3% of the variance in thedependent variable (p � .01). Older nonresident fatherswere significantly less likely to provide caregiving to their

Table 2Descriptive Statistics for the Major Study Variables by Relationship Group

Variable

Romantic(n � 146)

Friends(n � 355)

Acquaintance(n � 151)

F �2 ScheffeM SD M SD M SD

Father involvement 15.03a 12.39 14.59 11.74 9.01 11.23 13.70*** R, F � ARisk index �0.60 3.57 �0.14 3.70 0.91 4.05 6.54** A � R, FLow quality relationship �0.74 0.84 �0.08 0.88 0.90 0.70 �147.49*** A � R, F; F � RNo. other children �0.04 0.86 0.05 1.09 �0.08 0.90 1.04Legal problems 0.02 1.00 �0.02 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.28Charges pending 0.10 1.13 �0.04 0.94 0.00 1.00 2.11Drug use �0.05 0.94 �0.03 0.96 0.13 1.14 3.25No legal paternity �0.11 0.95 0.00 1.00 0.09 1.04 2.98History of incarceration 0.13 1.06 �0.06 0.97 0.01 1.01 3.86Alcohol abuse �0.06 0.86 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.80Does not pay child support �0.01 0.90 �0.06 0.88 0.14 1.03 2.48†

Resilience index 0.37 1.83 0.08 2.10 �0.54 2.53 7.15*** R, F � ASteady employment 0.01 0.99 0.04 0.96 �0.12 1.09 2.73Social support 0.24 0.89 0.06 0.96 �0.37 1.09 15.70*** R, F � AOwn biological father inv. 0.07 0.96 0.00 1.00 �0.06 1.04 1.27Attends religious serv. 0.05 0.98 �0.02 1.00 0.00 1.03 0.58

Note. Means and standard deviations are z scores for all variables except father involvement. R � romantic relationship; F � friends;A � acquaintance; inv. � involved; serv. � service. df for F � 2, 651. df for �2 � 2, N � 652.a 15.03 is equivalent to 2.51 days per week.† p � .10. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.

484 FAGAN AND PALKOVITZ

Tab

le3

Hie

rarc

hica

lR

egre

ssio

nof

Fat

her

Invo

lvem

ent

onR

isk,

Res

ilie

nce,

and

Con

trol

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

e

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Mod

el4

BSE

�B

SE�

BSE

�B

SE�

Fath

er’s

age

�0.

210.

07�

.12*

*�

0.21

0.07

�.1

3**

�0.

230.

06�

.13*

**

�0.

230.

06�

.13*

**

Fath

er’s

educ

atio

n0.

910.

58.0

60.

470.

56.0

30.

220.

54.0

20.

230.

54.0

2A

fric

anA

mer

ican

3.23

1.59

.13*

2.36

1.51

.09

2.29

1.48

.09

2.38

1.47

.09

Whi

te3.

132.

16.0

72.

372.

05.0

62.

332.

00.0

52.

361.

99.0

6H

ispa

nic

5.64

1.90

.17*

*3.

871.

82.1

2*2.

901.

78.0

92.

931.

77.0

9C

hild

gend

er0.

520.

94.0

20.

380.

90.0

20.

290.

87.0

10.

190.

87.0

1C

hild

tem

pera

men

t�

0.10

0.15

�.0

3�

0.13

0.14

�.0

3�

0.11

0.14

�.0

3�

0.08

0.14

�.0

2M

othe

rri

skin

dex

0.05

0.20

.01

0.03

0.19

.01

0.04

0.19

.01

0.04

0.19

.01

Fath

erR

isk

Acq

uain

tanc

ere

latio

nshi

p�

4.91

1.07

�.1

7***

�4.

261.

09�

.15*

**

�4.

691.

10�

.17*

**

Ris

kin

dex

�0.

800.

12�

.25*

**

�0.

630.

12�

.20*

**

�0.

820.

14�

.26*

**

Fath

erR

esili

ence

Rom

antic

rela

tions

hip

�0.

171.

09�

.01

�0.

241.

08�

.01

Res

ilien

cein

dex

1.27

0.21

.23*

**

1.27

0.21

.23*

**

Mul

tiplic

ativ

ere

latio

nshi

pA

cqua

inta

nce

�R

isk

Inde

x0.

680.

260.

11**

Cha

nge

inR

2.0

3.1

0.0

5.0

1F

for

all

vari

able

s2.

28**

8.81

***

10.6

7***

10.4

9***

Tot

alR

2.0

3.1

3.1

8.1

9N

652

652

652

652

*p

�.0

5.**

p�

.01.

***

p�

.001

.

485NONRESIDENT, UNMARRIED FATHERS’ INVOLVEMENT

infants. African American and Hispanic fathers were sig-nificantly more likely to provide caregiving. The findingssupported the study’s second hypothesis (see Model 2): Theadditive risk index was negatively related to paternal in-volvement. There was also a significant negative relation-ship between acquaintance fathers and father involvement.These risk variables explained an additional 10% of thevariance in father involvement. The third study hypothesiswas supported (see Model 3): The resilience index waspositively associated with father involvement. However,there was no significant relationship between romantic in-volvement with the mother and the dependent variable. Theresilience variables explained an additional 5% of the vari-ance in the dependent variable.

In support of the study’s fourth hypothesis, the resultsrevealed a significant multiplicative relationship betweenthe risk index and acquaintance fathers (see Model 4). Apost hoc analysis was conducted to further examine themultiplicative relationship. Model 4 was run first with ac-quaintance fathers only in the sample and no interactiveterm, and then with romantic and friends in the sample andno interactive term (not shown in a table). The risk indexhad a greater negative influence on paternal involvement incaregiving among fathers in the acquaintance group (� ��.28, p � .001) than among fathers in the other relationshipgroups (� � �.16, p � .001). There was no support for thestudy’s fifth hypothesis: The resilience index did not mod-erate the relationship between risk and fathers’ caregiving.

Discussion

As in other analyses of at-risk fathers (Cabrera et al.,2004; McLanahan & Carlson, 2004), the present studyconfirms that unmarried nonresidential fathers maintain pat-terns of involvement with their children one year after thebirth. Overall, the analyses provided evidence that the na-ture of the father’s relationship with the child’s birth motherpredicts variability in levels of fathers’ involvement withtheir children. In general, the closer the relationship be-tween the father and his child’s birth mother, the higher thelevel of paternal involvement in child care. Fathers in ro-mantic and friendship relationships with their child’smother maintain significantly higher levels of engagementwith their infants than fathers in acquaintance relationshipswith the mother. The multivariate data demonstrate thatadditive risk and resilience factors influence paternal in-volvement with infants. These data further reveal that riskfactors influence fathers’ involvement in different ways forfathers in different kinds of relationships with their chil-dren’s birth mothers. The findings do not show that theadditive resilience index moderates the association betweenrelationship status and paternal involvement. The resilienceindex also does not moderate the relationship between theadditive risk index and father involvement.

Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Specifically, dataanalyses confirmed that fathers’ relationship classification(romantic, friend, acquaintance) was a significant predictorof father’s composite involvement score. There were notsignificant differences in involvement scores between all

groups of relationship classifications. Fathers who had ei-ther romantic or friendship relationships with their child’sbiological mother had higher levels of father involvementwith their children than men with acquaintance relation-ships. However, romantically involved fathers and friendsdid not differ significantly in their involvement scores withtheir children. This finding points to the importance offathers maintaining some form of relationship with thechild’s mother in order to facilitate ongoing involvement inthe child’s life.

Hypothesis 2 found support as well. Scores on the addi-tive risk index were negatively related to paternal involve-ment across all relationship classifications. Although previ-ous studies have shown significant relationships betweenrisk variables (e.g., legal problems) and paternal involve-ment (Smith, Krohn, Chu, & Best, 2005), this study re-vealed that accumulating risk factors have a negative influ-ence on involvement. To the best of our knowledge, priorresearch has not examined the influence of additive riskfactors on involvement. Future research should focus on themechanisms by which risk variables influence fathering. Forexample, it is not clear whether additive risk factors result inreduced involvement because fathers are less available toprovide care to their children or whether risk factors areconsistent with a pattern of lower overall competency in allareas of psychosocial functioning on the part of the father.It would be beneficial to engage in exploratory qualitativework to explore underlying processes, meanings, and mo-tives that diminish paternal involvement in at-risk fathers.

Hypothesis 3 was supported. The additive resilience indexwas positively associated with paternal involvement. It is in-teresting to note that the relationship between the resilienceindex and paternal child-care involvement was about equal insize to the relationship between the risk index and the depen-dent variable. This finding suggests the importance of includ-ing measures of additive resilience in studies of at-risk fathers.We noted several limitations with the resilience index obtainedfrom FF. The data set included a limited number of variablesthat appeared to measure resilience. For example, FF did notinclude measures of fathers’ resilient personality characteris-tics, which have been found to correlate with father involve-ment in high-risk populations (Fagan et al., 2003). Our analy-ses may therefore underestimate the effect of resilience factorson paternal involvement.

Hypothesis 4 was supported. Regression results reflecteda multiplicative relationship between the risk index andrelationship status, as risk had its greatest influence inimpeding father involvement in the acquaintance group.These findings are noteworthy because they suggest that therelationship between risk factors and paternal involvementin child care is both additive and multiplicative. That addi-tive risk factors operate differently and independentlyacross relationship categories to predict patterns of fatherinvolvement raises important questions about underlyingprocesses. Acquaintance fathers appear to be more sensitivethan fathers in other relationship groups to the adverseinfluence of risk factors. It is possible that mothers are morewilling to overlook fathers’ risk characteristics when thecouple is still in a close relationship, such as friendship or

486 FAGAN AND PALKOVITZ

romantic relationship. On the other hand, mothers in ac-quaintance relationships may have little motivation to en-courage fathers’ involvement with children when the manhas multiple risk characteristics.

Hypothesis 5 was not supported. There was no significantmoderating relationship between the additive resilience in-dex and relationship status or between the additive risk andadditive resilience indexes. Many resilience studies findrelatively small interaction effects (Roosa, 2000). The lackof a significant interaction effect may be a reflection of thefact that more robust measures of resilience are needed.Although secondary analysis of large data sets affords manyanalytic advantages, it is not the ideal context for creatingfully elaborated measures to rigorously test theoretical re-lationships that were not centrally represented in the origi-nal measures.

The descriptive findings of this study were also note-worthy because they suggest that fathers in the FF studyexperience many risk factors. The first year following thechild’s birth also appears to be critical for examining theeffect of risk factors. The majority of fathers experienceda decline in relationship closeness with the child’smother between the child’s birth and first birthday.Nearly half of the fathers in this study had experiencewith the criminal justice system, and almost half of thefathers have additional nonresident biological childrennot living with the target child. Many fathers reportedpoor relationships with the target child’s mother. Morethan one third of fathers reported little to no involvementwith their own biological father while growing up.

The descriptive analyses also revealed differences inrisk and resilience factors across relationship categories.Acquaintance fathers scored significantly higher on therisk index than fathers in romantic or friend relationshipswith the mother. Acquaintance fathers were far morelikely than their counterparts to report having a low-quality relationship with the mother. Romantic and friendfathers, on the other hand, scored significantly higherthan acquaintance fathers on the resilience index. Most ofthe variance was explained by one resilience variable—social support. Extended family members may be moremotivated to pursue involvement with the child when thecouple has some level of close relationship with eachother. On the other hand, mothers may restrict the degreeto which they allow their children to visit paternal grand-parents when the couple relationship has dissolved. Thisexplanation suggests that maternal gatekeeping (Allen &Hawkins, 1999) is applied differently to fathers withdifferent relationships with the mother. We think thesefindings are of sufficient interest to warrant future exam-ination by researchers. The involvement of extended fam-ily members may be critical for the continued involve-ment of nonresidential fathers with their children. Thepotential for fathers in acquaintance relationships to stayin touch with their children may be diminished if theirparenting is not embedded in a network of caring indi-viduals from the onset.

Limitations

This study is limited by the factors inherent in researchthat uses self-report measures. Previous studies have shownthat fathers overestimate involvement with children (Wical& Doherty, 2005). Because of incomparable data, we werenot able to use a multimethod approach of using bothmother and father reports of paternal involvement withchildren. Further limitations are associated with conductingsecondary analyses of large data sets. Creating additiveindexes of risk and resilience factors from available items inthe data set produced variables that are unevenly developed,and the limited number of risk factors examined in the dataset may have muted the real effects of risk on paternalinvolvement. These factors may explain the relatively mod-erate amount of variance in the dependent variable ac-counted for by the risk and resilience indexes. The data arealso limited because of the amount of missing data in theone-year follow-up interviews with fathers. Approximately22% of fathers who participated in the one-year follow-uphad missing data on at least one of the study variables.Fathers with missing data scored higher on both the additiverisk index and the additive resilience index, suggesting thatthese fathers are qualitatively different from fathers thatanswered all questions in the survey.

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that the status of thefather’s relationship with his child’s birth mother serves animportant influence on father involvement. Men in differentkinds of relationships with their children’s mother experi-ence different levels and patterns of influence from riskfactors. Men in the most tenuous relationships also have thefewest resilience factors and the greatest number of riskfactors. These patterns may indicate a general lack of socialcapital (Coleman, 1988) on the part of nonresidential un-married fathers without ongoing relationships with theirchildren’s mother. Though they manifest the lowest level ofinvolvement with their infants, it is remarkable that they cannavigate the deterrents to engagement to maintain somelevel of involvement with their children. These findingsdemonstrate the importance of situating fathering within thelarger framework of family relationships and the personalrisk and resilience factors influencing those men. We thinkit also worth noting that risk and resilience factors pertinentfor nonresidential fathers may also be predictive of involve-ment of residential fathers with their infants.

There are policy implications to be gleaned from thesefindings. Programs serving nonresident unmarried fathersshould place greater emphasis on fathers and mothers main-taining a meaningful relationship with each other, even ifthat relationship is one based in friendship rather than inromantic involvement. Nonresident fathers are at high riskfor becoming disconnected to their children over time.Lacking a minimally close relationship, as is the case whencouples become acquaintances, is likely to result in lowerlevels of paternal engagement of children. Our findings alsopoint to the importance of programs that address the risk

487NONRESIDENT, UNMARRIED FATHERS’ INVOLVEMENT

and resilience conditions affecting those fathers. Althoughwe cannot conclude from our data that reductions in cumu-lative risk factors will lead to greater father involvement, wethink that policy makers should consider the development ofdemonstration projects and experimental research studiesthat examine the effects of reducing fathers’ risks andincreasing their resilience in addition to encouraging re-sponsible fatherhood and healthy couple relationships. Wenote the importance of conducting such studies with fathersand families during the first year or two following thechild’s birth, a time period when families are at considerablerisk for losing touch with their children. We further suggestthat focused qualitative work in regard to men’s experiencesof risk and resilience factors would inform our ability todesign interventions and to formulate policies that mayfacilitate continued father involvement in fragile families.

References

Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 67, 1012–1028.

Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. H. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping:Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involve-ment in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,199–212.

Amato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions totheir children’s lives. In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), Men infamilies: When do they get involved? What difference does itmake? (pp. 241–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amato, P., & Booth, A. (2001). The legacy of parents’ maritaldiscord: Consequences for children’s marital quality. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81, 627–638.

Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2005).When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in childbehavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,46, 235–245.

Beaton, J. M., Doherty, W. J., & Rueter, M. A. (2003). Family oforigin processes and attitudes of expectant fathers. Fathering: AJournal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fa-thers, 1, 149–168.

Brady, K. T., Grice, D. E., Dustan, L., & Randall, C. (1993).Gender differences in substance use disorders. American Journalof Psychiatry, 150, 1707–1711.

Bunting, L., & McAuley, C. (2004). Research review: Teenagepregnancy and parenthood: The role of fathers. Child and FamilySocial Work, 9, 295–303.

Cabrera, N. J., Ryan, R. M., Shannon, J. D., Brooks-Gunn, J.,Vogel, C., Raikes, H., et al. (2004). Low-income fathers’ in-volvement in their toddlers’ lives: Biological fathers from theEarly Head Start Research and Evaluation Study. Fathering: AJournal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fa-thers, 2, 5–30.

Campbell, S. (2005). Determining overall risk. Journal of RiskResearch, 8, 569–581.

Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Early father involve-ment in fragile families. In R. Day & M. Lamb (Eds.), Concep-tualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 241–271). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2005). Un-married but not absent: Fathers’ involvement with children after anonmarital birth. Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (workingpaper #05–07-FF). Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP05–07-FF-carlson.pdf

Chapman, P. L., & Mullis, R. L. (2000). Racial differences inadolescent coping and self-esteem. Journal of Genetic Psychol-ogy, 161, 152–160.

Coleman, J. H. (1988). Social capital in the creation of humancapital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1999). Stability and changein paternal involvement among urban African American fathers.Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 1–20.

Dollahite, D. C. (2004). A narrative approach to exploring respon-sible involvement of fathers with their special-needs children. InR. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuringfather involvement (pp. 109–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Income effects acrossthe life span: Integration and interpretation. In G. J. Duncan & J.Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp.596–610). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fagan, J., Barnett, M., Bernd, E., & Whiteman, V. (2003). Prenatalinvolvement of adolescent unmarried fathers. Fathering: A Jour-nal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 1,283–302.

Fraser, M. (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood. Washington,DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Garmenzy, N., & Matsen, A. S. (1991). The protective role ofcompetence indicators in children at risk. In E. A. Cummings,A. L. Green, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span developmentalpsychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 151–174).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gavin, L. E., Black, M. M., Minor, S., Abel, Y., Papas, M. A., &Bentley, M. E. (2002). Young, disadvantaged fathers’ involve-ment with their infants: An ecological perspective. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 31, 266–276.

Harvey, J., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2004). Psychological resilience indisadvantaged youth: A critical overview. Australian Psycholo-gist, 39, 3–13.

Hawkins, A. J., & Palkovitz, R. (1999). Beyond ticks and clicks:The need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations andmeasures of father involvement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8,11–32.

Huang, C. (2006). Child support enforcement and father involve-ment for children in never-married families. Fathering: A Jour-nal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 4,97–111.

Huang, C., Han, W., & Garfinkel, I. (2003). Child support enforce-ment, joint legal custody, and parental involvement. Social Ser-vice Review, 77, 255–278.

Lamb, M. E. (1999). Noncustodial fathers and their impact onchildren of divorce. In R. A. Thompson & P. Amato (Eds.), Thepostdivorce family: Research and policy issues (pp 105–125).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J., Charnov, E., & Levine, J. A. (1987). Abiosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In J.Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, & L. Sherrod (Eds.), Parentingacross the lifespan: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 111–142). NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). Research onresilience: Response to commentaries. Child Development, 71,573–575.

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1999). New families and non-resident father–child visitation. Social Forces, 78, 87–116.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 62, 1173–1191.

Marsiglio, W., Roy, K., & Fox, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Situated

488 FAGAN AND PALKOVITZ

fathering: A focus on physical and social spaces. New York:Rowman & Littlefield.

McBride, B. A., Schoppe, S. J., & Rane, T. R. (2002). Childcharacteristics, parenting stress, and parental involvement: Fa-thers versus mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,998–1011.

McLanahan, S., & Carlson, M. S. (2004). Fathers in fragile fam-ilies. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in childdevelopment (4th ed., pp. 368–396). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McLanahan, S., & Garfinkel, I. (2000). The Fragile Familiesand Child Wellbeing Study: Questions, design, and a fewpreliminary results (Center for Research on Child Wellbeing,Working Paper # 00 – 07). Retrieved June 19, 2006, fromPrinceton University, Center for Research on Child Wellbe-ing: http://crcw.princeton.edu/papers.html

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a singleparent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Meyer, D. R. (1998). The effect of child support on the economicstatus of nonresident fathers. In I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan,D. R. Meyer, & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Fathers under fire: Therevolution in child support enforcement (pp. 94–127). NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mincy, R., Garfinkel, I., & Nepomnyaschy, L. (2005). In-hospitalpaternity establishment and father involvement in fragile fami-lies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 611–626.

Mincy, R., & Oliver, H. (2003). Age, race, and children’s livingarrangements: Implications for TANF reauthorization. Washing-ton, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Nelson, T. J. (2004). Low-income fathers. Annual Review of So-ciology, 30, 427–451.

Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and men’s adult develop-ment: Provisional balances. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, andconsequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father inchild development (3rd ed., pp. 33–48). New York: Wiley.

Pungello, E. P., Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M. R., & Patterson,C. J. (1996). Environmental risk factors and children’s achieve-ment from middle childhood to adolescence. DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 755–767.

Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Cook, J. (2002).Getting dads involved: Predictors of father involvement in EarlyHead Start and with their children. Infant Mental Health Journal,23, 62–78.

Roosa, M. W. (2000). Some thoughts about resilience versuspositive development, main effects versus interactions, and thevalue of resilience. Child Development, 71, 567–569.

Roy, K. M., & Dyson, O. L. (2005). Gatekeeping in context:Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers.Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice AboutMen as Fathers, 3, 289–310.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective

factors and resistance to psychiatric disorders. British Journal ofPsychiatry, 147, 598–611.

Sanderson, S., & Sanders Thompson, V. L. (2002). Factors asso-ciated with perceived paternal involvement in childrearing. SexRoles, 46, 99–111.

Seltzer, J. A., McLanahan, S., & Hanson, T. L. (1998). Will childsupport enforcement increase father–child contact and parentalconflict after separation? In I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, D. R.Meyer, & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Fathers under fire: The revolutionin child support enforcement (pp. 157–190). New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Smith, C. A., Krohn, M. D., Chu, R., & Best, O. (2005). AfricanAmerican fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 975–1001.

Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A fourdecade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sorenson, E., & Wheaton, L. (2000). Income and demographiccharacteristics of nonresident fathers in 1993. Washington, DC:Department of Health and Human Services.

Specht, J., Polgar, J. M., & King, G. A. (2003). How we gothere. In G. A. King, E. G. Brown, & L. K. Smith (Eds.),Resilience: Learning from people with disabilities and theturning points in their lives (pp. 7–29). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Stewart, S. D. (1999). Nonresident mothers’ and fathers’ socialcontact with children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,894–907.

Stier, H., & Tienda, M. (1993). Are men marginal to the family?Insights from Chicago’s inner city. In J. C. Hood (Ed.), Men,work, and family (pp. 23–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Statistical abstract of the UnitedStates: 2006. Retrieved on September 20, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/pop.pdf

Western, B., Lopoo, L., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Incarcerationand the bonds among parents in fragile families. In M. Patillo,D. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), The impact of incarcerationon families and communities. New York: Russell Sage.

Wical, K. A., & Doherty, W. J. (2005). How reliable are fathers’reports of involvement with their children? A methodologicalreport. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and PracticeAbout Men as Fathers, 3, 81–91.

Willoughby, C., Brown, E. G., Polgar, J. M., & Havens, L. (2003).The resilient self—What helps and what hinders. In G. A. King,E. G. Brown, & L. K. Smith (Eds.), Resilience: Learning frompeople with disabilities and the turning points in their lives (pp.7–29). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wilson, W. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Received April 7, 2006Revision received October 1, 2006

Accepted October 2, 2006 �

489NONRESIDENT, UNMARRIED FATHERS’ INVOLVEMENT