Population Research Institute
 Pennsylvania State University
 University Park, PA 16802

 April 2000
 (FORTHCOMING: JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY)
This research was partially supported by core funding (P30-HD28263) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Population Research Institute. Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA, March, 2000.
 
 

 Does Fatherhood Matter for Men?
 Abstract
 

Ignored in the flurry of new research on fathers is that fatherhood may have consequences for men. This paper explores possible effects on the lives and well-being of men for a range of fatherhood experiences.  Data are drawn from the National Survey of Families and Households.  The first part of this paper examines whether men’s varied associations with children (no children, coresident, non-coresident, and step-fatherhood) are associated with men’s psychological health and behavior, social connections, intergenerational family relations, and work behavior. We find strong evidence that fathers differ from non-fathers in their social connections, family relationships, and work behavior. There is significant variation in effects among the father types as well. The second section of this paper focuses attention on just men who are fathers, and examines whether fathering behavior (e.g., the amount of time and nature of the activities that fathers are reported to be spending with their children) is associated with men’s well-being.  The effects of father involvement on men was found to be most significant for those who were living with their own children.

Key Words: fatherhood, men’s well-being, divorced fathers, step-fathers, non-resident fatherhood
 
 
 

 Does Fatherhood Matter for Men?
Compared to motherhood, fatherhood is not nearly appreciated as a transforming event in the lives of adults.  In fact, the consequences of becoming a father for men has been comparatively neglected by scholars.  This oversight is somewhat surprising in light of recent social changes surrounding fatherhood (Bozett & Hanson, 1991; Furstenberg, 1988; Griswold, 1993; Pleck, 1987; Snarey, 1993).  Fatherhood, at least in the United States, has become the subject of intense scholarly and popular attention.  This attention is driven in large part by social and cultural changes in the image of fatherhood, but also by changes in men’s behavior as fathers--they are “fathering” differently than was the case in the past (Furstenberg, 1988).  While the reality may not be as advanced as the rhetoric, there is some evidence that fathers are more emotionally connected to their children, more involved in their lives, egalitarian in their gender role expectations, and more likely to the principal provider of care for their children (Griswold, 1993; Lamb, 1987; Parke, 1995).  Not surprisingly, we are very interested in the consequences of fathers and fathering for the well-being of children.
There is, however, another, almost contradictory change in fatherhood in America.  At the same time that a “new fatherhood” is emerging and that there is a growing appreciation for the role of fathers in the lives of children, fewer men are experiencing fatherhood.   Recent demographic analyses show that nearly six out of ten adult males were living with children in the mid 1960's, but that this was the experience of only a minority of men (45 percent) by the late 1990's (Eggebeen, 1999).  To be sure, women’s experience with parenthood has also declined in the last few decades, but men’s retreat from parenthood has been more pervasive (Goldsheider& Hogan, 1999).
 These two trends form the backdrop to this paper.  We address a simple question: In what ways do men who are fathers differ from men who are not fathers?   We begin be asking why we should expect differences between fathers and non-fathers, identifying some hypothesized differences.  Drawing on data from the National Survey of Families and Households, we then explore these issues at two levels.  First, we examine associations between a variety of father statuses and various measures of well-being, social relations, and family ties.  Are fathers better off than men who are not?  Do fathers who live with their children differ from nonresident fathers?   Second, we move beyond this “social address” model to focus explicitly on the relationship between extent of father involvement and outcomes.  In other words, are active, highly involved fathers more likely to be better off than fathers who are less involved?
 Background
 It is a canon among developmentally oriented scholars that the parent-child relationship is a two-way street (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Erikson, 1963).  Despite this theoretical orientation, however, most of the research through the years has focused on what parents do to children (e.g., socialization).  This is especially true of the recent burst of scholarly attention given fathers.  This is not to say that the effects of fatherhood on men has been ignored completely.  Some attention, ironically, has been on the costs of fatherhood.  For example, there has been research on the consequences of early-timed fatherhood among young adult men.  In general, off-timed fatherhood is associated with poorer adjustment, higher risks of dropping out of school, and higher risks of criminal behavior for young fathers (Harper, 1996; Heath, McKenry, & Leigh, 1995).   The negative aspects of fatherhood have also been discussed, albeit somewhat indirectly, in the transition to parenthood literature where the arrival of a baby is associated with declines in marital satisfaction, stress, and other assorted ills (Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Glenn, 1990).
Studies of normatively timed fatherhood that are not exclusively concerned with the effects of transition to parenthood are rare, however.  There is some evidence that fatherhood increases marital stability (Cowan & Cowan, 1992), and that competent fatherhood may be associated with marital satisfaction in mid-life (Heath & Heath, 1991; Snarey, 1993).  For the most part, however, there has been little systematic theoretical or empirical attention to why fatherhood should matter to men (see Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997;  Marsiglio, 1998 and Snarey, 1993 for exceptions).  In the next section we review the theoretical reasons and empirical evidence for considering the role of fatherhood.  We hypothesize that fatherhood is associated with men’s behavior and functioning in four domains: physical and psychological health, men’s connections to communities and social networks, men’s connections to their families, and men’s involvement in work.
Psychological and Physical Health
  Work roles are central to men’s psychological health, according to some scholars (Erikson, 1980; Levinson, 1978).   The idea is that the workplace is the arena where men establish their identities and where their self-worth is most firmly rooted.  In contrast to work roles, family relationships have typically been seen to be of marginal importance to the psychological states of men.   Nevertheless, a few scholars have challenged this view.  While most attention has focused on the relationship between marriage and  men’s mental and physical health (Waite, 1995), some have argued for the significance of the parental role (Farrell & Rosenberg, 1981; Pleck, 1985).  Happiness, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction, it is posited, are more rooted in the family roles of men than their work roles (Levine & Pitt, 1995).
There is support for these ideas. Some evidence suggests that men who are fathers have less psychological distress (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992; Gove & Mongione, 1983).  Barnett et. al (1992) for example, examined the relationship between men’s subjective experiences in their work and family roles and their level of psychological health for 300 married men in dual earner families.   They find evidence that the quality of their family roles and the quality of their work roles equally effect mens’ level of psychological distress.  They go on to conclude that men’s emotional involvement with their children acted as a buffer against work related stresses.
Men who become fathers are also likely to change how they behave. Just as marriage “civilizes” men by reducing their involvement in such risky behaviors as smoking, drinking, drug use and dangerous hobbies (Umberson, 1987), so fatherhood may provide the motivation to abstain from these activities.  Fatherhood may signal a sense of responsibility to others, or reveal to men that they have someone to live for, thus encouraging positive behaviors.  Either of these new perspectives may encourage men to pay attention to their health and engage in health promoting behaviors, for example.
We anticipate, then, that men who are fathers will indicate that they are more satisfied with their lives and report themselves to be in better health.  In addition, fathers will be less likely to report symptoms of depression and less likely to indicate drug or alcohol abuse than men who are not fathers.
Social Connections
Having children may have consequences beyond men’s psychological states and behavior. Fatherhood may alter men’s social relations in a number of different ways. Having children may
 not merely increase sociability as much as change the nature of one’s social life (Seccombe & Ishii-Kuntz, 1994).  Being a father may mean less free time spent with friends and associates, but more time in social relationships that directly or indirectly involve the child.  For example, children may be a mechanism which increases neighborliness by giving adults who live near each other and have similarly aged children common ground.
Some scholars have suggested that the opportunity to care for others, especially children, can initiate personal growth by challenging men to clarify values and set priorities (Parke, 1981; Russell, 1982).   When men become fathers, they are likely to be confronted with opportunities to sort out what is important to them, how they should live their lives, and what things they wish to pass along to the next generation (Snarey, 1993).  Consistent with this line of reasoning, we should expect fatherhood to be associated with greater civic engagement.  For example,  men who are fathers may be more involved with other adults via their interest and engagement with institutions and activities that involve their children like schools, athletic teams, or community organizations.   Children are the mechanism that draws men who are fathers into such activities as cub scout leader, scout master, community league basketball coach, little league coach, teacher, etc.  Children may also be behind men’s active engagement in school related organizations like PTA, local school boards, or other service organizations.
 Finally, children may affect men’s participation in religious practices and organizations.  Men may reevaluate the importance of religion when they have children arrive and are confronted with the tasks of teaching children what to value.  There is evidence that assuming the role of father increases men’s involvement in religious activities.  Church attendance rates are higher among married men with children than men who are not married or fathers (Chaves, 1991; Ploch & Hastings, 1998; Stolzenberg, Blair-Loy, & Waite, 1995).
For these reasons, we expect to see significant differences between fathers and non-fathers in their social connections.  We hypothesize that fathers will be more involved than non-fathers in service organizations whose intent is to better the community, school support groups, and churches.  In contrast, we predict that fathers will tend to be less involved in organizations whose primary purpose is recreational, focused on leisure pursuits, or self improvement.  We also propose that men who are fathers will be less involved in informal, recreational activities and social relationships such as visiting friends or co-workers, going to a bar, or playing on sports teams.
Family Involvement
Parenthood may also shift the weight of social relationships towards family and kin.  There is plenty of evidence that parenthood strengthens intergenerational ties of adult children (Eggebeen and Hogan, 1990).  Regular contact via visiting and phone calls, as well as routine exchanges of support between adult children and aging parents are most typical when these adult children are parents.   Although women tend to be the “kin keepers” of intergenerational relationships in American society  (Rossi & Rossi, 1991; Spitze & Logan, 1989; Troll, Miller, & Atchley, 1979), there is some evidence that men do participate in providing tangible help.  Men are more likely than women to provide financial assistance, and are as likely as women to provide help with transportation and a variety of household services to their aging parents (Eggebeen & Hogan, 1990).  Given that children tighten intergenerational ties, we might expect that fathers are more likely than non-fathers to engage in intergenerational exchanges.
Work Involvement
 There is also some suggestion in the research literature that fatherhood has consequences for men’s priorities about their economic roles.  Compared to men who are not fathers, fathers evidence greater attachment to the labor force or greater commitment to their careers out of a sense of responsibility to provide for their children (Snarey, 1993).  However, highly involved fathering may be negatively related to the intensity of work involvement (Coltrane, 1995; Russell & Radin, 1983).   In other words, fatherhood may encourage men to seek regular, responsible employment, but moderate their desire to “over commit” to their jobs or careers.  Perhaps fatherhood provides men with an alternative source of identity to ones occupation.
We hypothesize that men who are fathers will show greater attachment to the labor force. Among men who are employed, however, we anticipate that fathers will average fewer hours of work per week than men who are not fathers.
Defining Fatherhood
Until this point, we have assumed a simple distinction between men who are fathers and those who are not. Given the social changes in marriage, divorce, and remarriage that have complicated families and men’s ties to children, this is quite naive.  Today it is common place for  fatherhood to be practiced across households and across blood-lines.  It is critical, therefore, to distinguish fathers in a variety of different contexts beyond the traditional biological father living with his own children.
 Distinguishing these settings is crucial because they pose opportunities or barriers to men’s practice of fatherhood.  Most obvious, biologically fathering children and then living with them until they become adults presents men with considerable opportunities to assume the identity of father and engage in fathering behaviors.  This is certainly the most typical pattern, the one with the clearest cultural scripts to guide behavior and expectations.  This is certainly the one that has received the most research attention.  However, several alternative settings are emerging that cannot be ignored.
High divorce rates and the growing popularity of non-marital childbearing have contributed to the growth of children living apart from their fathers.  It is well known that men’s involvement with nonresident children is comparatively minimal and declines over time (Furstenberg & Harris, 1992; King, 1994; Seltzer, 1991).  Distance, conflict with ex-spouse, and  remarriage have been shown to be significant barriers to men’s involvement in the lives of their nonresident children (Cooksey & Craig, 1998; King & Heard, 1999;  Seltzer, Schaeffer, & Charng, 1989).  For these reasons we distinguish fathers who are not living with their children.
There is also a fair amount of evidence that step-parenting represents distinct challenges that make fathering in this type of family unique (Hetherington & Jodl, 1994).  Normative ambiguity about what role step-fathers should play in the lives of step children means that the nature of father-child relationships typically must be negotiated (Cherlin, 1978).  Other barriers to men functioning in the role of father that are likely to exist in step families  include the task of  establishing and maintaining a strong marital relationship, the child’s adaptation to his or her biological parents’ new marital relationship, and that of building or maintaining supportive, or at least nondestructive, sibling relationships (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Hetherington & Jodl, 1994).
 Finally, it is often overlooked that parents remain parents even after their children have made the transition to adulthood.  Of course, the relationship parents have with their children differs considerably from when their children under their care, but patterns of intergenerational support suggest that parent-child ties do not wither once children are launched. Contact and routine exchanges of support appear to be modest, but persistent, with parents tending to give more than they receive from children well into old age (Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993).  Both aging parents and adult children overwhelmingly  indicate that their parents (or children) are the persons they would turn to in and emergency or in times of need (Hogan & Eggebeen, 1995).  Furthermore, adult children readily supply help when parents experience a crisis (Eggebeen & Davey, 1998).   Although rarely the focus of research, it seems reasonable to presume that fathers continue to participate in this role even when their children have grown (Snarey, 1993), and that this role persistence has consequences for men’s lives.
In summary, then, we distinguish four types of settings within which men are fathers: (1) men living with their dependent (under 18) children, (2) men who are living apart from their dependent children because they are not in a relationship with the child’s mother, (3) men whose children have grown and are independent adults, and (4) men who have become fathers via remarriage (step-fathers).  How might these differing types of fatherhood moderate the above hypothesized relationships between fatherhood and well-being?
 One could argue that fatherhood will have its most profound effect on those men who are currently living with children.  The idea is that fatherhood has its sustaining effect only when the role is currently occupied.   This “role occupancy” explanation is consistent with the literature that shows that men’s involvement with their children declines when they are not living with them, as well as the literature which shows that men’s involvement with non-resident children declines even further when men remarry.  The implication of this explanation is that the impact of fatherhood is likely to be diminished for nonresident fathers.  We should also expect, then, that  men whose children have grown and left the home should be similar to men who are not fathers on these indicators.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that the experience of fatherhood has a transforming effect on men (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997; Marsiglio, 1998; Snarey, 1993).  John Snarey, in particular, building on Erikson’s idea of generativity, argues that men who were engaged fathers are more likely at mid-life to be generative in areas outside their family.  That is, they are more likely to be active participants in their communities, be mentors to younger men, and evidence a greater concern for others (Snarey, 1993).  This line of reasoning suggests that the largest differences in well-being should be between having and not having children and not between the various types of fathers. In particular, we should expect that fathers of adult children should look very similar to fathers currently living with children, especially in the domain of social connections.
 Settings do not tell the whole story, however.  Developmentalists are quick to criticize models which focus on structure rather than process.  Fatherhood as an “address” may mean less to men’s well-being than the nature and type of fathering activities.  The significance of fatherhood may reside more in the level of engagement in that role than in the mere occupancy of that role.  Snarey (1993) observes, for example, that the presence of generativity in the lives of men is conditioned by how nurturing they are of their children when young, and their contributions to their children’s socio-emotional and intellectual or academic development when  older.   It follows that  men who live with their children, but are only marginally involved with them, may show few, if any positive effects of fatherhood.  We will attempt to test these ideas by examining the whether one aspect of father involvement, the amount of time fathers spend doing certain activities with their child, predicts well-being within three fathering types: men who currently live with their children, step-fathers, and men whose children live elsewhere.

 Data and Methods
The data for this study are drawn from the 1987/88 wave of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH).   This survey includes interviews with a representative national sample of 13,017 respondents age 19 and older. The NSFH used personal interviews and supplemental, self-administered questionnaires to gather detailed information on the respondents’ personal, family and socioeconomic life histories, and on their kinship and social networks.  For this paper, we drew a sample of 5,226 men aged 19 to 65.
The National Survey of Families and Households has several advantages which make it ideally suited for our research aims.  First, these data are nationally representative and the sample is of sufficient size to ensure adequate representation of relatively rare groups.  Second, this survey contains data on a number of outcomes for men, ranging from psychologically oriented measures to indicators of social and family connections.  Finally, these data contain reports of men’s involvement with their children, allowing us to look beyond the importance of the mere presence of children in the lives of men to whether role engagement matters.
Measuring Fatherhood
 We distinguish five different fatherhood settings for men.   About one third (n=1,718) of men are not fathers, either in a social or biological sense.  Among the remaining two-thirds of adult men, however, we further distinguish those who are currently sharing a residence with a minor child (n=2,310) from those who only have older, non-resident children (n=1,198) and those who have at least one minor child living elsewhere (n=393).  Among men living with children under the age of 18, we differentiate between those who have only biological and/or adopted children (n=1,726) from those who have at least one step child (n=191).
  For the second part of the analysis we focus only on men who are fathers, addressing the extent to which they are involved with their children.  Our measure of involvement for coresident fathers is drawn from a series of questions on the amount of time they have spent with their children in a variety of activities. For men whose children are all under 5, the questions ask about how often they spend time with their children going on an outing away from home, playing together at home, and reading together.  Men with older children (age 5-18), are questioned about the amount of time they spend with children in leisure activities away from home, at home playing or working on a project together, having private talks, and helping with homework or reading.  The responses could range from 1=“never” to 6=“almost every day” for each of these questions.   We used the highest score recorded among the four questions as our measure of involvement with children for coresident fathers.
Two questions are used to address involvement of men with children living elsewhere. The first question asks “During the past 12 months, about how often did you talk on the telephone or send your child a letter?”.  The second question was “During the past 12 months, about how often did you see (him/her)?”.  The range of possible responses was from 1=”not at all” to 6=”several times a week”.  We used the highest score recorded among these two questions as our indicator of involvement for nonresident fathers.
 Our indicator of father involvement is, at best, a crude proxy for nurturance, emotional closeness, authoritative parenting, or other critical dimensions of the father-child relationship (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999).  Indeed, there is some indications in the literature that how much time fathers spend with children is not as central to their well-being as the extent to which fathers engage in authoritative parenting and encourage emotional closeness (Amato, 1987; Young, Miller, Norton, & Hill, 1995).
Dependent Variables
Four domains of well-being are examined: Psychological and physical health, social connections, intergenerational family ties, and work behavior.  We draw on four indicators of psychological and physical health. The first is men’s self assessment of their satisfaction with their life on a seven point scale ranging from “very unhappy” (1)  to “very happy” (7) (mean: 5.30, s.d.: 1.36) .  A second indicator was derived from an abbreviated version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977).  The scale used in this study was created from responses to a series of 12 questions about depression-like symptoms.  The responses were averaged across the 12 questions to form a single scale with a range from 0 to 7 (mean: 1.14, s.d.: 1.40).  Physical health is measured by a report on the part of respondents to a question asking them to rate their health from “very poor” (1) to “excellent” (5) (mean 4.02, s.d.:0.87).  A second measure of health is the respondents answers to questions on whether they had a problem with too much drinking or with drug use (mean: 0.04, s.d.: 0.19).
 Five scales are employed to tap men’s social connections.  The first indicator measures the extent to which men engage in socializing with relatives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.  The second indicator, social participation, focuses on how often in a week men go to a bar or tavern or participate in group recreational activities such as bowling, golf, square dancing, etc.  A third indicator addresses the extent to which men participate in a range of organizations other than service organizations. These groups can include labor unions, veteran’s groups, school fraternities, professional or academic societies, nationality groups, etc.  We also ask about men’s participation in service groups or civic organizations like political groups, school related groups, church related groups, or service clubs. For each of the above four variables, responses to participation in each group or activity could range from “never” (0) to “several times a week” (4).  Responses were summed for each indicator, forming a scale for socializing which ranged from zero to ten (mean 5.42, s.d.: 3.05), a scale for social participation which ranged from zero to eight (mean 2.09, s.d.: 2.09), and a scale for involvement in community groups which ranged from zero to ten (mean: 2.42, s.d.: 2.85), and a scale for involvement in service organizations, which had a range from zero to seven (mean: 1.29, s.d.: 1.79).  Finally, we tap the extent to which men are involved in religious activities by drawing a question of how often they attended religious services in the past year.  Responses were coded into three categories: 0= never, 1= 1-11 times, 2=12-24 times, and 3=24 or more times (mean: 1.52, s.d.: 1.19).
 Our three indicators of intergenerational family involvement are drawn from a series of questions on contact with kin,  giving of various kinds of assistance to available, non-residential family members and reception of various kinds of assistance from family members. The contact scale is drawn from three questions on how often the respondent has visited or communicate by letter or phone with parents, siblings, or adult children.  Responses ranged from “not at all” (0) to “several times a week” (6).  We used the maximum value of the three types of communication, summed across the individuals. This formed a scale with a range of three to eighteen (mean: 10.08, s.d.: 2.87).  Giving assistance was drawn from a series of questions asking if one has given  help with babysitting, transportation, repairs, work around the house, or advice in the past month to one’s parents, siblings, adult offspring, or other relatives.  These responses were summed to form a scale with a range from zero to twenty (mean: 1.89, s.d.: 2.21).  Finally, receiving assistance was derived from a parallel set of questions asking about reception of various kinds of help (babysitting, transportation, etc.) in the past month from the same group of kin.  The results were summed to form a scale ranging from zero to twenty (mean 1.13, s.d.:1.62).
Finally, we use two indicators of work behavior, whether men have had a recent bout of unemployment and how many hours per week they usually work.  The first indicator was drawn from the job histories of the men over the past three years and was coded “1" if the respondent was unemployed in the past three years and zero if not (conditional on the respondent having worked at least six months in the past three years) (mean: 0.14, s.d.: 0.35).  The second indicator is drawn from a question on how many hours per week the respondent usually works (conditioned on the respondent being employed).  Responses range from zero to 95 hours (mean: 33.02, s.d.: 22.57).
Analytic Approach
 We estimated two models for each outcome: one model with just the dummy variables representing men’s fathering experience and a second model which adds five control variables (age, education, race, family income and marital status).  Ordinary least squares is used to estimate these models with the exception of the models of drug/alcohol abuse, where we use logistic regression.  For the analysis of father involvement, we estimate models containing all the above controls and our measure of father involvement.  However, here we estimate separate models for each subgroup of fathers:  men living with biological/adopted child less than 19 years of age, men with only step children less than 19, and  men whose children are less than 19, but live elsewhere.
 Results
Table one contains models of four dimensions of well-being.  Men’s living arrangements with children is associated with life satisfaction, depression symptoms, self-rated health, and the likelihood of abusing drugs or alcohol.  Men with children living elsewhere are especially likely to have lower life satisfaction scores and more depressive symptoms than men who are living with biological or adopted children.  They are also slightly more likely to indicate poorer health and to have abused alcohol or drugs.  However, once a number of controls were entered, especially marital status, these effects of fatherhood largely disappear.  The two exceptions are that men with children living elsewhere remain somewhat more likely to have depressive symptoms than men who are currently living with their children, and men with older children are slightly more satisfied.   For the most part, however,  fatherhood does not appear to be independently associated with psychological and physical health.
 TABLE ONE ABOUT HERE
 The story is different for social connections (Table 2).  Consistent with our hypotheses, we see that men who have children living elsewhere or have no children are more likely to be engaged in a variety of socializing activities (column one).  These effects are reduced, but do not disappear when the controls are introduced (column two).  In contrast, men who have adult children are much less likely to be engaged in social activities, but this appears to be largely due to the fact that they are older.  When age is controlled, they are no different than fathers of dependent children.  These patterns are replicated when we consider men’s participation in informal visiting with friends, going to a bar, or other leisure pursuits (columns 3 and 4).  Men with coresident children are significantly less likely to be engaged in these activities.  Once controls are introduced, we see that men’s participation in a variety of community groups is only slightly affected by their fatherhood status.  Men who are not fathers and men whose children are older are slightly less likely than coresident fathers to be involved in community organizations or groups.
When we limit our focus to civic or service oriented organizations (e.g., service clubs, church groups, school-related organizations, etc.) we get a different picture, however (Columns 7 and 8).  Even in the context of controls, we see that men who live with their biological or adopted children are significantly more likely to be involved in these types of groups or organizations.  Finally, we see in the last two columns that fatherhood is associated with church attendance.  With the exception of men who are fathers of older children, non resident fathers, step-fathers, and men who are not fathers attend church significantly less than men who are coresident fathers.
 TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE
 Men’s involvement with children is also significantly related to intergenerational family involvement (Table 3).  Step-fathers and men who are not fathers are much less likely than men who are living with their biological or adopted children to have regular contact or exchanges with aging parents, adult children, or siblings.  In contrast, older fathers are much more likely to have regular contact and to give assistance.  However, consistent with the literature on life course patterns of family support and exchange, they are much less likely than coresident fathers to be receiving assistance.  When it comes to family ties, we see that men whose children live elsewhere are no different than men who are living with their own children.  Overall, then,  these models indicate strong support for the idea that fatherhood tightens intergenerational family ties.  The one exception is step-fathers, who like men with no children, are significantly less involved with kin.  One possible explanation for this is that step-fathers may be investing more in their new family at the expense of their old family.
 TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Finally, we observe in Table 4 that fatherhood is associated with work behavior.  As predicted, men with coresident children (either biological/adopted or step) were significantly less likely to have a bout of unemployment in the past three years.  Contradicting our expectations, however, we find that presence of coresident children is not associated with fewer hours worked per week in the past year.  In fact, it appears that men who are fathers of dependent children, regardless of their living arrangements, averaged more hours per week than fathers of older children and men who were not fathers.  The good provider role appears to be most salient for coresident fathers.
 TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
The results presented in these four tables indicates that indeed, men who are fathers differ substantially from non-fathers in a variety of domains.  Furthermore, we see evidence which indicates that the particular type of fatherhood is also associated with different outcomes.  We found little evidence for effects on men’s psychological states and physical health.  In contrast, type of father is strongly associated with men’s social lives, family connections, and work involvement.
 Does the level of father’s engagement in fathering activities matter?  Tables 5 and 6 provide some insight into this question.  Among men who are living with their biological or adopted children, we see that their level of involvement with their children makes a substantial difference.   The more these men are engaged in activities with their children, the more satisfied they are with their lives, the more socializing they do, the more involved they are in their communities, the more connected they are to their families and the less involved they are with their work.
These patterns stand in contrast to fathers of non-resident children and step-fathers. Involvement with their step child is positively associated with socializing and involvement in community groups, but no other indicators. Men who are involved with their nonresident child have higher life satisfaction scores, and are more likely to be involved in community groups and attend church, but otherwise are little different from men who are uninvolved with their children.
TABLES 5 AND 6 ABOUT HERE
 Discussion
We began this paper by asking a simple question: Does fatherhood matter for men?  The analyses described above indicate this is clearly the case.  Men who are fathers may differ little from other men on the psychological or health dimensions we used, but there are clear and compelling differences between fathers and non-fathers in their social and familial connections and their work lives.  These differences could not be accounted for by marital status, socioeconomic factors, race, or age.
 We also found strong evidence that the context of fatherhood is important.  Men who were fathering children who live elsewhere were little different from non fathers in their social connections or work behavior.  However, they were similar to fathers who lived with their biological/adopted children in their intergenerational family ties.  Step-fathers also were different from fathers living with their own children on a number of indicators.  While step-fathers were like biological fathers in socializing, participation in informal groups or activities, involvement in community groups, and work behavior, they were less likely to be involved in service type organizations, church attendance, and intergenerational family ties.  Finally, fathers of adult children differed from fathers of coresident biological/adopted children in their social connections with one exception: they were similar in their church attendance.  They were more likely than these coresident fathers to be in contact with family and giving help, but less likely to be receiving help.  These patterns are consistent with the life course patterns of assistance flows described in other work (Eggebeen, 1992; Eggebeen & Hogan, 1990).  As expected given their greater likelihood of being retired, we found that older fathers are more likely to be unemployed and work fewer hours per week.
Finally, we find evidence that the level of involvement, measured in this study as the amount of time fathers spend with their child, can have consequences for their lives.  The most pervasive effects, however, are for fathers living with biological/adopted children.  For them, involvement is associated with the nature of kinds of social connections, their family ties, and their work lives.  Involvement appears to be less important for the other types of fathers.
 What do these findings tell us about the possible explanations for father effects?  The evidence is most consistent with the “role occupancy” explanation of father effects. That is, the strongest correlates of fatherhood are among men who are currently living with their own children. The most telling evidence for this is in Tables 5 and 6, where it is clear that involvement has its strongest imprint among the men living with their own children.   Once men step away from co-residence, the transforming power of fatherhood dissipates.   If fatherhood was a transforming event as is argued by Snarey (1993), we would have found that older fathers would be quite similar to coresident fathers.  This was the case for some indicators (e.g., the psychological and health indicators and church attendance), but not for their social and family connections.
Our confidence in these conclusions is muted somewhat by several considerations.  First, we have somewhat simplified the fatherhood experiences of men.  We did not distinguish men living in cohabiting unions which contain children. The nature of fatherhood in these families remains virtually unexplored by scholars.  Yet, recent evidence shows that about 3 percent of children are currently living with non-married adults and the indications are that this experience will continue to become more common (Manning & Lichter, 1996).  Neither have we drawn a distinction between nonresident fathers because of divorce and non-resident fathers from non-marital childbearing.  There is evidence, however, that nonresidential fathers have less contact with children who were born out of wedlock (Cooksey & Craig, 1998; King, 1994).
 The cross-sectional nature of our data also poses some constraints.  First, it prevents us from addressing possible life course differences in father effects.  It is conceivable that father effects may vary substantially by the age of the child or children given that the nature of parenting changes has children grow.  Having teenage children may have negative psychological consequences for men!   Second, the cross-sectional nature of these data preclude a careful examination of possible mechanisms.  Our simple controls for current marital status fail to do justice to what we know are complex inter-connections between parenting and marital systems (see Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1992).   Finally, these data  make it difficult to rule out selection as a possible explanation for these effects. The idea here is that men who are the most healthy, happy, socially connected to their communities and families, and most stably employed may be the ones most likely to be coresident fathers or involved fathers. Before we can be confident that fatherhood is causally associated with the outcomes we observed, we must address this possibility, probably with longitudinal data.
What does it mean to be a father?  The traditional way this question has been addressed is to suggest a set of responsibilities ranging from providing economic support, disciplining children, and serving as a role model (Mintz, 1998).  Of course, a number of social, demographic and cultural changes have brought most or all of these ideals under critical scrutiny, most typically with an eye to their implications for children’s well-being (Blankenhorn, 1995; Griswold, 1993).  Lost in the debate, however, is a sense of the other component of this answer--what it means for men’s lives to be a father.  Our explorations of this question represent a first approximation of an answer.  The evidence presented here is unequivocal: fatherhood can profoundly shape the lives of men.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 References
Amato, P. R.  Children in Australian Families: The Growth of Competence. (1987). Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia.
Amato, P.R., & Gilbreth, J.G. (1999). Non residential fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 55-573.
Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1988). Marital change across the transition to parenthood.  Marriage and Family Review,12, 133-156.
Barnett, R.C., Marshall, N.L., & Pleck, J.H. (1992). Men’s multiple roles and their relationship to men’s psychological distress.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 358-367.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995).  Fatherless America. New York: Basic Books.
Bozett, F.W. &, Hanson, S.M.H. (1991). Fatherhood and Families in Cultural Context. New York: Springer.
Bronfenbrenner, E. (1979).  The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Design and Nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Chaves, M. (1991). Family structure and protestant church attendance: The sociological basis of cohort and age-effects. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 501-514.
Cherlin, A. (1978).  Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634-649.
Coltrane, S. (1995). The future of fatherhood: Social, demographic, and economic influences on men’s family involvements.  In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary Theory, Research, and Social Policy (pp. 255-274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Cooksey, E.C., & Craig, P.H. (1998). Parenting from a distance: The effects of paternal characteristics on contact between nonresidential fathers and their children. Demography, 35,187-200.
Cowan, C.P., & Cowan, P.A. (1992). When Partners Become Parents. New York: Basic.
Crockett, L.J., Eggebeen, D.J., & Hawkins, A.J. (1993). Father presence and young children’s behavioral and cognitive adjustment.  Journal of Family Issues, 14, 355-377.
Eggebeen, D.J. (1992). Family structure and intergenerational relations. Research on Aging, 14, 427-447.
Eggebeen, D.J. (1999). The changing course of fatherhood: Men’s experiences with children in demographic perspective.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, April, 1999.
Eggebeen, D.J., & Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939-950.
Eggebeen, D.J., Hogan, D.P. (1990). Giving between the generations in American families. Human Nature, 1, 211-232.
Eggebeen, D.J., Snyder, A.D., & Manning, W.D. (1996). Children in single father families in demographic perspective.  Journal of Family Issues, 17, 441-465.
Eggebeen, D.J., & Uhlenberg, P. (1985). Changes in the organization of men’s lives: 1960-1980.  Family Relations, 34, 251-257.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society. Toronto: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: Norton.
Farrell, M.P., & Rosenberg, S.D. (1981). Men at Midlife. Boston: Auburn House.
 Furstenberg, F.F. Jr. (1988). Good dads–bad dads: The two faces of fatherhood.  In A.J. Cherlin (Ed.), The Changing American Family and Public Policy (pp.193-218).  Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Furstenberg, F.F. Jr., & Harris, K.M.. (1992). The disappearing American father? Divorce and the waning significance of biological parenthood. In S.J. South & S.E. Tolnay (Eds.) The Changing American Family: Sociological and Demographic Perspectives (pp 197-223). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1992). Marriage, parenting, and child development: Progress and prospects. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 276-294.
Glenn, N.D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818-831.
Goldsheider, F., & Hogan, D.P. (1999). A century (plus) of parenthood: Changes in living with children: 1880-1990.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, 1999, Chicago, Ill.
Gove, W.R., & Mongione, T.W. (1983). Social roles, sex roles and psychological distress: Additive and interactive models of sex differences. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 300-312.
Griswold, R.L. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A History. New York: Basic Books.
Harper, C. (1996). Youth crime and family formation: Does fatherhood pull young men out of the high risk set for jail?  Paper presented at the 1996 Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

 Hawkins, A.J. & Dollahite, D.C. (1997). Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, A.J. & Eggebeen, D.J. (1991). Are fathers fungible? Patterns of co-resident adult men in maritally disrupted families and young children’s well-being.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 958-972.
Heath, D.H., & Heath, H.E. (1991). Fulfilling Lives: Paths to Maturity and Success.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  Heath, D.T., McKenry, P.C., & Leigh, G.K. (1995). The consequences of adolescent parenthood on men’s depression, parental satisfaction, and fertility in adulthood.  Journal of Social Service Research, 20, 127-148.
Hetherington, E.M., & Clingempeel, W.G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective.  Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, (2-3, Serial No. 227).
Hetherington, E.M., &K.M. Jodl. (1994). Stepfamilies as settings for child development. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.) Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Pp. 55-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hogan, D.P., & Eggebeen, D.J. (1995). Sources of emergency help and routine assistance in old age. Social Forces, 73, 917-936.
Hogan, D.P., Eggebeen, D.J., & Clogg, C.C. (1993). The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families.  American Journal of Sociology, 98,1428-1458.
King, V. (1994). Nonresident father involvement and child well-being: Can dads make a difference? Journal of Family Issues, 15, 78-96.
 King, V., & H.E. Heard. (1999). Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict, and mother’s satisfaction: What’s best for child well-being? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 385-396.
Lamb, M.E. (1987). Introduction: The emergent American father.  In M.E. Lamb (Ed.) The Father’s Role: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levinson, D. (1978). Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Knopf.
Levine, J.A., & Pitt, E.W. (1995).  New Expectations: Community Strategies for Responsible Fatherhood. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Manning, W.D., &  Lichter, D.T. (1996). Parental cohabitation and the economic status of children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 998-1010.
Marsiglio, W. (1995).  Fatherhood: Contemporary Theory, Research, and Social Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. (1998). Procreative Man. New York: New York University Press.
Mintz, S. (1998).  From patriarchy to androgyny and other myths: Placing men’s family roles in historical perspective.  In A. Booth & A.C. Courter (Eds.) Men in Families: When do They Get Involved? What Difference Does it Make? (pp.    ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Munch, A., McPherson, J.M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1997). Gender, children, and social contact: The effects of childrearing for men and women.  American Sociological Review, 62, 509-520.
Parke, R. (1981).  Fathers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 Parke, R. (1995).  Fathers and families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of Parenting: Volume 3, Status and Social Conditions of Parenting (pp. 27-64). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pleck, J.H. (1985). Working Wives, Working Husbands. New York: Sage.
Pleck, J.H. (1987). American fathering in historical perspective. In M.S. Kimmel (Ed.) Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity (pp. 87-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ploch, D.R., & Hastings, D.W. (1998). Effects of parental church attendance, current family status, and religious salience on church attendance.  Review of Religious Research, 39, 309-320.
Radin, N.R., & Russell, G. (1983). Increased paternal participation: The fathers’ perspective. In M.E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and Family Policy (pp.191-218) Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Radloff, L.S. (1977).  The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population.  Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Rossi, A.S., & P.H. Rossi. (1990). Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations across the Life Course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Russell, G. (1982). The Changing Role of Fathers. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Seccombe, K., & Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1994). Gender and social relationships among the never-married. Sex Roles, 30, 585-603.

 Seltzer, J.A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79-101.
Seltzer, J.A.,  Schaeffer, N.C. & Charng, H.-W.. (1989). Family ties after divorce: The relationship between visiting and paying child support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 1013-1032.
Snarey, J. (1993). How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four Decade Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spitze, G., &  Logan, J.R. (1989). Gender differences in family support: Is there a payoff? Gerontologist, 29, 108-113.
Stolzenberg, R.M.,Blair-Loy, M., & Waite, L.J. (1995). Religious participation in young adulthood: Age and family life cycle effects on church membership. American Sociological Review, 60, 84-103.
Troll, L.E., Miller, S.J., & Atchley, R.J. (1979). Families in Life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Umberson, D. (1987). Family status and health behaviors: Social control as a dimension of social integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 306-319.
Waite, L. (1995).  Does marriage matter?  Demography, 32, 483-508.
Young, M.H., Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C., & Hill, E.J. (1995). The effect of parental supportive behaviors on life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 813-822.
Zarit, S.H., & Eggebeen, D.J. (1995). Parent-child relationships in adulthood and old age. In M. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of Parenting, Vol. 1 (pp. 119-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Table 1.  Psychological and physical health and fatherhood.
 

Variables
Life Satisfaction
Depression
Subjective Health
Drug/Alcohol Abuse

Father Type:1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Living with step-child
-0.002
 0.119
 0.033
-0.060
-0.022
 0.003
 0.176
 0.056

   Children Elsewhere
-0.379****
 0.010
 0.473****
 0.148*
-0.085*
 0.036
 0.466*
-0.067

   Children 19 or older
 0.015
 0.130*
-0.067
-0.073
-0.396****
-0.033
-0.808**
-0.289

   No children
-0.162****
 0.065
 0.173****
-0.028
-0.026
 0.0004
 0.094
-0.319

Age

 0.002

-0.007****

-0.009****

-0.032****

Years of Education

 0.021***

-0.058****

 0.060****

-0.039

Race:2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Black

 0.067

 0.113**

 0.032

-0.517**

   Hispanic origin

 0.146*

-0.119*

-0.044

-1.618***

Total family income

 0.008

-0.018***

 0.009***

-0.024

Marital status:3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Divorced

-0.559****

 0.361****

-0.098**

 1.118****

   Widowed

-0.545****

 0.356****

-0.046

 0.707

   Never Married

-0.318****

 0.233***

 -0.038

 0.341

Intercept
 5.469****
 5.114****
 1.063****
 2.114****
 4.129****
 3.627****
-3.196****
-1.468***

  Adjusted R2
 0.006
 0.030
 0.010
 0.046
 0.033
 0.114
 
 

-2 Log Likelihood
 
 
 
 
 

1463.802
1226.156

Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001
1Reference Category: Living with biological or adopted children less than 19.
2Reference Category: White, Non-Hispanic.
3Reference Category: Currently married.
 
 

 Table 2.   Social Connections and fatherhood.
 

Variables

Socializing

Social Participation

Community Groups
Service Organizations

Church Attendance

Father Type:1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Living with step-child
-0.125
-0.212
 0.166
 0.141
-0.412*
-0.323
-0.392***
-0.358***
-0.539****
-0.469****

   Children Elsewhere
 0.547***
 0.372**
 0.669****
 0.537****
-0.128
-0.195
-0.549****
-0.462*****
-0.405****
-0.194**

   Children 19 or older
-1.041****
 0.326**
-0.757****
 0.384****
-1.110****
-0.272*
-0.476****
-0.493*****
-0.083*
-0.070

   No children
 0.668****
 0.278**
 0.786****
 0.429****
-0.109
-0.323**
-0.528****
-0.454*****
-0.319****
-0.148****

Age

-0.054****

-0.040****

-0.015****

 0.012*****

 0.010****

Years of Education

 0.044****

 0.102****

 0.249****

 0.136*****

 0.034****

Race2:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Black

 0.213*

-0.225***

 0.489****

 0.650*****

 0.513****

   Hispanic origin

 0.235

-0.404***

 0.074

  0.095

 0.473****

Total family income

 0.023**

 0.028****

 0.029**

 0.002

-0.007

Marital status3:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Divorced

 0.393***

  0.629****

 0.166

-0.287****

-0.525****

   Widowed

 1.044****

  0.521****

 0.255

-0.242**

-0.139*

   Never Married

 0.539****

  0.596****

 0.331**

-0.067

-0.248****

Intercept
 5.397****
 6.937****
 1.949****
 2.103****
2.731****
 0.005
 1.627****
-0.576****
 1.651****
 0.777****
 

 0.044
 0.124
 0.079
 0.202
 0.023
 0.112
 0.017
 0.083
0.027
 0.082

Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001
1Reference Category: Living with biological or adopted children less than 19.
2Reference Category: White, Non-Hispanic.
3Reference Category: Currently married.
 
 
 
 

 Table 3.  Family involvement and fatherhood.
 

Variables
Contact
Giving Assistance
Receiving Assistance

Father Type:1
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Living with step-child
-0.287
-0.512**
-0.507***
-0.444**
-0.656****
-0.685****

   Children Elsewhere
 0.212
 0.248
-0.213*
 0.052
-0.272***
-0.159

   Children 19 or older
 0.648****
 2.380****
-0.626****
 0.242**
-0.760****
-0.193**

   No children
-0.439****
-0.833****
-0.488****
-0.426****
-0.436****
-0.495***

Age

-0.070****

-0.027****

-0.021****

Years of Education

-0.085****

 0.054****

 0.021**

Race:2
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Black

 0.0003

-0.418****

-0.111

   Hispanic origin

-0.438****

-0.362***

-0.255***

Total family income

 0.017

 0.013

-0.001

Marital status:3
 
 
 
 
 
 

   Divorced

-0.038

-0.308***

-0.169**

   Widowed

-0.114

-0.424**

 0.243*

   Never Married

 0.368***

-0.243**

-0.051

Intercept
10.067****
13.694****
 2.226****
 2.625****
1.493****
 2.091****

  Adjusted R2
 0.019
 0.104
 0.013
 0.057
0.032
 0.058

Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001
1Reference Category: Living with biological or adopted children less than 19.
2Reference Category: White, Non-Hispanic.
3Reference Category: Currently married.
 
 

 Table 4.  Work behavior and fatherhood.
 

Variables
Unemployed in Past Three Years
Usual Hours per Week

Father Type:1
 
 
 
 

   Living with step-child
 0.211**
 0.231
-1.886
-1.494

   Children Elsewhere
 0.366**
 0.370**
-2.060*
 0.680

   Children 19 or older
 0.423****
 0.429***
-22.309***
-4.037****

   No children
 0.439****
 0.327**
-6.552****
-4.857****

Age

-0.004

-0.634****

Years of Education

 0.016

 0.392****

Race:2
 
 
 
 

   Black

 0.209*

-3.749****

   Hispanic origin

 0.320**

-2.373**

Total family income

-0.301****

 0.848****

Marital status:3
 
 
 
 

   Divorced

-0.320**

 1.507

   Widowed

-0.414*

-2.380

   Never Married

-0.337**

-3.584****

Intercept
-2.086****
-1.280****
40.449****
55.944****

  Adjusted R2
 

 0.143
 0.289

-2 Log Likelihood
4075.986
3425.801
 
 

Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001
1Reference Category: Living with biological or adopted children less than 19.
2Reference Category: White, Non-Hispanic.
3Reference Category: Currently married.

 Table 5.  Psychological and physical heath, social connections, and father involvement.
 

Father Type:
Life Satisfaction

Depression
Subjective Health
Drug/Alcohol Use

Socializing
Social Participation
Community Groups
Service Organizations
Church Attendance

Bio/adopted
 0.110****
-0.049
 0.005
 0.003
 0.167**
 0.023
 0.224****
 0.087**
 0.007

Step only
 0.148
-0.030
 0.050
-0.904**
 0.426**
 0.168
 0.475***
 0.064
 0.066

 Living elsewhere
 0.104**
-0.010
-0.006
-0.073
 0.042
 0.119
 0.292***
 0.065
 0.125***
 

All models contain the following controls: Age, Education, Race, Total Family Income, and Marital Status.
Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Table 6.  Intergenerational ties, work behavior, and father involvement.
 
 

Father type:

Contact

Giving Assistance

Receiving Assistance
Unemployed in Past two Years1

Usual Hours per Week

Bio/Adopted
-0.068
 0.181***
 0.193****
 0.059
-1.523****

Step only
 0.294
-0.039
 0.037
-0.060
-1.120

Living Elsewhere
 0.142
 0.101
 0.088
 0.041
 1.108

All models contain the following controls: Age, Education, Race, Total Family Income, and Marital Status.
1Logistic regression model.
Significance Levels: * .10    **.05    ***.01   ****.001