Coparenting Mediates the Association Between Relationship Quality and Father Involvement

Abstract

The study of adolescent childbearing is a major public policy concern, and father involvement is a particular focus. Previous research with married couples has found that coparenting may be a better predictor of father involvement than relationship quality. The current study examined 94 primiparous African American and Latino parents to determine whether coparenting expectations during pregnancy better predict concurrent father involvement secondary to a mediation effect. Results were mixed; simple mediation was supported, but structural equation modeling (SEM) results suggested a better fitting model for mothers than for fathers. For mothers, relationship quality predicted coparenting. For fathers, relationship quality and coparenting predicted father involvement, but relationship quality did not predict coparenting. This examination suggests that both relationship quality and coparenting are important for father involvement in unmarried adolescents but to differing degrees for mothers and fathers. Pregnancy may be an important potential intervention point for increasing subsequent father involvement.

Keywords

adolescent pregnancy African Americans Latinos parenting

Adolescent childbearing is a major public health and policy concern. Minority adolescent mothers are at risk of multiple negative outcomes, including low rates of high school completion, high rates of poverty, lack of adequate health insurance, and frequent reliance on public assistance to provide for their children. Despite indications that pregnant and parenting adolescents are at increased risk of relationship problems and accompanying parenting difficulties, there has been little research on adolescent coparenting couples. Coparenting is defined as the relationship between a mother and a father as it relates to support and coordination in parenthood. As evidence is strong for a link between relationship quality and coparenting in White, married populations (Floyd & Zmich, 1991; Talbot, Baker, & McHale, 2009; Van Egeren, 2003), adolescent African American and Latino couples are populations in which this research is sorely needed. The existing literature on relationship quality, coparenting, and father involvement has repeatedly suggested that mother–father relationship factors affect both parenting and child adjustment even during pregnancy. It is critical to focus on ways to build better relationships between mothers and fathers, as relationship quality and coparenting at the time of the baby’s birth has been linked to positive parenting a year later (Carlson & McLanahan, 2006; Cutrona, Hessling, Bacon, & Russell, 1998). Examining these factors among pregnant adolescent couples may provide a rationale and a targeted group for interventions focused on improving not only mother and father outcomes but also child outcomes through improved parenting.

The transition to parenthood is challenging for any couple; a recent meta-analysis found across 37 studies that adults experienced significant, small declines in relationship satisfaction from pregnancy until about 11 months postbirth (Mitnick, Heyman, & Smith Slep, 2009). However, adolescents face several additional challenges that place them at increased risk of personal and relationship distress. First, entering into parenthood during adolescence can be viewed as an accelerated role transition, meaning that adolescent parents are abruptly forced to shoulder roles and responsibilities for which they are emotionally and developmentally unprepared (Parke, 1996). Furthermore, adolescent relationships are normatively unstable and impermanent, so creating and maintaining a healthy coparenting relationship are often beyond the developmental norms and capacities of most adolescents (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003; Parke, 1996). Finally, Mitnick et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis found that parents who were young, non-White, or unmarried, as well as those with relationships of shorter duration before becoming pregnant, experienced the greatest declines in relationship satisfaction.

Partnership instability is also common among unmarried parents, particularly for non-cohabitating mothers and fathers (Osborne & McLanahan, 2007). The extant literature highlights evidence that fathers continue to remain less involved than mothers over a child’s life (Silverstein, 2002). Much of the research suggests that being unmarried (Achatz & MacAllum, 1994; Lerman & Sorenson, 2000; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007), not residing with the child (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007; Lerman & Sorenson, 2000), and being an adolescent father (Arendell, 1995; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007) are associated with limited parental involvement.

Previous research on coparenting and father involvement has focused primarily on White couples, in spite of the fact that African American (6.4%) and Hispanic adolescents (8.2%) have higher rates of adolescent birth than White adolescents (2.3%; Hamilton, Martin, & Ventura, 2009). In particular, unmarried parenting is highest among young African American males (Achatz & MacAllum, 1994; Lerman & Sorenson, 2000). The lack of research on pregnant minority adolescents means that little data are available regarding the relationships between coparenting, relationship quality, and father involvement in a population that may be in particular need of targeted intervention. Consequently, the present study is focused specifically on pregnant African American and Latino adolescents; the literature reviewed uses extrapolation from the adult literature when no research on adolescents is available.

Due in part to concerns about welfare dependence and economic hardships for single mothers, the quality of adolescent mothers’ relationships with their male partners has recently begun to receive more attention. Research suggests that the quality of the relationship between mothers and fathers may have an important effect on father involvement; having a poor relationship with the baby’s mother is linked to less involvement (Cohen, 2003; Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999; Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007; Gee, McNerney, Reiter, & Leaman, 2007). Furthermore, both evolutionary psychology and family systems specifically highlight evidence that for adults, the degree to which fathers are involved may be predicted in part by how satisfied the mother is with her relationship with the baby’s father (McHale, Lauretti, Talbot, & Pouquette, 2002; Smuts & Gubernick, 1992). Extrapolating from the adult literature, it is reasonable to expect that when a young mother has a healthy relationship and a functional, effective process for parenting with her baby’s father, he is more likely to remain involved in the child’s life.

Although the research shows that relationship quality has a strong link to father involvement, less attention has been focused on coparenting, which may play an equal or larger role in predicting father involvement (Holmes, Cowan, Cowan, & Hawkins, 2013). Coparenting is defined as the relationship between a mother and a father as it relates to support and coordination in parenthood and raising children (Feinberg, 2003). A coparenting relationship exists whenever at least two individuals are expected, either by mutual agreement or societal norms, to have joint responsibility for a child’s well-being; therefore, coparenting can also refer to unmarried couples and the responsibilities that are actively discussed and set in place during the prenatal period (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). Coparenting differs from the broader interparental relationship because it does not include “the romantic, sexual, companionate, emotional, financial, and legal aspects of the adults’ relationship that do not relate to childrearing” (Feinberg, 2003, p. 96). While relationship quality and coparenting may both affect father involvement, researchers suggest that the coparenting relationship can function effectively independently of the overall romantic relationship, but it is unlikely that the overall romantic relationship will be healthy if the coparenting relationship is unhealthy (Holmes et al., 2013; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001). In other words, some degree of healthy relationship is necessary, but not sufficient for adequate coparenting (McHale et al., 2002). Thus, coparenting fits very well as the mediating link by which relationship quality is associated with father involvement.

A number of studies of two-parent, middle-class families have suggested an association between coparenting and father involvement (Carlson, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan, Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, & Sokolowski, 2008; Sobolewski & King, 2005). For example, Van Egeren (2004) found that for fathers, dissatisfaction with the coparenting relationship led to reduced father involvement. Alternatively, fathers may be more likely than mothers to feel that their involvement is discretionary (Arendell, 1995; Hossain & Roopnarine, 1994). McBride and Rane (1998) found that when parents disagreed about parenting questions and concerns, mothers typically prevailed and fathers became less involved, suggesting that lack of agreement about coparenting decisions leads to less father involvement.

Only three studies were identified at the time of this literature review as having examined coparenting and father involvement in minority populations or unmarried parents. Sobolewski and King (2005) found in a nationally representative sample that supportive coparenting was positively associated with father involvement. However, the majority of the participants in this sample were divorced adults rather than unmarried adolescents. Carlson and McLanahan (2002) and Carlson et al. (2008) focused specifically on unmarried minority parents and found strong evidence for the effects of coparenting on father involvement but weak effects for the opposite direction. However, no studies on coparenting and father involvement have focused specifically on adolescent minority couples who are pregnant or parenting. This gap in the research is particularly concerning because the situation and developmental stages of divorced adults and unmarried adolescents differ for numerous reasons, including emotional and physical maturity, financial stability, and independence in family and peer relationships. The current study addresses this gap in the literature.

Very few studies have addressed the interrelationship among relationship quality, coparenting, and father involvement, but the limited amount of research that does exist provides empirical evidence that coparenting may function as a mediator between different aspects of relationship quality, involvement, and child outcomes (Katz & Low, 2004; Margolin et al., 2001; McBride & Rane, 1998). Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2008) found in a White, married sample that maternal encouragement mediated the association between coparenting quality and reported father involvement. However, this is the sole study suggesting that a relationship quality factor may mediate the relationship between coparenting and father involvement, whereas several studies (Katz & Low, 2004; Margolin et al., 2001; McBride & Rane, 1998) have proposed that coparenting is a mediating variable between aspects of relationship quality and outcomes such as father involvement. The current study proposes that coparenting mediates the relationship between relationship quality and father involvement; when adolescent mothers and fathers report a more satisfying and supportive relationship, they should be better able to attend to the logistical and emotional aspects of parenting together, leading to a greater likelihood that fathers will remain involved in parenting the child.

Katz and Low (2004) focused more precisely on aspects of relationship quality, coparenting, and child outcomes in a White, married sample, though they did not include father involvement as an outcome. This study found that hostile and withdrawn coparenting mediated the relationship between marital violence and internalizing child outcomes, suggesting that coparenting can be a powerful intervening factor between relationship factors and outcomes for both children and their parents. Another study of married, White couples found that coparenting mediated the link between marital conflict (as one aspect of relationship quality) and parenting outcomes (Margolin et al., 2001).

Evidently, most research examining relationship quality, coparenting, and father involvement has been conducted with middle-class, two-parent, White samples (e.g., Gavin et al., 2002; McBride & Rane, 1998; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). Despite the fact that adolescent parents are often raised in single-parent households, and as a result may have had fewer opportunities to observe competent coparenting (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), these three variables have not been examined simultaneously within adolescents who are pregnant or parenting. Due to their relative inexperience with relationships, incomplete physical and emotional development, and additional stressors such as joblessness and lower educational attainment, relationship quality and coparenting may be more intricately linked paths to father involvement in the current sample. Including only African American and Latino couples in this study allows for clarification of whether previously found associations are generalizable to pregnant adolescents and their babies’ fathers of these racial/ethnic groups. Alternatively, this sample also allows for elucidation of patterns of behavior and relationships between variables that might be unique to a low-income, minority population. For example, the quality of the coparenting relationship may be more important and thus have a greater effect on father involvement, in a population where finances are a challenge and the father is not living in the home and/or legally committed to the mother and child.

While a number of studies have found that relationship quality was the best predictor of father involvement (Cohen, 2003; Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999; Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007; Gee et al., 2007), these studies did not include coparenting as a variable. Therefore, these findings do not give any information about the link between father involvement, relationship quality, and coparenting. The only study that included all three variables found that coparenting was a better predictor of father involvement than relationship quality in a White, married sample (McBride & Rane, 1998). Using a community-based sample of pregnant African American and Latino adolescents and their babies’ fathers, the current study tested the hypothesis that relationship quality is predictive of prenatal father involvement through the mediating effects of coparenting. Furthermore, this study extends the literature by exploring the similarities and differences in mothers’ and fathers’ reports.

Method

Participants

Participants included pregnant adolescents and their babies’ fathers who self-identified as African American/Black or Hispanic/Latino/a. In the present study, participants were 94 low-income, African American (78.7%) and Latina (21.3%) adolescent mothers and their babies’ fathers (47 coparents; 38.3% cohabitating and 61.7% non-cohabitating). The mean age of participants was 17.8 years (range = 15-20) for mothers and 20.2 years (range = 15-40) for fathers. A majority of the participants came from low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods in the city and surrounding area. For Latino participants, 47% were of Central American descent, 12% were of South American descent, 7% were of mixed Latino origin, followed by 5% from Mexico and 2% from the Dominican Republic. Country of origin was not specified for 28% of participants. All mothers were required to be in their third trimester, were primiparous, and were between the ages of 13 and 19 at conception. Couples were not required to be romantically involved to participate; as long as the mother was able to provide contact information for the baby’s father, they could be enrolled and interviewed separately. Fathers, therefore, were typically recruited directly through contact with the mothers. In total, 333 potential couples were screened, primarily through the mother; 23 of these couples were not eligible because the coparent was not willing to participate. The remainder either did not meet other inclusion criteria or failed to complete the consent process prior to giving birth. Sixty-one couples agreed to participate, completed the informed consent process, finished the initial interview during the third trimester, and remained in the study for at least 1 year.

Procedure

Between 2005 and 2011, participants were recruited from various community sites throughout a large mid-Atlantic urban area. Data collection spread across several years due to small numbers of eligible participants and difficulties enrolling participants; as the initial interview had to be conducted during the third trimester of pregnancy, many potential participants gave birth before an interview could be completed. The majority of participants (38%) were recruited from community organizations, such as those providing social services and prenatal care (e.g., a local Teen Parenting Program), with smaller percentages recruited from area high schools (23%), hospitals (21%), and community resource fairs (11%). Research associates contacted a representative at these sites and described our research to gain approval and gather information on how to best reach potentially eligible participants.

Research associates described the study to potential participants and their parents, and explained that their participation was voluntary and confidential. All participants aged 18 or older signed a consent form. A parent or guardian was required to sign a parental consent form for minors, and the minor signed an assent form. Interviews took place at the participant’s home or at a community site and were conducted by a trained undergraduate or graduate research associates, matched by gender when possible. Interviews typically lasted about 1.5 hours and were conducted orally, with the research associate annotating participants’ responses on paper forms. Both English- and Spanish-speaking research associates were available; 96% of interviews were completed in English. Each participant received US$30 compensation for their time on completion of the interview.

Measures

Demographic information

Information about the participants’ age, race, marital status, educational attainment, income, and receipt of public assistance was obtained through a set of fixed format questions. In addition, participants were asked about their relationship history and current level of romantic involvement with their children’s other parent.

Relationship quality

Relationship quality was assessed by 11 items from the Vinokur Support and Undermining Scale (Vinokur, Price, & Caplan, 1996), which assesses perceived supportive (7 items) and undermining behaviors (4 items) received from the partner or coparent on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal). Participants rated how much their partner engaged in socially supportive actions (e.g., “provides you with encouragement,” “shows that he or she cares about you as a person”) and socially undermining actions (e.g., “acts in an unpleasant or angry manner toward you” and “makes you feel unwanted”). Internal consistencies for the subscales were acceptable (α = .87 for support; α = .77 for undermining). Together, the full 11-item scale had an alpha of .87, and the two subscales were correlated at .48 (p < .01). While the Support and Undermining Scale has been validated with an African American sample (Vinokur et al., 1996), it has not been validated specifically with adolescent and/or Hispanic populations. However, the widespread usage of the measure and strong alpha coefficients suggest that the measure is likely to be valid for the population in this study.

Father involvement

Father involvement was measured by participants’ responses to 15 questions adapted from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (Reichman, 2001) that asked about fathers’ provision of cognitive (planning) and behavioral (financial and in-kind) support for the baby’s mother during the prenatal period. These questions assessed how often in the past month the father was involved in the cognitive domain (e.g., “Talked about planning to be with the baby’s mother during labor and delivery”) and behavioral involvement (e.g., “Gone to Lamaze classes with the baby’s mother”). Responses were made using a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often), and a mean score was derived with higher scores indicating more father involvement. These questions have been utilized widely in studies examining the Fragile Families data on low-income, minority populations, though not specifically on an adolescent population (Kalil, Ziol-Guest, & Coley, 2005; Lundberg, McLanahan, & Rose, 2007). Analyses for the present study found an alpha coefficient of .80, slightly lower than but comparable with studies with adults (Kalil et al., 2005; Lundberg et al., 2007).

Coparenting

Coparenting was measured by the Parenting Alliance Inventory (PAI; Abidin & Brunner, 1995), a 20-item self-report measure that assesses the degree to which parents believe they have a sound working relationship with their child’s other parent with regard to care, decisions, and responsibilities associated with the child. This measure is based on the conceptualization of coparenting described by Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004) and was slightly adapted by altering some of the wording, so that it could be administered prenatally. Theory and prior research suggests that reporting on coparenting practices and expectations for parenting together, such as talking about parenting strategies and discussing what the child will or will not be allowed to do, is a valid measure of postnatal coparenting experience (Feinberg, 2002; Gaskin-Butler, Engert, Markievitz, Swenson, & McHale, 2012; Holmes et al., 2013). Activities that fathers and mothers engage in to prepare for the baby set the stage for how and by whom child-related tasks will be managed.

Items assess perceptions of solidarity (“I feel close to my child’s other parent when I think of how he or she will play with our child”), shared parenting (“If our child needs to be punished when he or she is older, my child’s other parent and I will usually agree on the type of punishment”), and support (“I believe my child’s other parent will make my job of being a parent easier”). Responses were made using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The PAI has high internal consistency, reliability, and validity, with an original alpha reliability of .97 (Abidin & Brunner, 1995). After examining item distribution and item-total correlations, a best-fit measure was developed for this specific adolescent population. One item (“My child’s other parent enjoys being alone with our child”) was removed due to its particularly low item-total correlation (.135), resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of .95. Consequently, the total score was created by averaging across 19 items. The means and standard deviations of the current sample at both time points were comparable with those found by a previous study with an adolescent sample (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007) as well as adult and African American samples (Bearss & Eyberg, 1998). The PAI has not been validated specifically with a Latino population. Several previous studies have found expected associations between higher PAI scores and greater father involvement (McBride & Rane, 1998; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008).

Data Analysis Plan

All data in the current study were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 20, Release Version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2012) and Mplus 7.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2012). As the measures were not all scaled equally, all data were centered and examined for correspondence with the necessary assumptions. The final sample had no missing data, and examination of the data revealed no significant outliers in the variables of interest. Power was also addressed; the results of an analysis in G*Power suggested a sample size of at least 42 couples to have the necessary power to detect a medium effect in the sample. The sample of 47 couples exceeds the suggested sample size. However, given that only 18 participants out of the total sample were Latino, analyses were not able to be conducted separately by race/ethnicity.

Our hypothesis that coparenting would mediate the relationship between relationship quality and father involvement was tested in three steps, separately for mothers and fathers. First, hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to determine whether coparenting explained variance in father involvement outcome beyond that explained by relationship quality. Second, the non-parametric bootstrapping procedure recommended by MacKinnon (2000) and additionally articulated by Preacher and Hayes (2004) and MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz (2007) was used to test mediation by estimating the sampling distribution of the indirect effect, to minimize bias and avoid making the assumption of normal distribution. Finally, mediation was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) without latent variables. Bivariate correlations among demographic, independent (relationship quality and coparenting), and dependent (father involvement) variables were calculated separately for mothers and fathers to explore associations between primary and control variables. Only those demographic variables that significantly correlated with the dependent variable were included in the regression. Likewise, significant bivariate correlations were specified in the models.

Results

Data were initially examined for similarities or differences between mother and father reports of relationship quality, coparenting, and father involvement. Mother and father reports of relationship quality (r = .253, p = .012) and of father involvement (r = .266, p = .009) were significantly correlated (variable correlations table available on request).

Mothers

Results of a hierarchical multiple regression provided support for the predictive relationship of coparenting over and above relationship quality. The overall model was significant, mothers, F(6, 70) = 8.23, p < .0001, and explained 41.4% variance in father involvement for mothers. After controlling for demographics of age, race, cohabitation, and relationship quality, coparenting explained 3% of the variance in father involvement. Results for simple mediation using non-parametric bootstrapping showed that coparenting was a simple mediator (95% confidence interval [CI] = [.03, .38]).

Results of the structural equation model for mothers were mixed with regard to how the mediation model fit with the sample data (see Table 1). While both the chi-square and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) tests indicated a good fit, other model fit statistics did not meet criteria. However, some individual associations were found to be significant (see Figure 1). Specifically, father involvement was positively predicted by mother’s receipt of welfare (b = .282, p value = .035) and mother’s ability to pay bills (b = .436, p value = .012). However, mediation was not upheld; while relationship quality predicted coparenting (b = .814, p value = .022), neither coparenting nor relationship quality predicted father involvement (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Fit Statistics for Mediation Model.

	Mothers	Fathers
χ²
Value	5.965	0.028
df	10	−1
p value	.818	.000
χ² for the baseline model
Value	68.365	40.545
df	15	5
p value	.000	.000
RMSEA
Estimate	0.000	0.000
90% CI	[.000, .098]	[.000, .000]
Probability RMSEA ≤ .05	.869	.000
Other fit tests
SRMR	0.065	0.005
AIC	386.753	238.613
BIC	429.307	266.365
Sample-size adjusted BIC	357.170	219.319

Note. Models were tested using SEM in Mplus 7.0. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SEM = structural equation modeling.

Figure 1.

Mothers: Regression coefficients as provided by Mplus.

Table 2.

Structural Equation Modeling Results.

	Mothers			Fathers
	Estimate	SE	p value	Estimate	SE	p value
Father involvement on
Coparenting	.249	.173	.151	.243**	.071	.001
Relationship quality	.222	.151	.142	.232**	.041	.000
Receipt of welfare	.282*	.134	.035	—	—	—
Ability to pay bills	.436**	.173	.012	—	—	—
Relationship status	−.370	.203	.069	—	—	—
Coparenting on
Relationship quality	.814*	.354	.022	.059	.046	.197
Relationship status	—	—	—	−.018	.020	.371
Coparenting with
Relationship quality	−.035	.082	.670	.169**	.064	.008
Relationship status	—	—	—	−.065*	.027	.015
Relationship quality with
Employment status	−.093	.057	.102	—	—	—
Receipt of welfare	.058	.032	.067	—	—	—
Relationship status	−.048*	.023	.038	−.055	.048	.251
Relationship Status with
Receipt of welfare	.019	.022	.409	—	—	—

Note. “—” = path not specified in the tested model.

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Fathers

Similar to the results for mothers, hierarchical multiple regression provided some support for the predictive relationship of coparenting over and above relationship quality for fathers. The overall model was significant, F(6, 64) = 2.63, p = .024, but explained less of the variance in father involvement for fathers (R² = 19.8%) than it did for mothers. After controlling for demographics, coparenting explained 2% of the variance in father involvement for fathers. Results for simple mediation using non-parametric bootstrapping showed that coparenting was a simple mediator for fathers (95% CI = [.04, .26]).

Results from the structural equation model for fathers’ report suggested that the mediation model was not a good fit for the data (see Table 1). As with the model for mothers, some individual associations were found to be significant in the father’s model (see Figure 2). Specifically, both coparenting (b = .243, p value = .001) and relationship quality (b = .232, p value = .000) positively predicted father involvement; however, relationship quality was not found to be a significant predictor of coparenting, as was hypothesized (see Table 2 for all model path values). However, father’s report of coparenting was correlated with relationship quality (r = .169, p value = .008) and relationship status (r = −.065, p value = .015).

Figure 2.

Fathers: Regression coefficients as provided by Mplus.

Summary of Results

Overall, results of the regression demonstrated that coparenting was predictive of father involvement above and beyond relationship quality, and a simple mediation test supported coparenting as a mediator for both mothers and fathers. The results of the structural equation model were mixed, providing more support for the model for mothers than fathers. Nonetheless, some of the individual paths in these models were found to be significant and in the expected direction, providing partial support to the specified relationships and hypotheses (see Figures 1 and 2). It should be noted, though, that significant paths in one model were not necessarily significant for the other. For example, coparenting and relationship quality were predictive of father involvement for fathers but not for mothers, and relationship quality was predictive of coparenting for mothers but not for fathers.

Discussion

The results of the current study provide empirical support for Weissman and Cohen’s (1985) and Feinberg’s (2003) emphasis on family systems and the marital relationship as a primary support system for parents in the parenting role. These results also support evidence that the coparenting alliance is a stronger or more proximal predictor of father involvement than is relationship quality (Margolin et al., 2001; McBride & Rane, 1998). Results indicated that both relationship quality and coparenting are important factors in the adolescent parenting relationship, although in differing ways for mothers and fathers. While the simple mediation test suggested that coparenting mediated the link between relationship quality and father involvement for both mothers and fathers, the structural equation models did not perfectly support the mediation. Results suggested that for mothers but not fathers, relationship quality predicted coparenting. For fathers but not mothers, relationship quality and coparenting predicted father involvement, but relationship quality did not predict coparenting. It is also notable that coparenting explained only a small proportion of the variance after controlling for other variables, suggesting that relationship quality and variables not addressed in the current study may still exert a strong influence on father involvement.

These results support prior research indicating that getting fathers involved during pregnancy is related to positive father engagement after the baby’s birth (e.g., Bronte-Tinkew, Ryan, Carrano, & Moore, 2007; Brown & Eisenberg, 2005). Perhaps the prenatal period may offer a valuable “critical period” in which expectant mothers and fathers may be able to benefit from interventions aimed at teaching specific coparenting skills such as communicating expectations about parenting, developing strategies for supporting each other as parents, and identifying specific goals that they have for the child they are expecting. Several researchers have reported increases in coparenting, parenting skills, and child adjustment after randomized trials of preventive intervention programs (e.g., Fagan, 2008; Feinberg, Kan, & Goslin, 2009; Florsheim & Smith, 2005). Furthermore, recent research on interventions suggests that for low-income Latino (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009) and African American fathers (Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, & Hsueh, 2010), relationship enrichment programs for couples including a focus on coparenting promoted increased father involvement and stemmed the decrease in couple relationship satisfaction typically found postnatally; fathers-only programs did not demonstrate the latter effect. Future studies can continue to empirically test the comparative effectiveness of programs focused on coparenting and father involvement among adolescent parents.

However, the results of the current study also suggest that the interrelationship between factors differs between mothers and fathers. The lack of fit for the overall models suggests that other factors, perhaps not explored in the current research, may be contributing to father involvement in adolescent minority couples. For mothers, while relationship quality strongly predicted the quality of the coparenting relationship, a mother’s SES was the only significant predictor of father involvement. Perhaps the mothers’ need for the father’s financial involvement is a stronger driver than the quality of their relationship—or a negotiating tool—for his level of involvement.

In contrast to the results for mothers, relationship quality and coparenting significantly predicted father involvement per fathers’ report. It is possible that the lack of fit in the overall model for fathers is related to evidence that the mother–father relationship is more important for fathers’ perception of father involvement than it is for mothers (Gavin et al., 2002). For mothers, the father’s involvement may be more driven by her perception of his involvement in coparenting than by her perception of the quality of their relationship. Perhaps role models for negotiating child-rearing disagreements and providing support to a coparent may be particularly valuable for young fathers (Van Egeren, 2003); if these role models are not available at home, relationship education programs may help fill this gap. Finally, evidence suggests that coparenting often takes place between the mother and other adult(s) such as maternal grandmothers or aunts, with only 36% of unmarried African American mothers in one study expecting the baby’s father to be the primary coparent; in this situation, the relationship with the father may become less important to mothers (Gaskin-Butler et al., 2012).

While the results here contribute valuable information to the study of coparenting, the findings of this study must be interpreted in light of its limitations. One of the major limitations of the current study is that causality cannot be determined due to the cross-sectional nature of this data. Multi-wave modeling would allow for a true change-to-change analysis. Tellingly, Morrill, Hines, Mahmood, and Cordova (2010) found with three waves of data that coparenting mediated the relationship between marital quality and parenting practices. Future research would do well to explore mediation across time, while additionally exploring the basis for the differences observed between mothers and fathers in adolescent minority populations.

The study sample presents additional limitations; the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the results at this time. However, considering the lack of published data on this specific population—particularly data that includes both mother and father report—we feel that the contribution is valuable. Also, as we did not collect data from pregnant mothers whose babies’ fathers were not willing to participate in the study, it is possible that the participants who did choose to participate differed from the population in general. In addition, as the sample was recruited from a single urban geographical area, it is unlikely to be representative of all low-income, pregnant African American and Latino adolescents. For example, the majority of Latinos in the current study reported a Central American background, but even within Central America, a great deal of variability in social behaviors, norms, education levels, and SES exists for various Latino groups. Acculturation, nativity status, and the length of time lived in the United States are additional factors that could influence father involvement; these factors are worthy of further study. Finally, the sample size of Latino participants was not large enough for us to conduct analyses separately by race/ethnicity. Future studies would benefit from further examination of differences and similarities in father involvement and coparenting between and among these racial/ethnic and cultural groups.

Another limitation is the dearth of data on how developmental and socioeconomic factors influence involvement outcomes. As we did not collect data on all aspects of their development and current status, we were unable to determine to what extent neighborhood characteristics, legal status, custody issues, financial status, and family structure and support influenced perceptions of coparenting and father involvement. For example, maternal grandmothers can exert a “gatekeeping” effect by discouraging or limiting young fathers’ involvement; adolescent African American fathers who are discouraged from participating in the decision-making process around the pregnancy report less involvement in subsequent parenting (Achatz & MacAllum, 1994; Lin & McLanahan, 2007; McHale et al., 2002). Such effects can be particularly strong for young mothers who are living with their mother or another adult rather than cohabitating with the baby’s father; when a young mother’s extended family is more involved, fathers tend to be less involved (Perry, 2009; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2002). Future research can evaluate the impact of these variables on coparenting and father involvement in adolescent minority parents.

Overall, the present findings have important implications for the development of relationship and coparenting education, as the research is still equivocal on the relative efficacy of these programs (Holmes et al., 2013; Johnson, 2012). Interventions for at-risk populations may need to incorporate aspects aimed at increasing mothers’ perceptions of the positive parenting contribution of fathers regardless of their level of economic support. Alternatively, programming may be needed to help teach fathers relationship skills such as supportive communication and the harm of undermining behaviors. The focus on relationship quality and communication may be of particular benefit to fathers, while affecting mothers primarily through improvements in the coparenting process.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant (1 K01 MH072504) from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to Christina B. Gee.

Author Biographies

Colleen M. Varga received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from the George Washington University (GWU) in 2011. Her research interests include the predictors of father involvement in adolescent parenting couples, adult romantic attachment, and coparenting skills.

Christina B. Gee, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the George Washington University. Her research focuses on the coparenting relationship, maternal gatekeeping, and predictors of father involvement in low-income and ethnic minority young parents.

Lyzaida Rivera is completing her PhD in Clinical Psychology at GWU. Her general research interests include early childhood development and disorders, parenthood and factors affecting parenting skills and parent perception of competency, particularly in minority and adolescent parents.

Claudia X. Reyes received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from GWU in 2014. Her current research interests include the effects of paternal involvement in maternal depression, depression and anxiety in minorities and Latinos, acculturative stress, and acculturation.

References

Abidin

R. R.

Brunner

J. F.

(1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 31-40. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2401_4

Achatz

MacAllum

(1994). Young unwed fathers, report from the field. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Arendell

(1995). Coparenting: A review of the literature. National Center on Fathers and Families. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454975.pdf

Bearss

K. E.

Eyberg

(1998). A test of the parenting alliance theory. Early Education and Development, 9, 179-185. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0902_5

Bronte-Tinkew

Ryan

Carrano

Moore

K. A.

(2007). Resident fathers’ pregnancy intentions, prenatal behaviors, and links to involvement with infants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 977-990. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00425.x

Brown

Eisenberg

(Eds.). (1995). The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the wellbeing of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4903

Carlson

M. J.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2002). Fragile families, father involvement, and public policy. In Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Cabrera

(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 461-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carlson

M. J.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2006). Strengthening unmarried families: Could enhancing couple relationships also improve parenting? The Social Services Review, 80, 297-321. doi:10.1086/503123

Carlson

M. J.

McLanahan

S. S.

Brooks-Gunn

(2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45, 461-488. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0007

10.

Carver

Joyner

Udry

J. R.

(2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Cohen

N. E.

(2003, October). Unmarried African American Fathers’ involvement with their infants: The role of couple relationships (Working Paper 2003-13-FF). Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/publications/publications.asp

12.

Coley

R. L.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

(1999). Stability and change in paternal involvement among urban African American fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 416-435. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.416

13.

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

Pruett

M. K.

Pruett

K. D.

Wong

(2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Prevention interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 663-679. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00625.x

14.

Cutrona

C. E.

Hessling

R. M.

Bacon

P. L.

Russell

D. W.

(1998). Predictors and correlates of continuing involvement with the baby’s father among adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 369-387. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.3.369

15.

Fagan

(2008). Randomized study of a prebirth coparenting intervention with adolescent and young fathers. Family Relations, 57, 309-323. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00502.x

16.

Fagan

Palkovitz

(2007). Unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 479-489. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.479

17.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 173-195. doi:10.1023/A:1019695015110

18.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 95-131. doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01

19.

Feinberg

M. E.

Kan

M. L.

Goslin

M. C.

(2009). Enhancing parenting, coparenting, and child self-regulation: Effects of Family Foundations 1 year after birth. Prevention Science, 10, 276-285. doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0130-4

20.

Florsheim

Smith

(2005). Expectant adolescent couples’ relations and subsequent parenting behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 533-548. doi:10.1002/imhj.20076

21.

Floyd

F. J.

Zmich

D. E.

(1991). Marriage and the parenting partnership: Perceptions and interactions of parents with mentally retarded and typically developing children. Child Development, 62, 1434-1448. doi:10.2307/1130817

22.

Futris

T. G.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

(2007). Mothers’ perceptions of barriers, parenting alliance, and adolescent fathers’ engagement with their children. Family Relations, 56, 258-269. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00457.x

23.

Gaskin-Butler

Engert

Markievitz

Swenson

McHale

(2012). Prenatal representations of coparenting in unmarried African American mothers. Family Process, 51, 360-375. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01409.x

24.

Gavin

L. E.

Black

M. M.

Minor

Abel

Papas

M. A.

Bentley

M. E.

(2002). Young, disadvantaged fathers’ involvement with their infants: An ecological perspective. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 266-276. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00366-X

25.

Gee

C. B.

McNerney

C. M.

Reiter

M. J.

Leaman

S. C.

(2007). Adolescent and young adult mothers’ relationship quality during the transition to parenthood: Associations with father involvement in fragile families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 213-224. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9130-x

26.

Hamilton

B. E.

Martin

J. A.

Ventura

S. J.

(2009). Births: Preliminary data for 2007 (National vital statistics reports, Web release; Vol. 57, No. 12). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_12.pdf

27.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

28.

Holmes

E. K.

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

Hawkins

A. J.

(2013). Marriage, fatherhood, and parenting programming. In Cabrera

N. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 438-454). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

29.

Hossain

Roopnarine

J. L.

(1994). African-American fathers’ involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioning style, support, education, and income. Infant Behavior & Development, 17, 175-184. doi:10.1016/0163-6383(94)90053-1

30.

Johnson

M. D.

(2012). Healthy marriage initiatives: On the need for empiricism in policy implementation. American Psychologist, 67, 296-308. doi:10.1037/a0027743

31.

Kalil

Ziol-Guest

K. M.

Coley

R. L.

(2005). Perceptions of father involvement in teenage-mother families: Predictors and links to mothers’ psychological adjustment. Family Relations, 54, 197-211. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2005.00016.x

32.

Katz

L. F.

Low

S. M.

(2004). Marital violence, co-parenting, and family-level processes in relation to children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 372-382. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.372

33.

Lerman

Sorenson

(2000). Father involvement with their nonmarital children: Patterns, determinants, and effects on their earnings. In Peters

H. E.

Day

R. D.

Peterson

G. W.

Steinmetz

(Eds.), Fatherhood: Research, interventions, and policies (pp. 137-158). New York, NY: Haworth Press.

34.

Lin

McLanahan

S. S.

(2007). Parental beliefs about nonresident fathers’ obligations and rights. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 382-398. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00372.x

35.

Lundberg

McLanahan

Rose

(2007). Child gender and father involvement in fragile families. Demography, 44, 79-92. doi:10.1353/dem.2007.0007

36.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In Rose

J. S.

Chassin

Presson

C. C.

Sherman

S. J.

(Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fairchild

A. J.

Fritz

M. S.

(2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

38.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

John

R. S.

(2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3-21. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3

39.

McBride

B. A.

Rane

T. R.

(1998). Parenting alliance as a predictor of father involvement: An exploratory study. Family Relations, 47, 229-236. doi:10.2307/584971

40.

McHale

J. P.

Lauretti

Talbot

Pouquette

(2002). Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of coparenting and family group process. In McHale

J. P.

Grolnick

W. S.

(Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 35-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

41.

Mitnick

D. M.

Heyman

R. E.

Smith Slep

A. M.

(2009). Change in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 848-852. doi:10.1037/a0017004

42.

Morrill

M. I.

Hines

D. A.

Mahmood

Cordova

J. V.

(2010). Pathways between marriage and parenting for wives and husbands: The role of coparenting. Family Process, 49, 59-73. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01308.x

43.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B. O.

(1998-2012). MPlus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. www.statmodel2.com

44.

Osborne

McLanahan

(2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x

45.

Parke

R. D.

(1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/

46.

Perry

A. R.

(2009). The influence of the extended family on the involvement of nonresident African American fathers. Journal of Family Social Work, 12, 211-226. doi:10.1080/10522150903046390

47.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

48.

Reichman

N. E.

(2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 303-326. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4

49.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Brown

G. L.

Cannon

E. A.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Sokolowski

M. S.

(2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 389-398. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.389

50.

Sigle-Rushton

McLanahan

(2002). The living arrangements of new unmarried mothers. Demography, 39, 415-433. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0032

51.

Silverstein

L. B.

(2002). Fathers and families. In McHale

J. P.

Grolnick

W. S.

(Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 35-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Smuts

B. B.

Gubernick

D. J.

(1992). Male-infant relationships in nonhuman primates: Paternal investment of mating effort? In Hewlett

B. S.

(Ed.), Father-child relationship: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Available from http://www.degruyter.com/

53.

Sobolewski

J. M.

King

(2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196-1212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

54.

Talbot

J. A.

Baker

J. K.

McHale

J. P.

(2009). Sharing the love: Prebirth adult attachment status and coparenting adjustment during early infancy. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9, 56-77. doi:10.1080/15295190802656760

55.

Van Egeren

L. A.

(2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 278-295. doi:10.1002/imhj.10056

56.

Van Egeren

L. A.

(2004). The development of the coparenting relationship over the transition to parenthood. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25, 453-477. doi:10.1002/imhj.20019

57.

Van Egeren

L. A.

Hawkins

D. P.

(2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 165-178. doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b

58.

Vinokur

A. D.

Price

R. H.

Caplan

R. D.

(1996). Hard times and hurtful partners: How financial strain affects depression and relationship satisfaction of unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 166-179. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.166

59.

Weissman

S. H.

Cohen

R. S.

(1985). The parenting alliance and adolescence. Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 24-45.

60.

Wood

R. G.

McConnell

Moore

Clarkwest

Hsueh

(2010). The building strong families project: Strengthening unmarried parents’ relationships: The early impacts of Building Strong Families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.