Fathers’ sensitive guidance moderates the association between coparenting and behavioral regulation in preschoolers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the links between paternal sensitive guidance, coparenting, and child behavioral regulation. It also aimed to assess whether paternal sensitive behaviors moderate the putative relationship between cooperative coparenting and child regulatory abilities. The sample comprised 70 preschoolers and their fathers. Behavioral regulation was assessed using the Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders task. For the assessment of paternal sensitive guidance, dyads were videotaped during a picture-book reading task. Fathers reported coparenting cooperation. Results revealed that coparenting predicted behavioral regulation, even after accounting for verbal ability and parental education. No significant links emerged between fathers’ sensitive guidance and regulatory skills. However, the interaction of coparenting and paternal sensitive behaviors predicted behavioral regulation: a lower score on cooperative coparenting was linked to more regulatory difficulties, when coupled with lower levels of paternal sensitive guidance. Intervention programs, designed to promote child self-regulation, should be focused on strategies aimed to improve both the cooperation between parents and the quality of individual parenting. Efforts should be made to include fathers.

Keywords

Self-regulation father coparenting sensitivity

Introduction

Behavioral regulation is an aspect of the broader domain of self-regulation aligned with the construct of executive function. It refers to a set of integrated skills that are essential for planning and executing goal-directed activities in socially appropriate ways, including working memory, attentional focusing, and inhibitory control (Ponitz, McClelland, Mathews, & Morrison, 2009). According to a vast amount of empirical data, behavioral regulation is important throughout the lifespan, as it is linked to other major developmental domains, including school readiness and later academic achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007), moral competence (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997), emotional and behavior functioning (Hofer, Einsenberg, & Reiser, 2010), and theory of mind (Hughes & Ensor, 2011). Therefore, identifying the contributors to optimal behavioral regulation is particularly important. This is the focus of the present report that aims to document the links between the quality of individual father parenting, coparenting, and behavioral regulation in a sample of typically developing preschoolers. It also aims to examine whether the putative effect of coparenting on child behavioral regulation is moderated by the quality of individual father parenting.

Research investigating the environmental predictors of child self-regulation has grown over the past decade. Researchers have made significant progress identifying the sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., Størksen, Ellingsen, Wanless, & McClelland, 2015), as well as the proximal and relational factors (e.g., Moriguchi, 2014) most salient for the development of child regulatory skills. We make the case herein that coparenting relationship is one of such factors. Coparenting has been defined as a multidimensional construct, referring to the degree of cooperation between both parents regarding child rearing-related issues, namely the mutual investment in the child, the respect for the child-rearing attitudes of the other parent, the recognition of the importance of the other parent in promoting the development of their children, and the desire of each parent to communicate effectively with the other (Weissman & Cole, 1985).

Research has suggested that coparenting predicts child functioning uniquely, beyond the effects of other family and parenting variables (e.g., Stright & Neitzel, 2003). Authors have found that low levels of interparental cooperation are related to attachment insecurity (Brown, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, 2010), and to more internalizing and externalizing problems (Feinberg, Kan, & Hetherington, 2007; Goodrum, Jones, Kincaid, & Cuellar, 2012). It is interesting that despite those empirical results little research has attempted to document the links between coparenting and child behavioral regulation. Some notable exceptions can be found, however. Consider, in this regard, the work of Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, and Dekovi (2008). These investigators examined the relations between coparenting and self-regulation in a sample of typically developing preschoolers, finding that supportive coparenting was a significant predictor of better child regulatory abilities.

Even though there is reason to believe that coparenting may independently contribute to the development of behavioral regulation, it is also worth noting that research has consistently documented links between the quality of individual parenting, including parental sensitivity and scaffolding, and child self-regulation (Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné, 2012; Blair, Raver, Berry, & Family Life Project Investigators, 2014; Hammond, Müller, Carpendale, Bibok, & Liebermann-Finestone, 2012). Authors have stated that is during the early parent–child interactions that children have the opportunity to acquire a set of regulatory strategies, which will allow them to regulate their own thoughts, emotions and behaviors in novel or demanding situations. By acting initially as a source of external regulation, responding in a sensitive and responsive manner to their children’s states of arousal, parents are, in fact, gradually enhancing their children’s understanding about their own and others thoughts, emotions and behaviors (Sroufe, 1996).

It is important to appreciate, nevertheless, that most of the work done on individual parenting and behavioral regulation has been focused on mothers, while the linkages between the quality of father–child interaction and the development of self-regulation have been less explored. This gap in the literature is notable, given findings revealing an increased participation of fathers in child rearing over the last decades (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; Parke, 2002), but also considering years of research highlighting the impact of the quality of father–child interaction on the emotional and cognitive development of children (e.g., Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). According to the few existing studies, however, there is reason to believe that the quality of paternal care matters for the development of child behavioral regulation (Herz, Bernier, Cimon-Paquet, & Regueiro, 2017; St. George, Fletcher, & Palazzi, 2017; Towe-Goodman et al., 2014). For instance, Meuwissen and Carlson (2015), who measured fathers’ autonomy support and control in a dyadic play task with their 3-year-old children, concluded that the quality of father parenting was concurrently related to child performance on tasks tapping inhibitory control, working memory and attentional focusing.

Although the above studies suggest that both coparenting and individual fathering may be important for the development of child regulatory abilities, research has not yet examined the interrelations between those contextual variables in the prediction of behavioral regulation. In line with a developmental psychopathology framework (Alink, Cicchetti, Kim, & Rogosch, 2009), it has been suggested that positive parent–child interaction may serve as a protective factor, buffering the child against the negative consequences of family dysfunctions. Consistent with such perspective, consider the work of Lindsey, Caldera, and Tankersley (2009). These investigators measured the quality of father–child relationship, finding that marital conflict was associated with more peer problems, but only for children from father–child dyads with higher levels of negative emotional reciprocity. According to this view, coparenting and father–child interaction may operate in concert with each other to shape the development of self-regulation in children. The present study explored this issue as well, as it seems to hold promise for understanding processes underlying the development of early behavioral regulation.

The Current Study

In light of the above, the present report seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the putative effects of both coparenting relationship and father–child interaction in behavioral regulation, in a sample of typically developing preschoolers, while controlling for other factors previously found to be linked to self-regulation: paternal and maternal education, child age, gender and verbal ability (Mileva-Seitz et al., 2015; Størksen et al., 2015). Moreover, the present study also aims to clarify whether father parenting (operationalized herein in terms of fathers’ sensitive guidance) moderates the relation between coparenting and behavioral regulation. In this study, a picture-book reading task was used to assess the quality of individual father parenting, as studies have suggested that fathers’ less hostile and more warm and supportive behaviors during this type of sociocognitive context are related to child socioemotional and cognitive functioning (Frosch, Cox, & Goldman, 2001; Sethna et al., 2017). In fact, research has revealed that joint reading is a particularly rich context for the promotion of several child abilities found to be linked to self-regulation (e.g., language, theory of mind; Adrián, Clemente, & Villanueva, 2007; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998). Based on such empirical evidences, but also on the premise that shared book reading implies the parental ability to support and sustain the child engagement, persistence and attention in the book, we make the case herein that the quality of paternal behaviors during this type of verbal interactive setting may be of particular relevance for understanding the development of child self-regulation.

We hypothesize that both coparenting relationship and the quality of paternal individual parenting, assessed during a shared book reading task, will be significant predictors of child behavioral regulation. Furthermore, we also hypothesize that low levels of cooperative coparenting will predict regulatory difficulties, but only among children with less sensitive fathers.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample comprised 70 preschoolers (33 girls), recruited in child-care centers in Portugal, and their fathers. When children were enrolled in the second preschool year, fathers were invited to participate with their children in an observation session in a university laboratory setting. The session was videotaped and the children received a small gift for their participation. Fathers were first explained the purposes of the study as well as the detailed procedures, and gave their written informed consent for their own and their children’s participation. Children were between 53 and 60 months old (M = 55.09, SD = 1.55) at time of assessment. The majority came from two-parent families (n = 65, 92.9%) with two or more children (n = 45, 68.3%). In the case of divorce (n = 5, 7.1%), all parents in this sample shared a joint physical custody arrangement. Fathers were between 25 and 69 years of age (M = 38.44, SD = 6.26). Ten fathers had not completed high school, 20 had obtained a high school diploma, and the remaining had graduated from college (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics (N = 70).

	M	SD	Range
Child age (months)	55.09	1.55	53–60
Child verbal ability	91.80	19.28	48–126
Father age (years)	38.44	6.26	25–69
Coparenting	88.41	8.33	60–100
Paternal sensitive guidance	11.39	1.82	8–15
Behavioral regulation	24.54	11.27	0–38
	n	%
Father education
Less than high school	10	14.3
High school	20	28.6
College degree	40	57.1
Maternal education
Less than high school	1	1.4
High school	10	13.9
College degree	61	84.7

Measures

Behavior Self-Regulation

Behavioral regulation was assessed using the Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders task (HTKS; Ponitz et al., 2009), an extensively used task, tapping working memory, attentional focusing, and inhibitory control. The HTKS is a structured individual observation requiring children to perform the opposite of a dominant response to different oral commands. Children are initially instructed to respond in an unusual manner to a two rules (head/toes or knees/shoulders) command (items 1–10; e.g., if the experimenter says “Touch your head,” the correct answer would be for the child to touch his or her toes). After habituating to two oral commands, task complexity increases by asking children to respond to one of four commands (head/toes/knees/shoulders) (items 11–20). Each of the 20 items was scored with 0 for an incorrect response, 1 for a self-correct response, or with 2 for a correct response. The total score ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores being indicative of better regulatory skills. In this study, the HTKS showed a Cronbach’s alpha across test items of .92.

Coparenting Relationship

Fathers filled in the Portuguese version of the Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM; Abidin & Konold, 1999), in order to assess their perception about the degree of mother-father parenting communication, cooperation, and mutual commitment with regard to child raising issues. The PAM has been extensively used. It consists of 20 items (e.g., Item 4, My child’s other parent and I communicate well about our child), rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), summed to yield a total score. Higher scores reflect higher levels of coparenting cooperation. The Portuguese version of the PAM has been found to have a high degree of internal consistency (alpha of .90 for fathers; Lamela, Castro, & Figueiredo, 2013). In our study, the internal consistency of the scale was .89.

Paternal Sensitive Guidance

Fathers and children were videotaped during a shared book-reading task, using one of two wordless picture books: Frog where are you? (Mayer, 1969) or Frog on his own (Mayer, 1992). The assignment of either book was counterbalanced. Fathers were asked to tell a story to their children based on the book’s pictures. Three scales reflecting the quality of paternal interactive behavior were coded based on the Autobiographical Emotional Events Dialogue (AEED) system (Koren-Karie, Oppenheim, Haimovich, & Etzion-Carasso, 2000). This system was used in this study since it was specifically designed to assess the quality of caregiver-child interaction through tasks involving verbal interactions, such as a shared book-reading task. For the present study, the following adapted AEED fathers’ scales were used: (1) acceptance and tolerance (i.e., ability of the father to be in tune with the child’s point of view, enabling him/her to express a wide range of emotional themes without being defensive or judgmental, in a warmth atmosphere); (2) involvement and reciprocity (i.e., the extent to which the father is positively engaged in the task, shows genuine interest in the child and his/her stories, and cooperates with the child); and (3) hostility (i.e., the extent to which the father expresses anger or hostility towards the child or his/her activity). Coders rated each scale on an anchored 5-point Likert scale. In all scales, higher scores reflect more positive behaviors (e.g., acceptance and tolerance, 1-Lack of acceptance and lack of tolerance to 5-Very high level of acceptance and tolerance). A final composite of fathers’ sensitive guidance was calculated by summing ratings across the scales, which were found to be all intercorrelated (all p < .01). A higher final score is indicative of higher levels of fathers’ sensitive guidance. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by computing the intraclass correlation coefficients for 16 father–child interactions. Intraclass correlations for the three types of paternal behaviors were found to be more than adequate (all > .71).

Child Verbal Ability

Child verbal ability was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, revised edition (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981). Children were orally presented with words, and asked to choose from a set of four pictures which one corresponded to the word previously heard. The coding consists of subtracting the total number of errors made by children during the test from the highest item children reached. Raw scores were used as the final measure of verbal ability as Portuguese norms for this instrument are not yet available.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 present descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables. Significant and positive relations were found between behavioral regulation and child verbal ability, r = .29, p = .016, and paternal and maternal education, r_s = .34, p = .004 and r_s = .24, p = .046, respectively. Results also revealed that children exposed to higher levels of supportive coparenting showed a better performance on the behavioral regulation task, r = .44, p < .001. No other significant correlations were observed between child behavioral regulation and the remaining study variables. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between single-parent and dual-parent households regarding child self-regulation, coparenting or father sensitive guidance (all p < .05).

Table 2.

Bivariate associations (N = 70).

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Child sex (0, male; 1, female)^a	---
2. Child age (months)	−.18	---
3. Child verbal ability	−.06	.30*	---
4. Paternal education^b,c	4.85	−.06	.20	---
5. Maternal education^b,c	1.46	.06	−.15	.36**	---
6. Coparenting	−.18	−.003	.13	.22	−.07	---
7. Paternal sensitive guidance	.004	−.04	.04	.27*	−.06	−.13	---
8. Behavioral regulation	−.18	.14	.29*	.34**	.24*	.44***	−.03

Note. ^aPoint biserial coefficient correlation.

^bSpearman coefficient correlation.

^cChi-square with child sex; remaining are all Pearson coefficient correlation.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

A multiple regression analysis was then conducted. Given the above bivariate correlations, child verbal ability and paternal and maternal education were entered in the first block of the analysis, serving as control variables. Coparenting and fathers’ sensitive guidance were included in the second block, followed by their interaction term (Table 3). The overall final regression model was statistically significant, F(6, 63) = 7.39, p < .001. Both paternal education and child verbal ability significantly contributed to the explained variance in behavioral regulation, β = .26, p = .032, and β = .27, p = .021, respectively. Results also revealed a significant main effect of coparenting relationship, β = .40, p < .001. No significant links were observed between fathers’ sensitive guidance and behavioral regulation. However, the interaction involving coparenting relationship and paternal sensitive guidance proved significant, β = −.17, p = .041.

Table 3.

Predicting behavioral regulation (N = 70).

	B	SE	95% CI	β	t
Block 1	R² = .22 (ΔR² = .18) F(3,69) = 6.15**
Paternal education	4.12	1.88	[.37, 7.88]	.26	2.19*
Maternal education	3.53	2.34	[−1.14, 8.21]	.18	1.51
Child verbal ability	.16	.07	[.03, .29]	.27	2.37*
Block 2	R² = .37 (ΔR² = .32) F(5,69) = 7.60***
Coparenting	.549	.14	[.26, .82]	.40	3.82***
Paternal sensitive guidance	−.15	.66	[−1.47, 1.17]	−.02	−.22
Block 3	R² = .41 (ΔR² = .36) F(6,69) = 7.39***
Coparenting × paternal sensitive guidance	−.17	.08	[−.33, −.01]	−.21	−2.09*

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

To examine the nature of the above interaction effect, we plotted regression slopes of coparenting relationship on behavioral regulation for children with more and less sensitive fathers (Aiken & West, 1991). A significant relation between low levels of cooperative coparenting and regulatory difficulties was found for children exposed to low (−1 SD below the mean) and medium (around the mean) levels of sensitive father parenting, β = .89, p < .001, and β = .58, p < .001, respectively. On the other hand, for children exposed to high (+1SD above the mean) levels of sensitive father parenting, no significant links emerged between coparenting and behavioral regulation, β = .27, p = .15 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders task (HTKS) scores in relation to coparenting relationship for children exposed to lower (n = 22), medium (n = 23), and higher (n = 25) levels of fathers’ sensitive guidance. Regions of significance are highlighted in the graph (shaded area).

We next conducted a regions of significance test (Hayes & Matthes, 2009). This technique provides the specific values of cooperative coparenting below and above which the regression lines for higher and lower levels of paternal sensitivity differ significantly in terms of child behavioral regulation. Results revealed that the slopes between paternal sensitivity and behavioral regulation proved significant when cooperative coparenting scores were below 12.55. Thus, children exposed to lower levels of paternal sensitivity differed significantly in terms of regulatory abilities from children with more sensitive fathers, but only at the lower levels of cooperative coparenting; whereas no significant differences emerged between children with more and less sensitive fathers, at the highest levels of coparenting.

Discussion

Diverse socioeconomic characteristics and other family processes and relational experiences seem to contribute to the development of child behavioral regulation. The present study aimed to contribute to the literature by examining the effects of both coparenting and fathers’ sensitive guidance in preschoolers’ behavioral regulation, while controlling for child verbal ability and parental education. Moreover, and in line with previous findings showing that the quality of father–child interaction acts as a protective factor against the negative impact of parental conflict on child development (e.g., Lindsey, Caldera, & Tankersley, 2009), this study aimed to examine whether fathers’ sensitive guidance acted as a moderator in the relations between coparenting and behavioral regulation.

According to the results, fathers’ sensitive guidance was a significant moderator of the relations between coparenting and self-regulation. More specifically, among children exposed to lower levels of paternal sensitive guidance, less cooperative coparenting was found to predict more behavioral regulatory difficulties. However, for children exposed to higher levels of paternal sensitive guidance, no significant links emerged between coparenting and behavioral regulation. A region of significance test supported this result, showing that, at the lower levels of cooperative coparenting, children with more sensitive fathers showed significantly better regulatory abilities, than children exposed to lower levels of paternal sensitivity. These findings suggest that father parenting may serve as a buffer of the negative impact of low levels of cooperative coparenting on child regulatory abilities. Although not focused on self-regulation, other studies have revealed similar findings (e.g., Lindsey et al., 2009). Thereby, our results extend such scientific literature to child behavioral regulation.

Moreover, the fact that fathers’ sensitive guidance served as a moderator in the relation between coparenting relationship and behavioral regulation is particularly noteworthy and has important implications for clinical practice. It indicates that early prevention and intervention programs, designed to boost child self-regulation, should be focused on strategies aimed to improve both the cooperation between parents and the parents’ sensitive behaviors in interaction with the child. Following our data, efforts should continue to be made, in order to include fathers, in addition to mothers, in such type of interventions.

Despite the above results, fathers’ sensitive guidance was not a significant individual predictor of child regulatory skills. This result differs from previous ones highlighting significant associations between the quality of individual father parenting and child behavioral regulation (Bernier et al., 2012). The absence of a main effect of fathers’ sensitive guidance on behavioral regulation may be attributable to the fact that other types of father–child interaction procedures, rather than a picture-book reading task with the child—as it was the case in the current study—may be more appropriate to capture the qualities of paternal care. According to different studies, fathers tend to engage in more physically stimulating, action-oriented types of play (John, Halliburton, & Humphrey, 2013; Lamb & Lewis, 2010), while being less involved in verbal interactions with the child, during which they tend to employ low-level interactive strategies in comparison to mothers (Schwartz, 2004). Therefore, some authors have argued that more challenging interactions between children and fathers may be a more appropriate parenting context that affords children with better opportunities for them to practice problem-solving competences, and thus develop their regulatory abilities (Grossmann et al., 2002). Thus, and contrary to our initial expectation, a verbal interactive task may not be the most appropriate setting to capture the characteristics of paternal behaviors directly linked to child behavioral regulation. Moreover, it is also possible that fathers’ sensitive guidance assessed when children are younger, and, therefore, more dependent on their parents, may be more influential for the development of child regulatory abilities.

In sharp contrast to the findings described above, results indicated that a lower level of cooperative coparenting was a significant individual predictor of elevated behavioral regulation difficulties. This result clearly suggests the relevance of parents’ coordination in coparenting for optimal child development, and also calls attention to the need to consider the assessment of coparenting cooperation when designing research in the field of child self-regulation. Moreover, it is important to highlight that our results are in line with the work of Karreman et al. (2008), who found that coparenting predicted preschoolers’ self-regulation. Our results also appear to be supported by the emotional security theory (Cummings & Davies, 1996; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davis & Martin, 2013). According to this framework, the exposure to coparental conflict may progressively increase children’s distress and reactivity to interparental difficulties, leading to problematic functioning.

It is important to note that child verbal ability was also found to predict self-regulation. This result is consistent with an accumulating body of research, suggesting that verbal competency and behavioral regulation are related entities (Fuhs & Day, 2011). Furthermore, paternal education also emerged as a significant predictor of child regulatory abilities. Such finding may be pointing to the relevance of environmental factors to the acquisition of regulatory competencies, and is consistent with previous studies, showing that higher levels of parental education are linked to better regulatory abilities in young children (Ponitz et al., 2009). However, it should not be ruled out the possibility that genetic commonalities may be contributing to the significant relation between parental education and child self-regulation. After all, it is now well established that regulatory skills are highly heritable (Friedman et al., 2008).

This study has limitations that should be acknowledged. Being a cross-sectional study, information regarding the study variables was available for only a single point in time. Such correlation design does not allow for firm conclusions about directionality, and the generalization of results should be made carefully. Another limitation stems from the fact that our data on coparenting relationship was collected from parent report only, making it impossible to rule out informant bias. Future studies should attempt to incorporate multiple raters and observational measures of coparenting cooperation. Moreover, it is important to note that the current investigation was focused exclusively on fathers. Incorporating, simultaneously, the assessment of the quality of both paternal and maternal parenting could provide a more comprehensive view of the relational predictors of child self-regulation during the preschool period.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Nina Koren-Karie for sharing the Autobiographical Emotional Events Dialogue (AEED) system. The authors are also very grateful to the students who helped with data collection, and to the children and families who participated in the study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was conducted within the Psychology Research Centre (PSI/01662), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/PSI-EDD/114527/2009; also grant SFRH/BPD/100994/2014 assigned to the first author), and by the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science, Technology and Higher Education through national funds, and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653).

References

Abidin

Konold

(1999). Parenting alliance measure professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Adrián

J. E.

Clemente

R. A.

Villanueva

(2007). Mothers’ use of cognitive state verbs in picture-book reading and the development of children’s understanding of mind: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 78, 1052–1067.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Alink

L. R. A.

Cicchetti

Kim

Rogosch

F. A.

(2009). Mediating and moderating processes in the relation between maltreatment and psychopathology: Mother-child relationship quality and emotion regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 831–843.

Bernier

Carlson

Deschênes

Matte-Gagné

(2012). Social factors in the development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Developmental Science, 15, 12–24.

Blair

Raver

Berry

D. J.

Family Life Project Investigators. (2014). Two approaches on estimating the effects of parenting on the development of executive function in early childhood. Development Psychology, 50, 554–565.

Blair

Razza

R. P.

(2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.

Brown

G. L.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Neff

(2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant-mother and infant-father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 121–137.

Cabrera

Tamis-LeMonda

Bradley

Hofferth

Lamb

(2000). Fatherhood in the 21st century. Child Development, 71, 127–136.

10.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

(1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123–139.

11.

Davies

P. T.

Cummings

E. M.

(1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.

12.

Davies

P. T.

Martin

(2013). The reformulation of emotional security theory: The role of children’s social defense in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1435–1454.

13.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

L. M.

(1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised: Form M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

14.

Feinberg

M. E.

Kan

M. L.

Hetherington

E. M.

(2007). The longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 687–702.

15.

Friedman

N. P.

Myake

Young

S. E.

DeFries

J. C.

Corley

R. P.

Hewitt

J. K.

(2008). Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 201–225.

16.

Frosch

C. A.

Cox

M. J.

Goldman

B. D.

(2001). Infant-parent attachment and parental and child behavior during parent-toddler storybook interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 445–474.

17.

Fuhs

Day

(2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development in preschoolers at head start. Developmental Psychology, 47, 404–416.

18.

Goodrum

Jones

Kincaid

Cuellar

(2012). Youth externalizing problems in African American single mother families: A culturally-relevant model. Couple and Family Psychology, 1, 294–305.

19.

Grossmann

Fremmer-Bombik

Kindler

Scheuerer-Englisch

Zimmermann

(2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 301–337.

20.

Hammond

S. I.

Müller

Carpendale

J. I.

Bibok

M. B.

Liebermann-Finestone

D. P.

(2012). The effects of parental scaffolding on preschoolers’ executive function. Developmental Psychology, 48, 271–281.

21.

Hayes

A. F.

Matthes

(2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.

22.

Hertz

Bernier

Cimon-Paquet

Regueiro

. (2017). Parent–child relationships and child executive functioning at school entry: The importance of fathers. Early Child Development and Care. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1342078.

23.

Hofer

Eisenberg

Reiser

(2010). The role of socialization, effortful control, and ego resiliency in French adolescents’ social functioning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 555–582.

24.

Hughes

Ensor

(2011). Individual differences in growth in executive function across the transition to school predict externalizing and internalizing behaviors and children’s self-perceived academic success at age 6. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 663–676.

25.

John

Halliburton

Humphrey

(2013). Child-mother and child-father play interaction patterns with preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 483–497.

26.

Karreman

van Tuijl

van Aken

Dekovi

(2008). Parenting, coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 30–40.

27.

Kochanska

Murray

Coy

(1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddlers to early school age. Child Development, 68, 263–277.

28.

Koren-Karie

Oppenheim

Haimovich

Etzion-Carasso

(2000). Autobiographical emotional events dialogues: Classification and scoring system. Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa,.

29.

Lamb

M. E.

Lewis

(2010). The development and significance of father–child relationships in two-parent families. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 94–153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

30.

Lamela

Castro

Figueiredo

(2013). Parenting alliance measure: A Portuguese validation and development of a short-form version. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 40, 215–219.

31.

Lindsey

Caldera

Tankersley

(2009). Marital conflict and the quality of young children’s peer play behavior: The mediating and moderating role of parent–child emotional reciprocity and attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 130–145.

32.

Lonigan

C. J.

Whitehurst

G. J.

(1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263–290.

33.

Mayer

(1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.

34.

Mayer

(1992). Frog on his own. New York, NY: Puffin.

35.

Meuwissen

Carlson

S. M.

(2015). Fathers matter: The role of father parenting in preschoolers’ executive function development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 1–5.

36.

Mileva-Seitz

Ghassabian

Bakermans-Kranenburg

van den Brink

J. D.

Linting

Jaddoe

… Van IJzendoorn

(2015). Are boys more sensitive to sensitivity? Parenting and executive function in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 193–208.

37.

Moriguchi

(2014). The early development of executive function and its relation to social interaction: A brief review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–6.

38.

Parke

R. D.

(2002). Fathers and families. In Bornstein

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 3, Being and becoming a parent (pp. 27–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

Ponitz

C. E.

McClelland

M. M.

Matthews

J. S.

Morrison

F. J.

(2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605–619.

40.

Schwartz

J. I.

(2004). An observational study of mother/child and father/child interactions in story reading. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 105–114.

41.

Sethna

Perry

Domoney

Iles

Psychogiou

Rowbotham

N. E. L.

… Ramchandani

P. G

. (2017). Father–child interactions at 3 months and 24 months: Contributions to children’s cognitive development at 24 months. Infant Mental Health Journal, 38, 378–390.

42.

Sroufe

(1996). The organization of emotional life in the early years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

43.

St. George

Fletcher

Palazzi

. (2017). Comparing fathers’ physical and toy play and links to child behaviour: An exploratory study. Infant and Child Development, 26, 1–22.

44.

Størksen

Ellingsen

I. T.

Wanless

S. B.

McClelland

M. M.

(2015). The influence of parental socioeconomic background and gender on self-regulation among 5-year-old children in Norway. Early Education and Development, 26, 663–684.

45.

Stright

A. D.

Neitzel

(2003). Beyond parenting: Coparenting and children’s classroom adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 31–40.

46.

Tamis-LeMonda

Shannon

Cabrera

Lamb

(2004). Fathers’ and mothers’ play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75, 1806–1820.

47.

Towe-Goodman

Willoughby

Blair

Gustafsson

Mills-Koonce

Cox

. (2014). Fathers’ sensitive parenting and the development of early executive functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 867–876.

48.

Weissman

Cohen

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