Child Development Knowledge and Father Engagement: The Mediating Role of Parenting Self-efficacy

Abstract

Early father engagement is associated with numerous positive child outcomes including cognitive development, emotional regulation, and fewer problem behaviors. Various fathering programs attempt to encourage father engagement through teaching fathers about young children’s development and needs. This study examined 181 low-income fathers’ child development knowledge (self-perceived and objective) as predictors of father engagement (verbal stimulation, caregiving, and physical play) with infants. Additionally, parenting self-efficacy (PSE) was examined as a mediator. Results revealed that fathers’ self-perceived child development knowledge positively predicted engagement with infants (verbal stimulation and caregiving), but objective knowledge did not. PSE did not mediate the relationship between self-perceived knowledge and father engagement. These findings yield important implications for fathering research and interventions, suggesting that it may be particularly beneficial to increase fathers’ confidence in their ability to understand and meet their child’s needs rather than exclusively focusing on improving fathers’ knowledge of child development.

Keywords

child development knowledge parenting self-efficacy father engagement infancy parenting

Father engagement has been defined as fathers’ direct participation in activities such as caregiving, play, or reading and singing to their child (Cabrera et al., 2011) and encompasses one dimension of father involvement (Lamb et al., 1985; Pleck, 2010). Father engagement is most often measured by the quantity of time spent with infants rather than the quality of the interaction (Cowan et al., 2009).

Early father engagement during the first few years of a child’s life has been associated with a host of positive child outcomes including fewer behavioral problems and better emotion regulation (Choi & Jackson, 2011; Cowan et al., 2009; Roggman et al., 2004). Father engagement has also been linked to children’s cognitive and education outcomes. Positive father-child interactions in the home predicted children’s early language and cognitive development at 24 months and 36 months, yielding support for a direct effect of father engagement on children’s cognitive outcomes (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). One specific type of father-child interaction, father-child play, has been linked to language and cognitive development at 24 months and 36 months (Roggman et al., 2004), as well as attention regulation, language, and cognitive outcomes in preschool-aged children (Anderson et al., 2019). Additionally, father engagement in early childhood predicted long-term educational attainment in young adulthood, supporting that early father-child interactions impact children long after childhood (Flouri & Buchanan, 2004). Conversely, low levels of father engagement have been linked to negative child outcomes such as higher frequency of problem behavior, poorer emotional adjustment, and lower academic performance (Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005; Cowan et al., 2009; Lamb, 2010). Demographic variables such as fathers’ education and race/ethnicity, as well as relational variables such as having a supportive partner and low levels of couple conflict, have been found to predict early father engagement (Cabrera et al., 2007, 2011).

In an effort to increase parental engagement, many programs attempt to educate mothers and fathers about children and parenting (Al-Hassan & Lansford, 2011; McGinnis et al., 2019; Self-Brown et al., 2017), with the expectation that parents with more knowledge of children’s capabilities and developmental milestones may engage more with young children. Although this relationship between child development knowledge and engagement is explored in the literature, many studies have examined mothers’ child development knowledge (Combs-Orme et al., 2013; Jahromi et al., 2014) and less is known about fathers’ knowledge and its relationship with father engagement. If a relationship between knowledge and engagement exists, one potential mechanism for this relationship is confidence in parenting abilities. By having more knowledge about child development and parenting, fathers may feel more confident that they can have a positive impact on their child through parenting behaviors, thus increasing engagement. This confidence may be represented by fathers’ parenting self-efficacy (PSE) or beliefs about their ability to parent (Bandura, 1997; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). Thus, the present study examined the relationship between fathers’ knowledge of child development, fathers’ PSE, and father engagement.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory provides a theoretical lens through which to view this hypothesized relationship between child development knowledge and father engagement. According to Bandura (2004), individuals’ knowledge and beliefs impact the behaviors they choose to enact. Specifically, he argued that one’s knowledge of perceived health risks and one’s perceived self-efficacy, or the control one believes to have over his/her health habits, help determine health-related behaviors. Knowledge alone may not be enough to impact behavior if the individual does not believe that they can control the outcome.

Specifically, perceived self-efficacy helps determine one’s behavior because individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors that will bring about success (Bandura, 1977). The higher one’s perceived self-efficacy, the more effort they will exert. Likewise, fear of failure leads to avoidance of particular behaviors. Thus, individuals develop personal beliefs regarding what they can accomplish while anticipating both positive and negative outcomes that are likely to transpire (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (2004) argued that “knowledge. . .creates the precondition for change,” (p. 144), but self-efficacy may be an essential component in facilitating action.

Bandura’s framework provides a lens to examine fathering behaviors. Whereas knowledge of child development may be important for increasing engagement, fathers’ PSE may help facilitate behavioral change. Using social learning theory, it is posited that having greater child development knowledge will lead fathers to anticipate success when interacting with their infants. This in turn will cause them to exert more effort and engage with their infants more frequently. Therefore, it is hypothesized that fathers with greater child development knowledge will exhibit more frequent engagement with their infants, and that this relationship will be facilitated by PSE.

Review of Literature

Predictors of Father Engagement

Past literature has identified numerous predictors of father engagement with children during the first few years of life, including demographic, cultural, and relational factors. Demographic predictors include fathers’ education and racial/ethnic background. In particular, father’s education level predicted supportive fathering; fathers with at least a high school degree exhibited more supportive interactions with toddlers compared to those without a degree (Cabrera et al., 2007). Father’s education level predicted the amount of verbal stimulation with toddlers (Cabrera et al., 2011). Father engagement also differs by race/ethnicity, with African American and Latino fathers engaging in more frequent play and caregiving behaviors with toddlers compared to White fathers (Cabrera, et al. 2011).

Father engagement is also associated with cultural factors such as immigration status. A study by Guendelman et al. (2018) compared father engagement in five types of behaviors (physical care, warmth, outings, reading, and discipline) with their children ages 0-4 years among three groups: Hispanic immigrant fathers, U.S.-born Hispanic fathers, and U.S.-born White fathers. Compared to immigrant fathers, U.S.-born Hispanic fathers reported significantly higher engagement across all behaviors except discipline, and U.S.-born White fathers reported significantly higher engagement in all behaviors except outings.

In addition to demographic and cultural factors, there is also evidence of relational predictors of father engagement. Having a supportive relationship with one’s partner fosters positive father-child interactions (Cabrera et al., 2007), whereas fathers’ report of couple conflict is linked to lower levels of father engagement (Cabrera et al., 2011). Overall, both demographic and relational factors appear to be important predictors of early father engagement.

Child Development Knowledge

In addition to fathers’ background characteristics, another potential predictor of father engagement is fathers’ child development knowledge. Fathers with more knowledge may engage in more sensitive parenting, thus promoting healthier outcomes for their children’s well-being. Limited research suggests that parental knowledge of children’s developmental abilities and stages may be related to certain parent and child outcomes. Combs-Orme et al. (2013) found that mothers’ child development knowledge was related to parenting beliefs, including beliefs about discipline. As parenting attitudes and beliefs have been found to predict parenting behaviors (Bornstein et al., 2003; Combs-Orme et al., 2013), parental knowledge of children’s typical development may play a role in determining the behaviors in which they choose to engage.

In addition to predicting parenting attitudes and behaviors, parental child development knowledge has been linked to child outcomes as well. Jahromi et al. (2014) found that mothers with higher child development knowledge at 10 months had infants that scored higher on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (MDI subscale) at 24 months. This finding suggests that supporting child development knowledge may help promote positive parent and child outcomes. However, most of the studies have focused solely on mothers. Much less is understood about fathers’ knowledge of children’s development and subsequent parenting behaviors.

Many early parenting interventions focused on increasing parent knowledge as a platform for promoting positive parenting attitudes and behaviors. The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) provides funding for numerous program models that focus specifically on increasing knowledge of child development to promote positive parenting and child outcomes (Benz & Sidor, 2013). Such programs include Nurse-Family Partnership, Early Head Start Home Visiting Program, Healthy Families America (HFA), and Healthy Steps. Across all home visiting programs under MIECHV, universal benchmark domains are used to assess the effectiveness of each program, many of which are directly linked to parent knowledge of topics such as infant health and safety, importance of early language and literacy, and recognition of behavioral concerns (MIECHV Policy Brief, 2019). Numerous early intervention programs strive to influence parenting behavior through parent knowledge but most focus specifically on mothers. Additionally, few programs directly assess whether changes in knowledge predict changes in behavior.

As various parenting interventions seek to build parenting knowledge in participants, it is essential to determine if this goal is being accomplished. A limited number of published parenting program evaluations specifically reported on parents’ knowledge of child development. Child development knowledge and parenting were both shown to improve in the Better Parenting Programme (Al-Hassan & Lansford, 2011). This program implemented a parenting curriculum that targeted specific areas of parenting knowledge, behavior, and attitudes, with the primary goal of increasing children’s overall well-being. Parents who received the BPP curriculum experienced significant gains in parenting knowledge compared to the control group and also reported a significant increase in the amount of time spent playing with and reading to their children compared to parents in the control group.

Further evidence is provided by Self-Brown et al. (2017) who evaluated the effects of SafeCare Dad. SafeCare Dad is an intervention targeting at-risk fathers, with the primary goal of reducing child maltreatment. The curriculum, which is delivered by home visitors, seeks to increase father engagement in positive parenting behaviors (e.g., giving choices) during routine activities with their children ages 2-5 years. The curriculum largely focuses on child development knowledge components, including positive parenting, home safety, and child health. Fathers in the intervention group who received the SafeCare Dad curriculum exhibited a significant increase in engagement in positive parenting behaviors compared to fathers in the control group. While child development knowledge of participating fathers was not directly assessed, the intervention focuses largely on intervening through educating fathers.

These intervention studies yield evidence that both parental engagement and child development knowledge are malleable. Though interventions have typically focused on mother engagement, there is a need to further explore this relationship between father knowledge and engagement. If a link between knowledge and engagement is found, increasing knowledge of children’s development and age-related needs through intervention may be an optimal strategy for increasing fathers’ engagement with young children. Additionally, identifying the mechanism through which knowledge influences engagement would allow interventions to better target this intended outcome.

Parenting Self-efficacy

Parenting self-efficacy (PSE) is characterized by parents’ beliefs about their ability to care for their child, promote positive development, and successfully parent (Bandura, 1997; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). Past research provides evidence that PSE may function differently in fathers and mothers. Amount of PSE may differ, as fathers displayed lower PSE compared to mothers during infancy and toddlerhood (Hudson et al., 2001; Junttila et al., 2015). Mothers’ PSE, but not fathers’ PSE, has also been linked to adolescent behavior (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015b). Lastly, mothers’ and fathers’ PSE have been found to predict different parenting practices (Murdock, 2013). Whereas fathers’ PSE was positively associated with supportive and engaged parenting, mothers’ PSE was negatively associated with hostile and coercive parenting.

Numerous demographic characteristics have been found to predict PSE. One factor is age of the child. While several studies have found that PSE decreases as children get older (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a; Junttila et al., 2015), a study by Weaver et al. (2008) found that PSE increased from toddlerhood through preschool. It appears that the developmental challenges that vary throughout childhood impact a parent’s evaluation of their parenting ability. Other demographic factors linked to PSE include income, education, and number of children. Specifically, higher income and education of parents are associated with higher PSE (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a; Junttila et al., 2015). Number of children has been inversely related to PSE, with PSE decreasing as number of children increases (Junttila et al., 2015). It may be that with each additional child, economic and time constraints are placed on a family, minimizing available resources and thereby negatively impacting PSE. These findings are important because they identify largely uncontrollable factors that may either enhance or inhibit fathers’ PSE.

In addition to demographics, several internal and relational factors are associated with PSE. Psychosocial well-being has been connected to PSE, with dimensions such as depression, loneliness, and marital dissatisfaction inversely related to PSE (Junttila et al., 2015). Past research has also found that fathers’ PSE is predicted by parenting stress, relational functioning including both marital satisfaction and overall family functioning, and parenting satisfaction (Hudson et al., 2001; Sevigny & Loutzenhiser, 2010).

Past research yields evidence that PSE may predict specific parenting practices. Glatz and Buchanan (2015b) found that mothers’ and fathers’ PSE positively predicted promotive parenting practices (e.g., involvement and encouragement) with their adolescents, which in turn was negatively related to adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Mothers’ and fathers’ PSE have also been linked to decreased controlling behavior (Roskam et al., 2016). A bi-directional relationship between PSE and parenting practices may exist, as Murdock (2013) found that fathers’ supportive and engaged parenting of 3–5-year-old children predicted PSE.

Fathers’ PSE has also been positively associated with early engagement (Shorey et al., 2018; Trahan, 2017). A study by Shorey et al. (2018) found that fathers’ PSE predicted father engagement in specific infant care activities six months postpartum. Additionally, fathers’ PSE increased across the first six months postpartum. Shorey et al. argued that PSE increases father engagement, and increased engagement subsequently enhances fathers’ confidence in their parenting abilities. These findings are supported by Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, which argues that the higher one’s perceived self-efficacy, the more likely they are to enact a behavior. Thus, PSE may be an important contributor to early father engagement and could potentially be a mechanism through which to intervene.

Although little is known about the relationship between fathers’ child development knowledge and PSE, a relationship between mothers’ child development knowledge and PSE is supported by past studies (Bornstein et al., 2003; Frank et al., 2015; Miller & Harrison, 2015). In a study of mothers with 20-month-old children, child development knowledge (e.g., health and safety, norms, and milestones) uniquely predicted PSE (Bornstein et al., 2003). Moreover, an intervention study conducted by Frank et al. (2015) using the Triple P Program, which focuses on promoting positive parenting strategies through enhancing the knowledge and skills of parenting (Sanders, 2008), found that mothers in the treatment program reported significantly higher PSE after the intervention compared to mothers in the control condition. In contrast, fathers’ PSE did not differ between the treatment and control group after intervention. Lastly, a parenting intervention using the DELTA Parenting Program was implemented in a group setting with parents of preschool and early elementary school children (Miller & Harrison, 2015). The vast majority of participants were mothers. The DELTA Program primarily focuses on educating parents about the developmental stage of their child, with the goal of improving the quality of parenting. Parents in the treatment group reported a significant increase in PSE compared to their pre-test scores. No such increase was found in the control group, suggesting that increasing child development knowledge may be a viable method for positively influencing PSE. Although these studies provide evidence of a relationship between mothers’ child development knowledge and PSE, there is much less known about this relationship in fathers.

Research Questions

Past research highlights the importance of early father engagement for children’s well-being. Knowledge of child development may be one tool to equip fathers with the capability to engage more frequently across a variety of behaviors with their infants. Such engagement behaviors include caregiving, verbal stimulation, and physical play, all of which have been associated with positive child outcomes (Anderson et al., 2019; Cabrera et al., 2007; Cowan et al., 2009). It may also be important to distinguish between an objective measure of child development knowledge and the amount of knowledge fathers believe they have. If this relationship between knowledge and engagement exists, a potential mechanism of change is PSE. Thus, fathers with greater child development knowledge may feel more capable as a parent, leading them to engage more frequently with their infants. Given the reviewed literature indicating the important role of father engagement in children’s well-being, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of child development knowledge as a potential predictor of this early engagement, as well as the mediating role of PSE. This rationale guided the following research questions:

Does knowledge of child development (objective and self-perceived) predict father engagement behaviors (verbal stimulation, caregiving, and physical play) with infants?

Does PSE mediate the relationship between child development knowledge and father engagement behaviors?

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Participants in the present study were part of a larger federally funded project investigating the effects of a statewide early fathering intervention in a southeastern state. All participants received MIECHV services using the Healthy Families America (HFA) model. HFA is a federally funded home visiting program provided to low-income pregnant women and families at no cost, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes for children and families (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & Administration for Children and Families, 2018). For families receiving HFA, home visits begin between prenatal development and six months postpartum and may continue until children are 3-5 years old. HFA screens families at risk for negative childhood outcomes to determine eligibility in the program.

Participants were recruited from eight participating early home visiting (EHV) agencies operating at 11 sites, spanning 50 counties across the state. For the broader project, participants were assigned to the treatment or control condition and completed a series of three surveys over the course of six months. Fathers in the treatment condition received an overlay fathering curriculum in addition to their typical EHV services. Fathers in the control condition received EHV services without the overlay curriculum. The present study combines data from treatment and control condition fathers and uses only baseline data (prior to intervention).

Family Assessment Workers were trained to screen new EHV clients for eligibility and pitch the study to eligible families. A family was eligible to participate in the program if they met one of the following criteria: (a) a biological father resided with the EHV client, or (b) a biological father did not reside with EHV client, but another father figure who was romantically involved with the client did, or (c) the biological father lived within 30 minutes of client and had been in contact at least twice in the past 30 days. Additionally, both the EHV client and the father identified in (a)-(c) mentioned earlier verified they were fluent in English. If these conditions were met, the family was deemed eligible for the study. If a new EHV client met eligibility requirements and agreed to be contacted by a member of the research team, a trained researcher contacted both the mother and the father to describe the study and obtain informed consent. Baseline survey data were collected either at the same time as informed consent or soon after. This study was approved by a Human Subjects Institutional Review Board.

Out of 696 families that were screened, 424 families met the eligibility requirements, and 282 consented (both mothers and fathers) to participate in the intervention. The present study only includes information from fathers whose babies were born at Wave 1 (N = 181). Babies’ ages ranged from 1 day to 494 days old (M = 95.31, SD = 93.64). Fathers’ ages ranged from 16 to 54 years (M = 27.27, SD = 7.57). Only 2.2% of fathers were minors below the age of 18 years during Wave 1. The sample consisted of primarily Caucasian (63.2%) and African American (26.4%) participants, with few participants identifying as Hispanic/Latino (3.8%), Native American (2.2%), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.6%), and Other (2.7%). Fathers’ education ranged from 8th grade or less to a graduate degree. The majority of participants (74.7%) had a high school diploma/GED or less.

Measures

Self-perceived child development knowledge

Fathers were asked to self-report on five items assessing their knowledge of child development on a rating scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I know what babies can do at different ages.” Items were averaged to construct a scale (α = 0.70).

Objective child development knowledge

Fathers were asked 10 true/false questions assessing their knowledge of child development during the first year of life. These items were derived from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (2018) Milestone Checklist. A sample item is “Babies start responding to their name by the time they’re 6 months old.” Ten new variables were created to indicate whether each separate item had been answered correctly (1) or incorrectly (0), and were then summed to create the objective child development knowledge variable (range = 0–9, M = 5.56). Objective knowledge items were presented after self-perceived knowledge items so as not to bias participants’ responses.

Father engagement

The father engagement subscale was adapted from Cabrera et al. (2011), with the addition of the following behaviors: “talking to baby” and “holding, rocking, or carrying baby.” Fathers reported how frequently they engaged in different interactions with their infant on a 4-point rating scale: 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often, such as 3–4 times per week), or 4 (daily). The 13 father engagement behaviors were categorized into three subscales: verbal stimulation (4 items, α = 0.73), caregiving (7 items, α = 0.88), and physical play (2 items, α = 0.65) based on Cabrera et al.’s (2011) three dimensions of father engagement.

Parenting self-efficacy

Fathers reported how strongly they agreed with seven PSE items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree; α = 0.68). A sample item is “I believe I have all the skills necessary to be a good father to my child.” Items were taken from the Efficacy subscale of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978) and modified from a 6-point to a 4-point rating scale.

Analyses

The first research question was addressed by conducting a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. The three engagement variables (verbal stimulation, caregiving, and physical play) were each regressed on fathers’ self-perceived child development knowledge and subsequently regressed on fathers’ objective child development knowledge. To address the second research question, OLS path analysis for mediation (Hayes, 2013) was used to investigate whether PSE mediated the relationship between child development knowledge and each engagement domain.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

On average, fathers reported relatively high levels of engagement with their infants. Fathers reported the highest frequency of physical play (M = 3.42, SD = 0.74), followed by caregiving (M = 3.34, SD = 0.61) and verbal stimulation (M = 2.87, SD = 0.69). Participants also reported high levels of perceived knowledge (M = 3.52/4.00, SD = 0.46). Examining fathers’ objective knowledge of child development, scores ranged from 0 (no child development knowledge questions answered correctly) to 9 (all but one child development knowledge question answered correctly). Fathers scored moderately high on this objective measure of child development knowledge (M = 5.56, SD = 1.44). Fathers’ perceived self-efficacy was also relatively high (M = 3.53/4.00, SD = 0.39). Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between study variables are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables.

Variable	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Objective knowledge	5.56	1.44	0	9.00
Self-perceived knowledge	3.52	0.46	1.60	4.00
PSE	3.53	0.39	2.14	4.00
Verbal stimulation	2.87	0.69	1.25	4.00
Caregiving	3.38	0.61	1.57	4.00
Physical play	3.42	0.74	1.00	4.00

Table 2.

Correlations among Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Verbal stimulation	1.00
2. Caregiving	0.56**	1.00
3. Physical play	0.47**	0.65**	1.00
4. Objective knowledge	0.04	−0.01	0.10	1.00
5. Self-perceived knowledge	0.20**	0.18**	0.13	−0.01	1.00
6. PSE	0.19**	0.08	0.07	−0.07	0.52**	1.00

Note: **Correlation is significant at p < 0.01; *Correlation is significant at p < 0.05.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression

The results of the OLS regressions indicated that fathers’ self-perceived knowledge significantly predicted verbal stimulation (β = 0.20, t(180) = 2.74, p < 0.01) and caregiving (β = 0.175, t(180) = 2.39, p < 0.05), but it did not significantly predict physical play. Fathers who reported higher self-perceived child development knowledge reported more frequent engagement in verbal stimulation and caregiving with their infants. Fathers’ objective knowledge did not significantly predict any of the father engagement scales. As a result, only self-perceived knowledge was included in the mediation model discussed next.

Ordinary Least Squares Mediation

Following the OLS path analysis for mediation approach (Hayes, 2013), in step 1, we conducted linear regressions to determine if knowledge significantly predicted one or more engagement variables. Since self-perceived knowledge significantly predicted verbal stimulation and caregiving, we proceeded to step 2 to analyze these relationships. Step 2 of the mediation model analysis determined that the regression of the mediator (PSE) on the predictor (self-perceived knowledge) was significant (β = 0.52, t(180) = 8.14, p < 0.001), indicating that self-perceived knowledge positively predicted PSE. Step 3 determined that PSE was not a significant predictor of either verbal stimulation or caregiving when controlling for self-perceived knowledge. These findings do not support mediation by PSE, and we did not continue to step 4 of the analysis, which would test if mediation is partial or full.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to explore relationships between fathers’ knowledge of children’s development, PSE, and engagement behaviors with infants. Many fathering programs attempt to increase fathers’ understanding of their children’s development and needs, with the ultimate goal of promoting positive parenting and increasing father engagement (cf. Frank et al., 2015; Guterman et al., 2018; McGinnis et al., 2019; Self-Brown et al., 2017). Thus, it is important to determine whether higher levels of child development knowledge are related to more frequent father engagement.

In the present study, fathers’ self-perceived knowledge predicted fathers’ engagement with their infants in caregiving and verbal stimulation. The measure of self-perceived knowledge used assessed fathers’ belief about knowing how to care for their child, which may be closely related to PSE, or parents’ beliefs about their ability to care for their child (Bandura, 1997; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015a). These findings can be viewed through the lens of Bandura’s (2004) social learning theory. Bandura posited that knowledge itself may influence behavioral change, but one’s perception of one’s knowledge may be enough to motivate enactment of behavior. Thus, fathers who perceive themselves as being more knowledgeable about their child’s development may have greater motivation to engage in caregiving and verbal stimulation with their infants.

Empirical evidence supports this relationship between self-perceived knowledge and fathers’ engagement in caregiving behaviors. A study by Shorey et al. (2018) found that fathers’ PSE specifically related to caregiving behaviors predicted fathers’ engagement in caregiving with their infants at six months. The authors concluded that confidence in specific abilities leads to an increase in those behaviors. Similarly, Singley et al. (2018) found that fathers’ positive engagement, which consisted primarily of caregiving behaviors (e.g., feeding baby, changing baby), was positively associated with a domain-specific measure of PSE assessing fathers’ perceived ability to properly care for their child.

There is limited empirical support for the finding of the relationship between self-perceived knowledge and fathers’ engagement in verbal stimulation. Singley et al. (2018) found that fathers’ warmth and attunement, a factor composed of verbal stimulation items (e.g., talking to your baby, laughing with your baby) among other behaviors, was positively associated with domain-specific PSE related to caring for the health needs of an infant, as well as a general measure of PSE. It is important to note that a number of past studies have grouped together verbal stimulation and play behaviors when measuring father engagement (Choi & Jackson, 2011; Singley et al., 2018); however, our findings suggest that the two may be distinct as exhibited by their relationships with self-perceived knowledge.

Taken together, these findings on the relationship between self-perceived knowledge of child development and father engagement suggest that fathers who perceive themselves as knowledgeable about their infants’ needs and abilities may be more likely to engage in both verbal interactions and everyday caregiving behaviors with their infants.

Although perceived knowledge predicted verbal stimulation and caregiving, it did not predict fathers’ engagement in physical play with their infants. Perhaps this is because fathers are more likely to engage in physical play compared to the other two engagement behaviors regardless of perceived knowledge, as demonstrated by its higher mean. Past literature has argued that fathers use play as their primary means of connecting with their children, and that both fathers and mothers perceive fathers as engaging in more active/physical play with their preschoolers compared to mothers (Bretherton et al., 2005; Doucet, 2006). Additionally, in the present study, the physical play dimension of engagement had less than adequate reliability, which may have limited our ability to detect a significant relationship. An alternative explanation is that all children were infants at Wave 1 of data collection, and despite the high mean for this engagement behavior, physical play increases as children get older (Planalp & Braungart-Rieker, 2016; Roggman et al., 2004). Thus, it could be that self-perceived knowledge predicts future physical play rather than concurrent physical play when measured in fathers of very young children. Roggman et al. (2004) found that fathers’ supportive behavior during play with their 14-month-olds predicted how much social toy play they engaged in with their children at 24 months. There may be a relationship between fathers’ comfort with interacting physically with their infant and how much they are willing to engage physically in the future. If fathers have higher perceived knowledge of children’s development, this could provide them that initial comfort, which could then materialize as increased physical play as their infants develop.

Another explanation for the lack of relationship between perceived knowledge and fathers’ engagement in physical play is the measure of knowledge itself. Whereas the objective measure of knowledge included numerous items about children’s gross motor development (e.g., rolling over, sitting up, walking), the perceived knowledge measure included several general items addressing children’s physical abilities (e.g., “I know what toys are right for my baby’s age”). It could be that a perceived knowledge measure more directly related to an infant’s physical abilities, and appropriate ways for parents to interact physically with their infants, would have a significant relationship with engagement in physical play.

Although self-perceived knowledge predicted PSE as hypothesized, PSE did not mediate the relationship between fathers’ self-perceived knowledge and father engagement. One potential explanation for this finding is that knowledge and PSE may be overlapping rather than distinct constructs, as supported by their moderate correlation in our data (r = 0.52). If this is the case, a path model using both variables may not yield a significant result because the independent variable and mediator share predictive ability. Both measures assess aspects of fathers’ parenting competence. Whereas self-perceived knowledge evaluates one’s belief about knowing how to provide effective parenting for infants, PSE focuses on the ability to enact this knowledge. Thus, according to social learning theory (Bandura, 1997), self-perceived knowledge may be more closely related to beliefs about one’s ability (PSE) rather than actual knowledge.

Interestingly, there was no evidence of objective child development knowledge predicting any of the three father engagement variables. The objective knowledge measure used in the present study was created by the Principal Investigator. Since all questions were true/false, the probability of guessing the right answer is quite high, potentially overestimating fathers’ objective knowledge. Additionally, only 10 items were included, which may not be generalizable to fathers’ overall knowledge of child development. It could be that a more accurate measure of objective knowledge would better predict father engagement behaviors. An alternative explanation is provided by Bandura’s (2004) social learning theory, which argues knowledge alone may not be enough to cause a change in behavior; self-efficacy may be essential. As such, the relationship between fathers’ objective knowledge and engagement behaviors may be moderated by PSE; even fathers with higher levels of objective child development knowledge may not engage with their infants if they have low PSE. Thus, the relationship between knowledge and engagement may be contingent on PSE, which would explain why we did not detect a direct effect between knowledge and engagement.

Despite numerous parenting interventions focusing on increasing knowledge of child development (e. g., Frank et al., 2015; Guterman et al., 2018; McGinnis et al., 2019; Self-Brown et al., 2017), our findings suggest that perceived knowledge may be more influential on father engagement compared to objective knowledge, at least during infancy. Therefore, it may be beneficial for fathering interventions to encourage fathers’ belief in their knowledge in addition to attempting to increase fathers’ actual knowledge of child development. Perhaps even if fathers do have a strong knowledge base regarding child development, it may not be enough to influence engagement with their infants. However, by increasing their self-perceived knowledge, fathers may gain self-assurance, which could in turn increase their early engagement behavior. By helping fathers become aware of the knowledge they have and that their knowledge is sufficient, we can identify and build on this strength. This is in keeping with the strengths-based approach to family services, which operates on the belief that every individual has certain abilities and resources and, thus, allows for individuals to take control of their own lives by utilizing those strengths (Brun & Rapp, 2001).

There is a need for future research to better examine the role of father knowledge of child development in early father engagement. Whereas many parenting interventions focus on building father knowledge of child development as a mechanism for improving parenting behavior, these studies rarely measure this knowledge. Thus, it is unclear whether these interventions are in fact increasing parent knowledge and if this knowledge is subsequently related to PSE and engagement behaviors. It is essential to identify how this knowledge relates to subsequent engagement with young children. Additionally, most research on parenting knowledge has focused solely on mothers, leaving a gap in the literature concerning this knowledge in fathers. The present study found that PSE did not act as a mediator, so the relationship between knowledge and engagement in fathers is still unclear. Likewise, future research should investigate how objective knowledge and self-perceived knowledge may differentially relate to fathering outcomes.

There are several limitations of the present study that are important to note, the first being a relatively small sample size. Since we restricted our sample to baseline data of fathers whose babies were born at Wave 1, our sample was limited in size. This sample size also determined the types of analyses we were able to conduct. With a larger sample, a hierarchical analysis could be conducted and thus provide a better ability to detect effects, in particular mediation. A second limitation related to our sample is we only used data from one time point. This provides us a snapshot of early father engagement, but a longitudinal study would illustrate how these behaviors change over time. A third limitation of our sample is lack of generalizability to the greater population of fathers receiving home visiting services. Our sample was restricted to those who were fluent in English and overly represented those in a stable marriage/relationship.

Another limitation involves the measures used in the present study, specifically the reliability of the physical play subscale and the validity of the objective knowledge measure. Additionally, all measures were self-reported, and most were positively skewed. It could be that fathers overestimated their frequency of engagement behaviors, PSE, and knowledge due to social desirability. Since all data were collected through phone surveys, this may have placed pressure on participants to provide positive responses. Future research should utilize objective measures to avoid potential bias in findings.

Overall, these findings yield important implications for professionals working with fathers. Many early parenting interventions focused specifically on mothers, and programs that do include fathers often implement a parenting curriculum originally developed for mothers. By doing so, we are not considering fathers’ existing strengths and, therefore, cannot capitalize and build upon the capabilities that fathers already possess. Early fathering interventions should instead help fathers identify these strengths and encourage them to use those abilities when interacting with their children. Helping fathers be aware of the knowledge and capabilities they already possess might reduce fathers’ apprehension about making mistakes when interacting with their infants. Family professionals can help fathers come to the realization that even with limited knowledge of child development, interacting with their young children can provide lasting benefits. By helping fathers believe they have the requisite knowledge to engage with their child, home visitors and other parent educators can promote both parenting efficacy and engagement behaviors.

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: State of Tennessee Department of Health, Grant #34347-51816

ORCID iD

Lisa A. Connor

References

Al-Hassan

S. M.

Lansford

J. E.

(2011). Evaluation of the better parenting programme in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004431003654925

Anderson

StGeorge

Roggman

L. A.

(2019). Measuring the quality of early father–child rough and tumble play: Tools for practice and research. Child and Youth Care Forum, 48, 889–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09513-9

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.

Bandura

(2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health and Education Behavior, 31(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660

Benz

Sidor

(2013). Early intervention in Germany and in the USA: A comparison of supporting health services. An overview article. Mental Health and Prevention, 1, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2013.10.004

Bornstein

M. H.

Hendricks

Hahn

C.-S.

Haynes

O. M.

Painter

K. M.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(2003). Contributors to self-perceived competence, satisfaction, investment, and role balance in maternal parenting: A multivariate ecological analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(4), 285–326. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0304_2

Bretherton

Lambert

J. D.

Golby

(2005). Involved fathers of preschool children as seen by themselves and their wives: Accounts of attachment, socialization, and companionship. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500138341

Brooks-Gunn

Markman

L. B.

(2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 139–168.

10.

Brun

Rapp

R. C.

(2001). Strengths-based case management: Individuals’ perspectives on strengths and the case manager relationship. Social Work, 46(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/46.3.278

11.

Cabrera

N. J.

Hofferth

S. L.

Chae

(2011). Patterns and predictors of father-infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.01.001

12.

Cabrera

N. J.

Shannon

J. D.

Tamis-LeMonda

(2007). Fathers’ influence on their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-k. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762100

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). CDC’s developmental milestones. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/index.html

14.

Choi

J. K.

Jackson

A. P.

(2011). Fathers’ involvement and child behavior problems in poor African American single-mother families. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(5), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.11.013

15.

Combs-Orme

Orme

Lefmann

(2013). Early brain development: African-American mothers’ cognitions about the first three years. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012-0294-9

16.

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

Pruett

M. K.

Pruett

Wong

J. J.

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

17.

Doucet

(2006). Do men mother? (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press.

18.

Flouri

Buchanan

(2004). Early father’s and mother’s involvement and child’s later educational outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839806

19.

Frank

T. J.

Keown

L. J.

Sanders

M. R.

(2015). Enhancing father engagement and interparental teamwork in an evidence-based parenting intervention: A randomized controlled trial of outcomes and processes. Behavior Therapy, 46, 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.05.008

20.

Gibaud-Wallston

Wandersman

L. P.

(1978). Development and utility of the parenting sense of competence scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association Toronto, Canada.

21.

Glatz

Buchanan

C. M.

(2015a). Change and predictors of change in parental self-efficacy from early to middle adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000035

22.

Glatz

Buchanan

C. M.

(2015b). Over-time associations among parental self-efficacy, promotive parenting practices, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000076

23.

Guendelman

Nussbaum

Soliday

Lahiff

(2018). Hispanic immigrant father involvement with young children in the United States: A comparison with US-born Hispanic and White non-Hispanic fathers. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22, 1118–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2496-z

24.

Guterman

N. B.

Bellamy

J. L.

Banman

. (2018). Promoting father involvement in early home visiting services for vulnerable families: Findings from pilot study of “Dads matter.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 76, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.10.017

25.

Hayes

A. H.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press.

26.

Hudson

D. B.

Elek

S. M.

Fleck

M. O.

(2001). First-time mothers’ and fathers’ transition to parenthood: Infant care self-efficacy, parenting satisfaction, and infant sex. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 26(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/014608601300035580

27.

Jahromi

Guimond

Umaña-Taylor

Updegraff

Toomey

(2014). Family context, Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ parenting knowledge, and children’s subsequent developmental outcomes. Child Development, 85(2), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12160

28.

Junttila

Aromaa

Rautava

Piha

Raiha

(2015). Measuring multidimensional parental self-efficacy of mothers and fathers of children ages 1.5 and 3 years. Family Relations, 64, 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12161

29.

Lamb

M. E.

(2010). How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 1–26). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

30.

Lamb

M. E.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Psychologist, 25, 883–894.

31.

McGinnis

Lee

Kirkland

Smith

Miranda-Julian

Greene

(2019). Engaging at-risk fathers in home visiting services: Effects on program retention and father involvement. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 36(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-018-0562-4

32.

MIECHV Policy Brief. (2019). The maternal, infant, and early childhood program: Partnering with parents to help child succeed. Health Resources and Services Administration. https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-health-initiatives/home-visiting-overview

33.

Miller

Harrison

(2015). A cluster randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of the early years DELTA parenting programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.09.006

34.

Murdock

K. W.

(2013). An examination of parental self-efficacy among mothers and fathers. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(3), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027009

35.

Pleck

J. H.

(2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58–93). Wiley.

36.

Planalp

E. M.

Braungart-Rieker

J. M.

(2016). Determinants of father involvement with young children: Evidence from the ECLS-B. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000156

37.

Roggman

L. A.

Boyce

Cook

G. A.

Christiansen

Jones

(2004). Playing with daddy: Social toy play, Early Head Start, and developmental outcomes. Fathering, 2, 83–108. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0201.83

38.

Roskam

Meunier

J.-C.

Stievenart

(2016). Do mothers and fathers moderate the influence of each other’s self-efficacy beliefs and parenting behaviors on children’s externalizing behavior? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(6), 2034–2045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0365-1

39.

Sanders

M. R.

(2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506

40.

Self-Brown

Osborne

M. C.

Lai

B. S.

De Veauuse Brown

Glasheen

T. L.

Adams

M. C.

(2017). Initial findings from a feasibility trial examining the SafeCare Dad to Kids Program with marginalized fathers. Journal of Family Violence, 32(8), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9940-5

41.

Sevigny

P. R.

Loutzenhiser

(2010). Predictors of parenting self-efficacy in mothers and fathers of toddlers. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00980.x

42.

Shorey

Ang

Goh

E. C. L.

Gandhi

(2018). Factors influencing paternal involvement during infancy: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(2), 367–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13848

43.

Singley

D. B.

Cole

B. P.

Hammer

J. H.

Molloy

Rowell

Isacco

(2018). Development and psychometric evaluation of the paternal involvement with infants scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(2), 167. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000094

44.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Shannon

J. S.

Cabrera

N. J.

Lamb

M. E.

(2004). Fathers and mothers play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806–1820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x

45.

Trahan

M. H.

(2017). Paternal self-efficacy and father involvement: A bi-directional relationship. Psychology of Men, 19(4), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000130

46.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & Administration for Children and Families. (2018, September). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness: Healthy Families America (HFA). https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/effectiveness/Healthy%20Families%20America%20%28HFA%29%C2%AE/Model%20Overview

47.

Weaver

C. M.

Shaw

D. S.

Dishion

T. J.

Wilson

M. N.

(2008). Parenting self-efficacy and problem behavior in children at high risk for early conduct problems: The mediating role of maternal depression. Infant Behavior and Development, 31(4), 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.07.006