Toward a Transition Transaction Theory: Understanding the Father

Abstract

This article explores the evolving scholarship on the role of fathers in child development, highlighting a shift from historical neglect to contemporary focus. Despite significant advancements in theoretical frameworks, a comprehensive theory specific to the father–child relationship is lacking. Empirical evidence has demonstrated the unique contributions of fathers to child development, yet simultaneous examinations of mothers and fathers are scarce. Persistent conceptual issues, measurement challenges, and the need for inclusive models and theories underscore the importance of this research. To address these gaps, this article proposes the Transition Transaction Theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship. TTT aims to clarify fathering processes and their impact on child development over time, offering a nuanced understanding of the dynamic transitions and transactions in the father–child relationship over time. This theory has the potential to inform future research and practical applications, fostering a deeper appreciation of the father–child relationship in diverse contexts.

Keywords

father–child relationship fathering child development theoretical frameworks transactions theory developmental outcomes family dynamics transitions

Introduction

The understanding of the father–child relationship has advanced over the past 60 years, but there are still persistent challenges. Nash (1965) reported a focus on matricentric practices, with limited attention given to fathers and their roles. A decade later, Lamb (1975) still proclaimed fathers to be forgotten contributors to child development. Fathering research now involves comparisons, interventions, impacts of involvement, and determinants, covering many theoretical approaches, themes, populations, and disciplines (see Novianti et al., 2023; Volling & Cabrera, 2019). Additionally, several handbooks (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 2020; Molloy et al., 2022), meta-analyses (e.g., Deneault et al., 2021; Jeynes, 2016), systematic reviews (e.g., Diniz et al., 2021; Yaffe, 2023), special issues or reviews (e.g., Helmerhorst et al., 2023; Schoppe‐Sullivan & Fagan, 2020), and diverse fathers (e.g., Crespi & Ruspini, 2015; Pilarz et al., 2020) are available.

Despite this progress, which includes significant developments in theoretical frameworks and models in fathering scholarship (e.g., Adamsons & Palkovitz, 2014; Cabrera et al., 2014; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Volling & Cabrera, 2019), one persistent concern is the applicability of most theories and models to some groups of fathers (Coley & Hernandez, 2006; Fagan, 2024b; Strier & Perez‐Vaisvidovsky, 2021). For example, fathers in sociocultural contexts are often regarded as absent or uninvolved, which has led to the use of terms such as fatherlessness, which is problematic (see Green et al., 2019, for more). The label “fatherlessness” persists because fathering is complex and multidimensional, especially in sociological contexts, and careful attention is needed on various factors that influence fathering over time to avoid a deficit perspective (e.g., Green & Chuang, 2021; Green, Chuang, & Goldstein, 2024). Another longstanding concern is whether parenting is a different construct from fathering and mothering, as well as whether mothering and fathering are different constructs (see Volling & Cabrera, 2019). These concerns are the result of many challenges, such as conceptual and theoretical issues (see Volling & Cabrera, 2019).

In this paper, it is posited that (a) there is enough evidence regarding fathering as a distinct contstruct from parenting and mothering and that (b) a lack of careful attention given to a methodological framework in theorizing the father–child relationship has led to conceptual confusion. To address these issues, this article proposes the transition transaction theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship, which aims to clarify fathering processes and their impact on child development over time through transitions and transactions. Whereas transition refers to changes that encompass a person’s internal states, roles, or settings, transactions are the reciprocal influences between a person and their relational environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979b).

Fathering and Mothering as Different Constructs from Parenting

Volling and Cabrera (2019) emphasized the need for innovative theoretical approaches to understanding the unique aspects of mothering and fathering, which are distinct from the broader concept of parenting. Parenting encompasses the actions and behaviors of both mothers and fathers in socializing their children. In contrast, fathering and mothering refer specifically to the roles and activities of fathers and mothers, respectively. Scholars have differentiated these concepts by using terms such as fathering, father involvement, and father engagement to describe fathers’ actions, whereas the term mothering is exclusively used for mothers’ actions (Volling & Cabrera, 2019). Importantly, the characteristics of children, such as their temperament, may influence maternal behaviors differently than paternal behaviors, and assumptions about these influences should not be directly transferred between mother–child and father–child relationships (McBride et al., 2002).

Furthermore, empirical evidence has indicated that fathers and mothers make unique contributions to child development, although studies that simultaneously examine mothers and fathers are scarce (Helmerhorst et al., 2023). For example, research has shown that parents contribute to children’s neurological development via parent‒child interactions (Rahkonen et al., 2014), but the shared and unique contributions of fathers and mothers have been largely unexplored. When mothers and fathers are included in the same study, Green et al. (2024) reported that mothers and fathers influence happiness and satisfaction with life for emerging adults via their basic psychological needs. However, fathers, but not mothers, have direct effects on self-reports of emerging adults that they are satisfied with life, suggesting other mechanisms through which fathers influence their children. Additionally, from a theoretical perspective, children may run to mothers in strange situations (see Ainsworth et al., 1978) and turn to fathers in risky situations (Paquette et al., 2013). Thus, the father–child relationship requires further theoretical understanding.

Theorizing the Father‒Child Relationship

The understanding of the father–child relationship has been limited by the application of existing theories and models, as well as weaknesses in how fathering has been theorized. Currently, the field lacks a specific theory dedicated to the father–child relationship; instead, it relies on substantive theories—formulations of discovered concepts and their interrelationships into assumptions about a phenomenon (Glaser & Strauss, 1965). Substantive theories can be applications of existing theories to specific areas or entirely new theories. Scholars have used various substantive theories, such as identity theory (Pasley et al., 2014), social capital theory (Booth et al., 2010), intersectionality theory (Strier & Perez‐Vaisvidovsky, 2021), family systems theories (Galovan et al., 2014), and life course theory (Roy, 2014), to understand the father–child relationship. However, these theories often fail to explain key aspects of the father–child relationship, such as the emotional climate, behavioral engagement, and relational synchrony and sensitivity (Palkovitz, 2007). Scholars also rely on models—coherent sets of interrelated concepts useful for constructing theories (Overton, 2006). Models such as the paternal involvement model (Pleck, 2012), the expanded model of paternal influences (Cabrera et al., 2014), and the conceptual model of responsible fathering (Doherty et al., 1998) have limitations, such as representing only some aspects of bidirectional relationships. For instance, Cabrera et al. (2014) model of the father–child relationship includes systemic understanding but does not fully depict bidirectional influences (e.g., single-headed arrows from the exosystem or macrosystem to other systems). Thus, while theories and models are crucial for understanding phenomena, they are not exhaustive (Adamsons & Palkovitz, 2014; Volling & Cabrera, 2019).

Second, there is often inadequate or misapplication of the process of theory development. Theorizing is the systematic process of understanding a phenomenon by formulating and organizing ideas, which results in a theory based on interconnected ideas that are built on concepts (abstractions), relations, and propositions (White & Klein, 2007). From a bioecological perspective, scholars sometimes overlook the fundamental understanding of the bidirectionality of influences. For example, Belsky’s (1984) frequently used process model does not reflect the bidirectionality of some influences, such as parenting and child characteristics. To bridge this gap in theorizing, the present study delineates a transition transaction theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship via Valsiner’s (2000) methodology cycle for theorizing involving methods or data and other key theoretical concepts.

Methods/Data Generation About the Father–Child Relationship

To develop theories about the father–child relationship, both quantitative and qualitative methods must be used, and surveys, interviews, observations, biomarkers, and experiments should be employed to better understand the father–child relationship. Additionally, contextual, cohort, cross-sectional, and longitudinal data should be used to gain a nuanced understanding of the father–child relationship phenomenon. The proposed theory of the father–child relationship, which will be outlined and explained in subsequent sections, is guided by several factors. First, Glaser and Strauss (1965) highlighted the usefulness of qualitative research for the generation of substantive theory about a phenomenon. The concepts that will be explained in relation to the father–child relationship were identified through engagement with qualitative data and interviews with fathers and mothers. Second, scientific evidence (both quantitative and qualitative) and experience (i.e., observations) are used to make sense of those discoveries. Finally, metatheory (e.g., epistemology), mid-range metatheory (e.g., dialectics), and theories are used to clarify observations and concepts. Collectively, these methodological and data-driven processes generated the three key tenets of the proposed theory of the father–child relationship, which are outlined and discussed in the following sections.

Father–Child Relationship Dynamics: A Theoretical Perspective

Like McBride et al. (2002), this theoretical proposition is based on the assumption that the relationship between fathers and their children is a transactional process whereby the involvement of fathers and their stressors are impacted by their children’s characteristics and responses and that their children’s responses and behaviors are influenced by the characteristics and behaviors of their fathers. Consequently, the proposed theory of the father‒child relationship that is being generated is based on the concepts of transactions and transitions. When applying the concept of transitions and transactions to the father–child relationship, it is necessary to operationalize the terms to prevent conceptual confusion. Transactions refer to reciprocal effects or influences of one person and/or thing (e.g., father or work) on another person and/or thing (e.g., child or parenting) (i.e., the interactions between at least two systems; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Sameroff, 1982). In contrast, transitions are embedded in transactions, as they are temporary outcomes or mutual alterations created by transactions. Additionally, transition encompasses any movement or change from one state or condition to another (or successive shifts in relation to roles and settings; Bronfenbrenner, 1979b). These significant changes or phases that individuals experience as they develop encompass psychological, emotional, and situational changes. For example, transitions represent changes across the domains of a father’s life, such as intellectual, emotional, social, and financial. Notably, ongoing changes in a father’s life can be understood from a life course perspective in which transitions are regarded as individual experiences due to changes in their roles or statuses (Brady & Gilligan, 2020; Lynch & Smith, 2005). Transitions also include life trajectories, which involve both stability and changes across various domains that influence individuals’ experiences (Brady & Gilligan, 2020; Lynch & Smith, 2005). Thus, these key concepts, transitions and transactions undergird the three tenets of the proposed TTT of the father–child relationship discussed in the next sections.

Father–Child Relationship Dynamics: Transactions and Transitions

The first tenet of the TTT of the father–child relationship is that it is a function of factors influencing transitions and transactions. Transactions are at the core of the father–child relationship because this is how close relationships are influenced by the history of engagement (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). This perspective contrasts with that of Palkovitz (2019), who asserted that the core of fathering entails relationships. Placing transactions at the core of the father–child relationship is in line with social relational theory’s perspective that transactions are the blocks that build relationships and that relationships are transactional when there is a history of social interaction (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Additionally, Sameroff (1975) posited that at any point in time, behaviors that are specific to a child or a father are a product of the transactions that take place between a child’s or a father’s phenotype (i.e., actual observed properties), environment type (i.e., the source providing external experience), and genotype (i.e., full heredity information) (Sameroff, 2000). Moreover, the transactions between the child or the father and the environment of the child or the father continue to undergo mutual alteration throughout the course of development. Importantly, both fathers and children have developmental histories that influence them (Belsky, 1984), and fathers and children demonstrate active agency as development progresses through the life course (Rogers et al., 2021). Thus, the father–child relationship is based on transactional processes, with relationship history serving as the channel for the targeted outcomes.

Research provides support for transactions as a core feature of the father–child relationship. Several longitudinal studies (e.g., Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006; Coley & Hernandez, 2006; Jia et al., 2012; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2018; Rothenberg et al., 2020) provide support for the transactional influence of fathers and children on each other. The father–child relationship was found to influence the school readiness of children, whereby fathers’ autonomy support and engagement with their children were associated with school readiness at age five (Meuwissen & Carlson, 2018). Another longitudinal study revealed that positive father–child transactions served as a protective factor against adolescent engagement in substance use and delinquent behaviors (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006). Importantly, these positive outcomes undoubtedly influence fathers in their continuation of positive father–child relationships. For example, longitudinal studies have shown bidirectionality in the influence of fathers on child adjustment. Specifically, the initial behavior of children influences parenting practices, which, in turn, influence their future behavior in relation to their socioemotional development (Jia et al., 2012).

Transitions are inevitable for both people and their environment and play a significant role in transactions. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), an “ecological transition is both a consequence and an instigator of developmental processes…a joint function of biological changes and altered environmental circumstances” (p. 27). Transitions are embedded in transactions as temporary outcomes or mutual alterations created by transactions. From a developmental perspective, transitions between stages involve the coordination of processes (e.g., schemas, hormones, neurons, and organs) to form systems that are hierarchical and based on mutual accommodations or engagements (Sameroff, 1975). When the concept of transition is applied to the father–child relationship, it emphasizes that transactions impact both internal and external changes (i.e., transitions), which, in turn, influence transactions. For example, when fathers transition to parenthood for the first time, it is associated with hormonal changes, such as higher oxytocin levels, that influence their caregiving behaviors (i.e., transactions) with their infants, highlighting how transition itself positively influences the father‒child relationship (Bakerman-Kranenburg et al., 2019).

Another transition that is important involves romantic relationships. One study revealed that while some fathers decreased their engagement with both residential and nonresidential children when they transitioned to new relationships, other fathers increased their interactions (Tach et al., 2010), indicating that support structure and social dynamics are major factors that influence father–child transactions. Relatedly, one qualitative study revealed that when mothers transition to new romantic relationships, it can negatively impact transactions with fathers and their children, as this transition is more likely to influence dynamics in the father–child relationship, which, in turn, may negatively affect fathers’ roles and transactions with their children (Hadfield & Nixon, 2016).

The transactions between fathers and children influence transitions for both fathers and children. Several longitudinal studies (e.g., Aquilino, 2006; Barnett et al., 2008; Clinchard et al., 2024; Cooper et al., 2019) have shown that fathers’ transactions with their children impact transitions for both fathers and children, which, in turn, influences father–child transactions. For example, Clinchard et al. (2024) reported that there is a negative relationship between father–child attachment throughout adolescence and the use of substances in young adulthood, as paternal attachment was found to reduce the risk of externalizing behaviors in young adults.

Moreover, transactions influence transitions for fathers and children, and the beliefs of fathers also play a crucial role. A multigenerational longitudinal study revealed that the beliefs of fathers, which are shaped by their experiences as children or developmental history (see Belsky, 1984), influence their transactions with their children (Cooper et al., 2019). This suggests that transitions, such as changes that take place in both the father and the developing person (e.g., beliefs, hormonal changes), as well as the father’s environment (e.g., stable romantic relationships), impact the father–child relationship. For example, the interplay of fathering and mothering during the early years may result in fathers increasing their transactions with their children as they grow, which is affected by transitions in parenting roles and strategies as a function of the mother–father relationship (Barnett et al., 2008). Additionally, transitions in fathering quality over time, which are linked to beliefs, impact children’s cognitive development as children grow (Meuwissen & Carlson, 2018). Thus, transactions and transitions are crucial in understanding how fathers influence children’s development.

Dialectics in Father–Child Relationships: Transactional and Transitional Influences

The second core tenet of the transition transaction theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship is that dialectics within this relationship are shaped by transactions and transitions embedded in interactional histories. This tenet highlights that fathers’ interactions with their children are influenced by past experiences and that multiple systems interact dynamically over time (Volling & Cabrera, 2019). Evidence shows that fathering self-efficacy—a father’s belief in his ability to parent effectively—is influenced by social support (e.g., informational, esteem) from significant others (e.g., the child’s mother) and training programs (e.g., parenting training) during the transition to parenthood (Chipojola et al., 2022; Donithen & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2022). The quality of relationships with the child’s mother and the child over time (interactional history) also impacts these relationships. For example, a longitudinal study showed that fathers who are satisfied with their marriage tend to be more involved in parenting activities (Zhang et al., 2024). Additionally, a child’s temperament can facilitate a positive relationship with the father; children with easy temperaments often elicit supportive parenting (Baer et al., 2015). However, divorce can negatively affect the father’s relationship with the child’s mother, which may in turn negatively impact the father–child relationship (Smith-Etxeberria & Eceiza, 2021). Nonetheless, some fathers may choose to increase their involvement postdivorce due to the quality of the co-parenting relationship, which can enhance closeness and engagement with children who do not live with them (Sobolewski & King, 2005). The decision to increase involvement may also be influenced by the child’s temperament (Shigeto et al., 2013).

The challenges and issues that fathers face in the father–child relationship influence interactional histories and transitions and transactions in unique ways. Research has shown that mothers and fathers face similar and different challenges in parenting (see Green et al., 2024). For example, challenges and barriers to parenting were found to be driven by perceptions of role expectations and particular sociocultural contexts, and while parenting self-efficacy was based on complexities in mothers’ thoughts and feelings, fathers emphasized their thought processes (Green et al., 2024), emphasizing that dialectical transitions and transactions may be driven by different and similar factors for mothers and fathers.

Dialectical Transformation in Father–Child Relationships

The final tenet of the TTT of the father–child relationship is that transitions and transactions in the father–child relationship result in ongoing dialectical transformation. This refers to the ways in which transitions and transactions undergo dialectical transformation over time. The change in the father–child relationship is not just gradual; it can be transformational for both children and fathers. For example, research has shown that the relationship between stressful life events and nonsuicidal self-injury is significantly moderated by socioeconomic status and father–child cohesion (Wang et al., 2020). Specifically, stressful life events such as the migration of fathers can have negative impacts on children, but available economic resources and positive relationships with fathers can mitigate the negative effects for both children (e.g., nonsuicidal self-injury) and fathers (e.g., effects of stress associated with parenting). Moreover, Green et al. (2019) highlighted the fluidity of fathering given the role of social fathers (i.e., men who provide inputs into a child’s life, such as that of a biological father) and various factors that may interrupt or enhance the father–child relationship.

Graphical Representation and Explanation of the TTT of the Father‒Child Relationship

The transition transaction theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship examines how transitions (e.g., changes in life stages, roles, or circumstances) and transactions (e.g., interactive behaviors and mutual influences) shape the father–child dynamic over time. It highlights the importance of dialectical contradictions—ongoing tensions and resolutions between opposing forces or influences—that occur within the father–child relationship and are shaped by past experiences, social systems, and interactional histories. The theory also emphasizes the role of proximal processes, which are the recurring, close interactions between a father and child that serve as the primary engine for development. These processes are influenced by personal and environmental factors, such as beliefs, social support, and broader systemic contexts, and they drive the bidirectional transformations in the relationship. TTT underscores how these interconnected processes—dialectical contradictions and proximal processes—contribute to the continuous evolution of the relationship, shaped by cultural, social, and economic systems as described in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework.

Visual representation of abstract concepts can be challenging, but this approach is essential for clarity in theoretical development. Figure 1 illustrates the interplay between personal characteristics (y-axis) and environmental characteristics (x-axis) in shaping developmental outcomes within the father–child relationship over time.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Features of the Transition Transaction Theory of the Father‒Child Relationship. Note. This figure shows the father–child relationship as a joint function of personal and environmental characteristics that creates four possible developmental outcomes: optimal development, at-risk status, resilient development, and limited development throughout the life course.

Personal Characteristics

On the left side, foundational influences over time include biological factors, psychological traits, and social characteristics, which are aspects of a child’s developmental history (Belsky, 1984; Sameroff, 2000). These characteristics interact bidirectionally with inner dialectics (internal conflicts or challenges faced by the child) (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Additionally, these personal characteristics interact through transitions (e.g., a child becoming an adolescent) and transactions (e.g., cognitive advancements influencing reasoning abilities), leading to four potential developmental outcomes.

• Optimal development: High or positive effects from both personal and environmental factors (top right quadrant).

• At-Risk Status: Low or negative effects from both personal and environmental factors (bottom left quadrant).

• Resilience development: High or positive personal effects and low or negative environmental effects (top left quadrant).

• Limited development: High positive environmental effects and low negative personal effects (bottom right quadrant).

These outcomes influence personal transitions and transactions, which interact bidirectionally with environmental transitions and transactions.

Environmental Characteristics

The bottom of the diagram represents environmental characteristics, including macro-, micro-, meso-, exo-, and chronosystems, and their interactions over time. These systems form the child’s relational environment and drive proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), such as a father’s job promotion, influencing environmental transitions and transactions and contributing to the same four developmental outcomes as personal characteristics.

The application of bioecological theory to the transition transaction theory (TTT) of the father–child relationship requires further clarification. Notably, bioecological theory is often incorrectly operationalized (Chuang et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2024). Typically, graphical representations of the theory depict the macrosystem as having distal influences on the developing person (child), whereas the microsystem is seen as the driver of development through proximal processes (Rogers et al., 2021). However, proximal processes require engines involving broader contexts to fuel them (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Proximal processes involve ongoing interactions in the immediate environment (e.g., father–child and child–child activities). The features of proximal processes—such as form, content, power, and direction—undergo systematic variation involving the joint functions of individual and environmental characteristics (both immediate and remote) and the nature of the anticipated developmental outcome (e.g., optimal development).

In this framework, it is crucial to distinguish between a process (e.g., father–child interaction) and the environment (the place where the process occurs, such as the family), as well as between immediate settings (e.g., family, classroom, peer group, workplace) and the broader context in which these settings are embedded (e.g., social class, culture, ethnicity, historical period) (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Despite these distinctions, confusion often arises regarding the understanding of remote environments and broader contexts, with macrosystems frequently misrepresented as remote environments (Rogers et al., 2021).

The macrosystem should not be viewed as a remote environment but rather as a broader context, such as ethnicity. Bronfenbrenner (1995) suggested that researchers review Steinberg et al. (1995) work to understand the correct operationalization of ecological systems, where the macrosystem was treated as a broader context. Bronfenbrenner (1977) emphasized that the macrosystem is fundamentally different from other systems. A microsystem includes the relationships between a developing person and their immediate environment; these relationships are complex (e.g., home, workplace, school). A mesosystem focuses on the dynamic interactions between at least two microsystems of the developing person (e.g., family, school, and peer group). An exosystem extends the mesosystem to include formal and informal social structures that influence the settings of the developing person, even though the person is not directly a part of those structures (e.g., world of work, neighborhood, mass media). In contrast, a macrosystem encompasses the overarching institutional patterns of culture or subculture, such as economic, social, educational, legal, and political systems, of which micro-, meso-, and exosystems are concrete manifestations (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The place and priority of individuals (e.g., children and fathers) within the macrosystem determine their treatment and interactions in various settings, making the macrosystem integral to proximal processes rather than distal processes, as often misrepresented in research and theory. Rogers et al. (2021) addressed this issue by proposing the term m(ai)cro to center macrosystems in human development. This understanding is reflected in the figure by placing the macrosystem close to the microsystem and highlighting its bidirectional influences on all systems to drive proximal processes.

Additionally, Figure 1 highlights the bidirectional influences between interdependent transitions and transactions at both the personal and the environmental levels over time. These interactions show how personal features driven by dialectical contradictions and environmental factors driven by proximal processes jointly shape developmental trajectories, resulting in one of the four possible developmental outcomes. The cycle at the center of the matrix reflects changes in developmental outcomes over time, which is consistent with the concepts of multifinality (same origin but different outcomes), equifinality (different origins but similar outcomes), and adaptation involving accommodation and assimilation (Sameroff, 2000). The bidirectional lines across both personal and environmental characteristics reflect the role of time in shaping developmental outcomes. In summary, Figure 1 visually represents the TTT of the father–child relationship by illustrating the interconnectedness of personal and environmental characteristics and how their interactions, driven by dialectical contradictions and proximal processes, operate to shape a child’s developmental outcomes over time, paying attention to the father–child relationship.

The conceptualization of the TTT of the father–child relationship returns to the recognition that process–person–context–time (PPCT), as presented in the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), is important in understanding the father–child relationship, with attention given to appropriate epistemological and ontological aspects. The process involves transactions between the father and the child that are influenced by the child’s personal characteristics and relational environment through the relationship history of the child and the father. The dynamic interactions among the factors of the personal characteristics of the child drive dialectical contradictions that influence personal transitions and transactions, which, in turn, have dynamic influences on developmental outcomes. In contrast, the dynamic interactions between the factors of the child’s relational environment create proximal processes that influence transitions and transactions (e.g., the father receives job promotions and takes child on vacation) in the child’s relational environment, which, in turn, affect developmental outcomes.

Additionally, there are bidirectional interactions between personal transitions and transactions and between relational environmental transitions and transactions, which impact developmental outcomes. A person refers to a child with their environmental type, genotype, and phenotype (Sameroff, 2000). The context focuses on where the interaction takes place, such as in the family or community. In this conceptualization, time or chronosystem refers to the different feature(s) of the time when the processes or outcomes occur. Although optimal development, including physical health and well-being (Falster et al., 2021), emotional maturity (Nikolof et al., 2023), social competence (Schatz et al., 2021), and language and cognitive skills (Janus et al., 2021), is the aim of these processes, optimal development may not occur. Alternatively, outcomes such as at-risk status (both negative personal and environmental characteristics), resilient functioning (positive personal and negative environmental characteristics), and limited development (negative personal and positive environmental characteristics) may occur. Importantly, developmental outcomes can change over time as a function of the transformation of personal characteristics and/or environmental characteristics.

Applications, Implications, and Future Directions

The purpose of the current study is to continue progress toward a substantive theoretical understanding of the father–child relationship based on transitions and transactions that are embedded in the contextualist perspective and dynamic systems. Although there are several things to consider when conducting research with fathers and children, it is important to note that one might not be able to explore all the aspects of the father–child relationship in a single study. As Bronfenbrenner (1979b) noted, there is no need or is it possible to fulfill all the criteria in a single ecological research study, but it is possible for a study to generate meaningful scientific information when the investigator provides information regarding both met and unmet qualifications. Similarly, the TTT of the father–child relationship can be used to explore various aspects of the father–child relationship in any given study, with the understanding that what is revealed is based on what is explored, which may be different when other areas or variables are added to the equation. Thus, the evidence presented to support the TTT of the father–child relationship involves examining various aspects of the father–child relationship, with the understanding that what is revealed is based on what is explored, which may present nuances when other areas are included, such as cultural factors. Thus, the discussion of the application of the TTT to the father–child relationship takes this into consideration.

Although scholars have recently included transactional processes as important in studying the father–child relationship in context (see Cabrera et al., 2014; Volling & Cabrera, 2019), the uniqueness of the TTT in relation to the father–child relationship is that it is foregrounded in metatheory, making it clear that from context to context, the father–child relationship is based on dynamic interactions involving transitions and transactions that contribute to children’s developmental outcomes while noting personal characteristics involving dialectical contradictions and relational characteristics based on proximal processes. Relatedly, the macrosystem is restored as the driver of proximal processes.

In contrast to the resource theory of fathering, which emphasizes that fathers influence children through resources from a father-centric perspective (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018), the TTT of the father–child relationship is built on the premise that fathers contribute to children’s development through transitions and transactions that are impacted by relationship history (see Fagan, 2024a) that require transactions as building blocks, as well as adequate or inadequate resources and the development of resources over time (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). As such, transitions and transactions influence the father–child relationship, and resources impact transitions and transactions, affecting the quality of the father–child relationship.

Like Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006), who emphasized that proximal processes drive development but require the engine of macrosystems (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), the TTT of the father–child relationship highlights the crucial role of macrosystems. Additionally, the TTT of the father–child relationship incorporates dialectical systems’ core assumptions of contradiction, change, totality, and stability. Contradictions involving both inner and outer dialectics are inherent in relational systems as drivers of change and are indispensable for change to occur in any living system. Thus, both proximal processes and contradictions drive transitions and transactions in the TTT of the father–child relationship, influencing child development and outcomes involving fathers’ contributions.

Previous theoretical contributions have emphasized the contextual nature of fathering from an ecological perspective (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2014; Volling & Cabrera, 2019). However, the present theoretical effort explicitly examines contextual influences, including the major role of the macrosystem, with attention given to transitional and transactional concepts. This theoretical work addresses the need to examine the father–child relationship inclusively, highlighting aspects such as social contexts, identities, behaviors, and cultures (Strier & Perez‐Vaisvidovsky, 2021). When these aspects are taken into consideration, similarities and differences in mothering and fathering may be based on the factors driving proximal processes and contradictions that influence transitions and transactions for mothers and fathers, respectively. For example, Lamb et al. (1985) posited that motivation, including intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, is one of the antecedents of fathering. In contrast, mothering might be based on a sense of duty and responsibility, which will have differential effects on transitions and transactions. Moreover, compared with first-time fathers, first-time mothers have greater parenting self-efficacy (Salonen et al., 2009), which plays a key role in transitions and transactions in the parent–child relationship. Therefore, the TTT of the father‒child relationship might be applicable to mothers, as it is understood that transitions and transactions may be influenced by different factors. This observation is promising for the joint exploration of mothering and fathering with the same theoretical understanding. For example, children may turn to mothers in strange situations (see Ainsworth et al., 1978, for more) and turn to fathers in risky situations (see Paquette et al., 2013, for more). Thus, further work is needed to advance the TTT in this direction.

The proposition of the father–child relationship as a function of transitions and transactions recognizes that there are many factors and interactions involved in the father–child relationship that may be charted. This approach makes it possible to use both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the father–child relationship. Importantly, researchers can generate equations with attention given to biological, psychological, and contextual factors. These equations are important in sociocultural contexts such as the Caribbean, where biological and social fathers were found to be associated with fathering (Green & Chuang, 2021). Thus, the TTT of the father–child relationship is useful for exploring a range of research hypotheses and questions involving the father–child relationship. For example, future research could hypothesize that biological and social fathering transitions and transactions have greater positive joint major effects and interaction effects on children’s cognitive activation than biological and social mothers who have greater emotional activation. Additionally, fathering transitions and transactions should be expected to create more cooperative responses to requests made by fathers than to requests made by mothers given the reinforcement of fathers’ capacity to negotiate transactions as a function of their day-to-day experiences with transactions in the home. Additionally, several research questions could be addressed, such as the following: (a) What are the transactions in which fathers engage with their children in the public arena that have positive effects on child development? (b) Why do the transactions in the mother–father relationship have the potential to negatively influence the transactions in the father–child relationship? (c) How do children promote high-quality father–child transactions to promote their own development?

Therefore, the TTT of the father–child relationship allows for careful consideration of the various influences that impact the father–child relationship, including the changes taking place over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Furthermore, the father–child relationship is affected by resources (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018) and intersectionality (Strier & Perez‐Vaisvidovsky, 2021), which are also salient from the perspective of this conceptual transition transaction theory of the father–child relationship.

Limitations

Although the materials presented to illustrate these TTT concepts are useful and meaningful given their empirical and theoretical support, several limitations exist. First, the study’s reliance on the literature means that it may not fully capture emerging trends or novel aspects of the father–child relationship that are influenced by modern sociocultural shifts, as the literature often falls behind changes. Second, owing to the inherently complex and multidimensional nature of the father–child relationship, comprehensively addressing all relevant factors associated with child development involving the contributions of fathers in a single theoretical effort is unrealistic. Third, the focus on transitional and transactional concepts with attention given to the father–child relationship does not adequately highlight how the theory might be applicable to mothering.

Conclusion

Over the years, fatherhood scholars have recognized the need for continuous effort in theorizing fathering or the father–child relationship. Importantly, substantive theories and models are useful but can explain only certain aspects of a phenomenon. This transition transaction theory of the father–child relationship uses a methodological cycle to pay attention to both epistemological and ontological considerations when theorizing the father–child relationship. Additionally, this study provides insights into how the father–child relationship reflects developmental changes over time based on a bioecological understanding of influences and the dialectical systems approach. This theoretical understanding should be useful for exploring the father–child relationship in diverse contexts based on the attention given to both dialectical contradictions and proximal processes. Hopefully, this transition transaction theory of the father–child relationship will spark discussion to continue advancing attempts to theorize about the father–child relationship as a phenomenon distinct from mothering based on transitions and transactions and the application of similar or different measures. Thus, it is hoped that this theory will be used to generate meaningful scientific information and spark further effort in theorizing fathering, mothering, and parenting.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

David S. Green

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by a Provost Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Toronto.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

References

Adamsons

Palkovitz

(2014). Theorizing about fathering: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12053

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

Blehar

M. C.

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Routledge.

Aquilino

W. S.

(2006). The noncustodial father-child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 929–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00305

Baer

Schreck

Althoff

R. R.

Rettew

Harder

Ayer

Albaugh

Crehan

Kuny-Slock

Hudziak

J. J.

(2015). Child temperament, maternal parenting behavior, and child social functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(4), 1152–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9924-5

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

M. J.

Lotz

A. M.

Dijk

K. A.

IJzendoorn

M. H. V.

(2019). Birth of a father: Fathering in the first 1,000 days. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12347

Barnett

M. A.

Deng

Mills‐Koonce

W. R.

Willoughby

M. T.

Cox

M. J.

(2008). Interdependence of parenting of mothers and fathers of infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.561

Belsky

(1984). Determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836

Booth

Scott

M. E.

King

(2010). Father residence and adolescent problem behavior: Are youth always better off in two-parent families? Journal of Family Issues, 31(5), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09351507

Brady

Gilligan

(2020). Supporting care‐experienced adults’ educational journeys: “Linked lives” over the life course. Child & Family Social Work, 25(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12677

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844

12.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979b). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

13.

Bronfenbrenner

(1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In Moen

Elder

G. H.

Lüscher

(Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 599–618). American Psychological Association.

14.

Bronfenbrenner

Ceci

S. J.

(1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

15.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th Ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons.

16.

Bronte‐Tinkew

Moore

K. A.

Carrano

(2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(6), 850–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x05285296

17.

Cabrera

N. J.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Bradley

R. H.

Roggman

(2014). The ecology of father‐child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(3), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054

18.

Chipojola

Dennis

C.-L.

Kuo

S.-Y.

(2022). Psychometric assessment of the paternal breastfeeding self-efficacy scale-short form: A confirmatory factor analysis of Malawian fathers. Journal of Human Lactation: Official Journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 38(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344211065036

19.

Chuang

S. S.

Glozman

Green

D. S.

Rasmi

(2018). Parenting and family relationships in Chinese families: A critical ecological approach. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12257

20.

Clinchard

Deater‐Deckard

Casas

Kim‐Spoon

(2024). Longitudinal links from attachment with mothers and fathers to adolescent substance use: Internalizing and externalizing pathways. Developmental Science, 27(6), Article e13539. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13539

21.

Coley

R. L.

Hernandez

D. C.

(2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1041

22.

Cooper

S. M.

Ross

Dues

Golden

A. R.

Burnett

(2019). Intergenerational factors, fatherhood beliefs, and African American fathers’ involvement: Building the case for a mediated pathway. Journal of Family Issues, 40(15), 2047–2075. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x19849629

23.

Crespi

Ruspini

(2015). Transition to fatherhood: New perspectives in the global context of changing men’s identities. International Review of Sociology, 25(3), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2015.1078529

24.

Deneault

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

M. J.

Groh

A. M.

Fearon

P. R. M.

Madigan

(2021). Child‐father attachment in early childhood and behavior problems: A meta‐analysis. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021(180), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20434

25.

Diniz

Brandão

Monteiro

Veríssimo

(2021). Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12410

26.

Doherty

W. J.

Kouneski

E. F.

Erickson

M. F.

(1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/353848

27.

Donithen

Schoppe-Sullivan

(2022). Correlates and predictors of parenting self-efficacy in new fathers. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 36(3), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000910

28.

Fagan

(2024a). Children’s contact with fathers who never co-resided with them and father–child relationship quality at age 9. Journal of Family Issues, 45(11), 2802–2821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231220037

29.

Fagan

(2024b). The myth of low-income black fathers’ absence from the lives of adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 45(1), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X221150987

30.

Falster

Hanly

Edwards

Banks

Lynch

J. W.

Eades

Nickel

Goldfeld

Biddle

(2021). Preschool attendance and developmental outcomes at age five in Indigenous and non-Indigenous children: A population-based cohort study of 100 357 Australian children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 75(4), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214672

31.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Von Klitzing

Cabrera

Scarano de Mendonça

Skjøthaug

(2020). Handbook of fathers and child development. Springer International Publishing.

32.

Galovan

A. M.

Holmes

E. K.

Schramm

D. G.

Lee

T. R.

(2014). Father involvement, father–child relationship quality, and satisfaction with family work: Actor and partner influences on marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 35(13), 1846–1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13479948

33.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1965). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426500800602

34.

Green

D. S.

Chuang

S. S.

(2021). A critical exploration of biological and social fathering among afro-caribbean fathers. Family Relations, 70(1), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12479

35.

Green

D. S.

Chuang

S. S.

Goldstein

A. L.

(2024). Social construction of barriers or challenges to parenting: Black Jamaican fathers’ and mothers’ perspectives. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(3), 998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02811-4

36.

Green

D. S.

Chuang

S. S.

Parke

R. D.

Este

D. C.

(2019). Multidimensionality and complexities of fathering: A critical examination of Afro-Jamaican fathers’ perspectives. Sex Roles, 81(9–10), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-1012-2

37.

Green

D. S.

Goldstein

A. L.

Zhu

J. Y.

Hamza

C. A.

Scharfe

Molnar

D. S.

(2024). Parents’ influences on well-being in emerging adulthood: The role of basic psychological needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(10), 3326–3337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02912-0

38.

Hadfield

Nixon

(2016). “He’s had enough fathers”: Mothers’ and children’s approaches to mothers’ romantic relationships following the dissolution of previous partnerships. Journal of Family Issues, 39(1), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x16638385

39.

Helmerhorst

K. O. W.

Majdandžić

Cabrera

N. J.

(2023). Introduction to special issue contributions of father-child relationship to children’s development within the larger family system: A focus on observational measures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.11.007

40.

Janus

Reid‐Westoby

Raiter

Forer

Guhn

(2021). Population-level data on child development at school entry reflecting social determinants of health: A narrative review of studies using the early development instrument. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073397

41.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2016). Meta-analysis on the roles of fathers in parenting: Are they unique? Marriage & Family Review, 52(7), 665–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1157121

42.

Jia

Kotila

L. E.

Schoppe‐Sullivan

S. J.

(2012). Transactional relations between father involvement and preschoolers' socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 848–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030245

43.

Kuczynski

De Mol

(2015). Social relational theory: Dialectical models of transactions in parent‒child relationships and socialization. In Overton

W. F.

Molenaar

P. C. M.

(Eds.), Theory and method, handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323–368). Wiley.

44.

Lamb

M. E.

(1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human Development, 18(4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271493

45.

Lamb

M. E.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25(3), 883–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/25.3.883

46.

Lynch

Smith

G. D.

(2005). A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144505

47.

McBride

B. A.

Schoppe

S. J.

Rane

T. R.

(2002). Child characteristics, parenting stress, and parental involvement: Fathers versus mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 998–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00998.x

48.

Meuwissen

A. S.

Carlson

S. M.

(2018). The role of father parenting in children’s school readiness: A longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 32(5), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000418

49.

Molloy

Azzam

Isacco

(Eds.), (2022). Handbook of the psychology of fatherhood. Springer.

50.

Nash

(1965). The father in contemporary culture and current psychological literature. Child Development, 36(2), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1965.tb05299.x

51.

Nikolof

Brown

Clark

Glover

Gartland

(2023). A systematic review of child health, developmental and educational outcomes associated with high mobility in Indigenous children from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054332

52.

Novianti

Suarman

Islami

(2023). Parenting in cultural perspective: A systematic review of paternal role across cultures. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 10(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/1287

53.

Overton

W. F.

(2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, and methodology. In Lerner

R. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development, (1, pp. 18–88). Wiley.

54.

Palkovitz

(2007). Challenges to modeling dynamics in developing a developmental understanding of father-child relationships. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762050

55.

Palkovitz

(2019). Expanding our focus from father involvement to father–child relationship quality. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12352

56.

Palkovitz

Hull

(2018). Toward a resource theory of fathering. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12239

57.

Paquette

Dumont

Slobodskaya

H. R.

(2013). The father-child activation relationship, sex differences, and attachment disorganization in toddlerhood. Child Development Research, 2013(2013), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/102860

58.

Pasley

Petren

R. E.

Fish

J. N.

(2014). Use of identity theory to inform fathering scholarship. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12052

59.

Pilarz

A. R.

Cuesta

Drazen

(2020). Nonstandard work schedules and father involvement among resident and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 82(2), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.nn/jomf.12627

60.

Pleck

J. H.

(2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting, 12(2–3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683365

61.

Rahkonen

Heinonen

Pesonen

A.-K.

Lano

Autti

Puosi

Huhtala

Andersson

Metsäranta

Räikkönen

(2014). Mother-child interaction is associated with neurocognitive outcome in extremely low gestational age children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12133

62.

Rogers

L. O.

Niwa

E. Y.

Chung

Yip

Chae

(2021). M(ai)cro: Centering the macrosystem in human development. Human Development, 65(5–6), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519630

63.

Rogers

L. O.

Scott

K. E.

Wintz

Eisenman

S. R.

Dorsi

Chae

Meltzoff

A. N.

(2024). Exploring whether and how black and white parents talk with their children about race: M(ai)cro race conversations about black lives matter. Developmental Psychology, 60(3), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001693

64.

Rothenberg

W. A.

Lansford

J. E.

Alampay

L. P.

Al-Hassan

S. M.

Bacchini

Bornstein

M. H.

Chang

Deater-Deckard

Di Giunta

Dodge

K. A.

Malone

P. S.

Oburu

Pastorelli

Skinner

A. T.

Sorbring

Steinberg

Tapanya

Tirado

L. M. U.

Yotanyamaneewong

(2020). Examining effects of mother and father warmth and control on child externalizing and internalizing problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Development and Psychopathology, 32(3), 1113–1137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419001214

65.

Roy

(2014). Fathering from the long view: Framing personal and social change through life course theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12050

66.

Salonen

A. H.

Kaunonen

Åstedt-Kurki

Järvenpää

Isoaho

Tarkka

(2009). Parenting self-efficacy after childbirth. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(11), 2324–2336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05113.x

67.

Sameroff

(1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human Development, 18(1/2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271476

68.

Sameroff

(1982). Transactional models in early social relations. In Belsky

(Ed.), In the beginning (pp. 15–18). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/bels91552-004

69.

Sameroff

A. J.

(2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003035

70.

Schatz

Reinman

Bills

S. E.

Johnston

J. D.

(2021). Sociodemographic and biomedical correlates of developmental delay in 2- and 4-year-olds with sickle cell disease. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 43(4), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000001011

71.

Schoppe‐Sullivan

S. J.

Fagan

(2020). The Evolution of Fathering Research in the 21st Century: Persistent Challenges, New Directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12645

72.

Shigeto

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Brown

G. L.

(2013). Roles of family cohesiveness, marital adjustment, and child temperament in predicting child behavior with mothers and fathers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513490586

73.

Smith-Etxeberria

Eceiza

(2021). Mother-child and father-child relationships in emerging adults from divorced and nondivorced families. Social Sciences (Basel), 10(10), 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100382

74.

Sobolewski

J. M.

King

(2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

75.

Steinberg

Darling

N. E.

Fletcher

A. C.

(1995). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment: An ecological journey. In Moen

Elder

G. H.

Lüscher

(Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 423–466). American Psychological Association.

76.

Strier

Perez‐Vaisvidovsky

(2021). Intersectionality and fatherhood: Theorizing non‐hegemonic fatherhoods. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12412

77.

Tach

Mincy

Edin

(2010). Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among unmarried parents. Demography, 47(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0096

78.

Valsiner

(2000). Culture and human development: An introduction: Sage.

79.

Volling

B. L.

Cabrera

N. J.

(2019). Advancing research and measurement on fathering and children’s development. In Volling

Cabrera

N. J.

(Eds.), Monographs of the society for research in child development (pp. 7–17). Society for Research in Child Development Wiley-Blackwell.

80.

Wang

Xiong

Liu

(2020). Family unity or money? The roles of parent–child cohesion and socioeconomic status in the relationship between stressful life events and nonsuicidal self‐injury among Chinese left‐behind children. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 50(5), 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12650

81.

White

J. M.

Klein

(2007). Family theories (3rd ed). Sage.

82.

Yaffe

(2023). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology, 42(19), 16011–16024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6

83.

Zhang

Xie

Yan

Wang

Ding

Sun

(2024). Bidirectional longitudinal relationships between parents’ positive co-parenting, marital satisfaction, and parental involvement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(7), 1892–1912. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241231010

Toward a Transition Transaction Theory: Understanding the Father–Child Relationship

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Fathering and Mothering as Different Constructs from Parenting

Theorizing the Father‒Child Relationship

Methods/Data Generation About the Father–Child Relationship

Father–Child Relationship Dynamics: A Theoretical Perspective

Father–Child Relationship Dynamics: Transactions and Transitions

Dialectics in Father–Child Relationships: Transactional and Transitional Influences

Dialectical Transformation in Father–Child Relationships

Graphical Representation and Explanation of the TTT of the Father‒Child Relationship

Personal Characteristics

Environmental Characteristics

Applications, Implications, and Future Directions

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

References