Back to recent texts

Latino Father Involvement in the United States

Elizabeth Karberg, PhD, Natasha Cabrera, PhD

University of Maryland, College Park, USA

February 2016

Introduction

Latinos are the fastest growing and largest ethnic group in the United States (U.S.). According to the U.S. Census, Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2010 questionnaire  ("Mexican," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban") or of another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, including from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or the Dominican Republic. People who identify their origin as Latino may be of any race. It is not surprising, then, that Latinos are highly diverse in country of origin, nativity, socioeconomic status (SES), and immigration experience.1,2,3 As a group, Latinos are, on average, less educated and have lower incomes than their White counterparts.4 However, compared to other minority men of similar income and education, Latino fathers are more likely to be resident.5 Despite the rapid rise in nonmarital births among Latinos,6 most of these births are to parents who live together (cohabiting). That is, most Latino children live in households where fathers are accessible and share in their daily care.7 In spite of the demographic risks, Latino children also experience protective factors (two-parent households). Thus, examining the role of Latino fathers in children’s lives requires understanding both risk and resilience processes. 

Subject

There is indisputable evidence that economic and social disadvantage are linked with suboptimal developmental outcomes.8,9 However, much of this literature does not consider the variability in children’s functioning within poor and ethnic minority children. One protective factor that is key in early childhood is positive father involvement.10,11 While there are multiple influences on a young child’s development, parents, including fathers, are the most proximal and important influence on children and can directly and indirectly affect their development.12 Aspects of positive father involvement beneficial for children include warm, responsive, and sensitive interactions, literacy support, and appropriate control.13,14,15,16 In addition, research has identified culturally specific beliefs (e.g., strong family values) and practices (e.g., meal times) that promote social, behavioural and emotional regulation, and linguistic development in their children. 

The Research Context

Overall, the body of research on Latino families and children has focused on Mexican American samples, the largest Latino group in the U.S., or on Latino samples more globally without specifying country of origin. When researchers examine within group differences, findings show striking variability in cultural beliefs and values, SES, father residence and involvement, and, consequently children’s developmental outcomes.17,18 Because most of the research is not theoretically framed and has focused on low-income samples of convenience, it does not always disentangle the effects of SES from ethnicity. Thus conclusions tend to be overstated, confounding SES and ethnicity, and obscuring variability. With this caveat, most of the findings reported here are based on Latinos as a group and do not explore variability by SES or nativity status that might influence results. 

Key Research Questions, Findings, and Gaps

Studies of Latino father involvement often address the following questions19: (1) How are Latino fathers involved in their children’s lives? (2) What factors explain variability in father involvement among Latino fathers? And (3) How is Latino father involvement linked with their children’s development?

1) How are Latino fathers involved in their children’s lives?

There are several ways to answer the question. The first step is to determine the frequency of father involvement. National data show that contemporary fathers are more hands-on than they were in previous decades and, consequently, more involved in the daily care of their children.20 For example, U.S. Census Bureau3 data reveal high levels of fathers’ shared book reading of children between ages 1 and 5 years. Similarly, among Latinos, national data show that compared to White fathers, Latino fathers are more involved in physical play (e.g., peek-a-boo).21

Second, researchers often compare mothers to fathers to gauge the degree of father involvement. While mothers and fathers share similar roles, research focused on mothers and fathers does not acknowledge that there are also differences. Based on reviews of the literature, the emerging thinking is that mothers and fathers are similar in some ways, different in others, and that for some domains their contribution might be complementary.22 Both parents have been observed to engage in sensitive and stimulating interactions with their children.13 Reported differences often reflect differing levels of intensity of engagement rather than type. Fathers, including Latinos, are more likely to engage in physical play and encourage risk-taking than mothers,23,24 and use higher quality language in interactions with their children than mothers.25,26,27 These differences, however, also show that mothers and fathers make unique contributions to their children’s development, over and above the influence of the other parent. Research investigating complementary (interaction effects) is just emerging and it shows that these effects might be domain specific (e.g., father caregiving can buffer the negative effect of maternal depression on infant distress).28 

Third, researchers often compare involvement of Latino fathers to involvement of other ethnic minority or majority groups.29 When compared to White or other ethnic minority fathers, Latino mothers report that their children’s fathers are highly engaged (i.e., accessible, engaged, and responsible) with their children, spending, on average, more than one hour more with them (ages birth to 12 years) during the weekend, and engaging in more responsibility activities (i.e., care-giving, discipline, decision making).29,30,31,32 

2) What factors explain variability in father involvement among Latino fathers?

Researchers have focused on demographic characteristics to understand variability in father involvement. Men’s education and income are strong predictors of father involvement,33 although may be less important among Latino men. A study found that Mexican American fathers’ education was not associated with father involvement.34 Perhaps there was not sufficient variability to capture any influence of education on fathers. This finding could also signify that cultural expectations of what it means to be a good dad may trump education. Another demographic factor consistently linked to father involvement is father residence.35,36,37 Compared to nonresident fathers, resident fathers have more access to their children on a daily basis.

The quality of the couple relationship (e.g., romantic, co-parenting) also supports father involvement among Latinos.31 Latino fathers who report lower levels of co-parenting conflict are more engaged in caregiving and reported less negative parenting than fathers reporting higher levels of co-parenting conflict.38 A study concluded that differences in type of father engagement between Mexican American and other Latinos (e.g., Puerto Rican, Cuban) were attributed to couple relationship quality (controlling for SES and acculturation).39 This is also true for Latino mothers; the quality of the relationship with their partners is an important predictor of their own involvement.32

Research on Latino parenting has also highlighted the importance of cultural values, such as familism, defined as valuing family solidarity and family integration.40,41 On average, Latinos have been found to report higher levels of familism compared to individuals of other ethnic groups.42 A growing correlational body of work shows Mexican American fathers who hold high familism values (i.e., family rituals) report being more involved (monitoring, interacting) with their children than fathers with lower familism values.34  

Cultural beliefs about gender roles and division of labor within the family also seem to be related to positive parenting. Fathers who hold less traditional gender roles (i.e., men are not more integral to society and the family than women) are more involved in all aspects of parenting (e.g., monitoring, supervising) than fathers who hold more traditional beliefs.34 

3) How is Latino father involvement linked with their children’s development?

Research that examines specifically how Latino fathers’ involvement and investment in their children benefit children is consistent with general findings on parenting, which are mostly based on mothers. Research specifically on Latino fathers may also offer important insights into culturally specific practices that may promote children’s positive development. 

Based on investment theories, fathers’ income and education are linked to better children’s cognitive and social outcomes. These effects seem to be both direct and indirect through its influence on the quality of home experiences parents provide for their children, especially mother-child interactions.43 These findings should hold for both resident and nonresident fathers. Children who live with both biological parents have higher levels of academic achievement, get more schooling, have better behavioral outcomes, are less likely to be involved in delinquent behaviors, and are more likely to have friends.31 Although less tested, evidence shows that nonresident fathers’ resources may also operate in the same way to influence their children’s development.44 It is important to highlight that these findings have not examined whether the pathway from parents’ resources to children’s outcomes is also channeled through father-child interactions. Although evidence shows that fathers engage in age-appropriate sensitive interactions with their children, it is unclear whether this explains the association between parents’ resources and children’s outcomes.13,23,45,46,47 

In addition to fathers’ human capital, there is also evidence that cultural values and beliefs might be directly and indirectly, through increased father involvement, associated with children’s psychosocial functioning. For instance, optimism – positive expectation for the future48 – and familism may be particularly important characteristics of Latino parents that contribute to their children’s socioemotional development.49,50 A study found that Mexican American mothers’ and fathers’ own reports of optimism were directly and concurrently associated with their teen’s peer competence.51 Similarly, Latino mothers and fathers who highly believe that familism is important have children who exhibit good psychosocial functioning (social problem solving skills, social self-efficacy),41,52,53,54 have fewer depressive symptoms and are more engaged in school.55

Implications 

The growing body of research on Latino fathers suggests that, on average, they are highly involved with and responsible for their children. This relatively high level of involvement is beneficial for children’s positive social, behavioural and emotional regulation, and linguistic development. Additionally, Latino families’ cultural values about the importance of the family and a general sense of optimism are implicated in important ways in how involved fathers are with their children and, in turn, children’s wellbeing. A finding worth repeating is that more Latino fathers, unlike other minority fathers, live with their children and partners. Being resident and accessible to their children can protect them from the negative effects that economic adversity, prevalent in single parent households, can have on family functioning. Moreover, two-parent families are more able to provide support and stability than single-household families. The focus on two-parent families among Latinos also highlights the importance of the relationship quality to family functioning.  

Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that Latino children live in impoverished environments that place them at risk for poor school performance, high school dropout, and psychosocial maladjustment.56 Although Latino children tend to exhibit high social skills and live with two parents, which are strengths, their academic problems in school begin early and are largely related to living in economic disadvantage.39,57 In this context, positive Latino fathers’ involvement has the potential to protect children from the negative effects of socioeconomic disadvantage on their development, but it is not a panacea. Policies and programs should not discount the importance of an involved father, but should also consider the demographic context of Latino families in the US. Understanding the sources of resilience (involved father) and risk (poverty) in Latino children’s wellbeing will strengthen efforts to improve their lives.   

References

  1. García E, Jensen B. Early educational opportunities for children of Hispanic origins. Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child Development 2009;23:3-11. 
  2. Hernandez DJ, Denton NA, Macartney SE. Children of immigrant families: Looking to America’s future. Social Policy Report 2008;23:3-22. 
  3. U.S. Census Bureau. The Hispanic population: 2010 Census briefs. 2011. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf. 
  4. Gonzalez-Barrera A, Lopez MH. A demo graphic portrait of Mexican- origin Hispanics in the United States (Statistical profile). 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-....
  5. Hofferth SL. Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography 2006;43(1):53-77. 
  6. Ventura S. Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. (Report no. 18). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2009. 
  7. Lopez MH, Velasco G. Childhood poverty among Hispanics sets record, leads nation. Pew Hispanic Center. 2010. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from:   http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/09/28/childhood-poverty-among-hispanics-sets-re...
  8. Fouts H, Roopnarine JL, Lamb ME. Social experiences and daily routines of African American infants in different socioeconomic contexts. Journal of Family Psychology 2007;21(5):655-664.  
  9. Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, eds. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. 
  10. Paquette D. Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development 2004;47(4):193-219.  
  11. Roopnarine JL, Krishnakumar A, Metindogan A, Evans M. Links between parenting styles, parent-child academic interaction, parent-school interaction, and early academic skills and social behaviors in young children of English-speaking Caribbean immigrants. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2006;21(2):238-252. 
  12. Bornstein MH. Parenting infants. In: Bornstein MH, ed. Handbook of parenting: Children and Parenting. Vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002:3-43. 
  13. Cabrera NJ, Shannon JE, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Fathers' influence on their children's cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science 2007;11(4):208-213. 
  14. Deater-Deckard K, Atzaba-Poria N, Pike A. Mother- and father-child mutuality in Anglo and Indian British families: a link with lower externalizing problems in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2004;32(6):609-620. 
  15. Rubin KH, Coplan RJ. Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 2004;50(4);506-534. 
  16. Tamis‐LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2‐and 3‐year‐olds: contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development 2004;75(6):1806-1820. 
  17. King V, Harris KM, Heard HE. Racial and ethnic diversity in nonresident father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family 2004;66(1):1-21. 
  18. Galindo C, Fuller B. The social competence of Latino kindergartners and growth in mathematical understanding. Developmental Psychology 2010;46(3):579-592. 
  19. Cabrera NJ, Karberg E, Kuhns C. Minority Father Involvement and Their Children’s Positive Development. In: Leyendecker B, Cabrera NJ, eds. Positive Development of Minority Children. Forthcoming. 
  20. Sayer LC, Bianchi SM, Robinson JP. Trends in mothers’ and fahters’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology 2004;110(1):1-43. 
  21. Cabrera NJ, Hofferth SL, Chae S. Patterns and predictors of father-infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Child Research Quarterly 2011;26(3);365-375. 
  22. Cabrera NJ, Fitzgerald HE, Bradley RH, Roggman L. The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory and Review 2014;6(4):336-354. 
  23. Fletcher R, StGeorge J, Freeman E. Rough and tumble play quality: Theoretical foundations for a new measure of father-child interaction. Early Child Development and Care 2013;183(6):746-759. 
  24. Grossmann K, Grossmann KE, Kindler H, Zimmermann P. A wider view of attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In: Cassidy J. Shaver PR, eds. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008:857-879. 
  25. Malin JL, Karberg E, Cabrera NJ, Rowe M, Cristofaro T, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Father-toddler communication in low-income families: The role of paternal education and depressive symptoms. Family Science 2012;3(3-4):155-163. 
  26. Pancsofar N, Vernon-Feagans L. Fathers’ early contributions to children’s language development in families from low-income rural communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2010;25(4):450–463. 
  27. Rowe ML, Coker D, Pan BA. A Comparison of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Talk to Toddlers in Low‐income Families. Social Development 2004;13(2):278-291. 
  28. Cabrera N. Latino children’s school readiness: A mediational model. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA. April 2013. 
  29. Yeung WJ, Sandberg JF, Davis-Kean PE, Hofferth SL. Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family 2001;63(1):136-154. 
  30. Cabrera NJ, Aldoney D, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Latino fathers. In: Cabrera NJ, Tamis-LeMonda CS, eds. Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2013: 244-260. 
  31. Cabrera NJ, Bradley RH. Latino fathers and their children. Child Development Perspectives 2012;6(3):232-238. 
  32. Cabrera NJ, Ryan RM, Mitchell SJ, Shannon JD, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Low-income, nonresident father involvement with their toddlers: Variation by fathers’ race and ethnicity. Journal of Family Psychology 2008;22(4);643-647. 
  33. Duncan GJ, Magnuson K, Votruba-Drzal E. Boosting family income to promote child development. The future of children 2014;24(1):99-120. 
  34. Coltrane S, Parke RD, Adams M. Complexity of father involvement in low-income Mexican American families. Family Relations 2004;53(2):179-189. 
  35. Cabrera NJ, Cook GA, McFadden KE, Bradley RH. Father residence and father-child relationship quality: Peer relationships and externalizing behavioral problems. Family Science 2011;2(2):109-119. 
  36. Carlson MJ. Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family 2006;68(1):137-154. 
  37. Castillo J. Welch G, Sarver C. Fathering: The relationship between fathers’ residence, fathers’ sociodemographic characteristics, and father involvement. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2011;15(8):1342-1349. 
  38. Cabrera NJ, Shannon JD, La Taillade JJ. Predictors of co-parenting in Mexican American families direct effects on parenting and child social emotional development. Infant Mental Health Journal 2009; 30(5):523–548. 
  39. Cabrera N, Shannon J, West J, Brooks-Gunn J. Parental interactions with Latino infants: Variation by country of origin and English proficiency. Child Development 2006;77(6):1190-1207. 
  40. Cruz RA, King KM, Widaman KF, Leu J, Cauce AM, Conger RD. Cultural influences on positive father involvement in two-parent Mexican-origin families. Journal of Family Psychology 2011;25(5):731-740. 
  41. Morcillo C, Duarte CS, Shen S, Blanco C, Canino G, Bird HR. Parental familism and antisocial behaviors: Development, gender and potential mechanisms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2011;50(5):471-479. 
  42. Baer JC, Schmitz MF. Ethnic differences in trajectories of family cohesion for Mexican American and non-Hispanic White adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2007;36(4):583-592. 
  43. Guo G, Harris KM. The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on children’s intellectual development. Demography 2000;37(4):431-447. 
  44. Amato PR, Gilbreth JG. Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family 1999;61(3):557-573. 
  45. Flanders JL, Simard M, Paquette D, Parent S, Vitaro F, Pihl RO, Seguin JR. Rough-and-tumble play and the development of physical aggression and emotion regulation: A five year follow-up study. Journal of Family Violence 2010;25(4):357-367. 
  46. Hoff E. How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 2006;26(1):55-88. 
  47. Tamis‐LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2‐and 3‐year‐olds: contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development 2004;75(6):1806-1820. 
  48. Kao G, Tienda M. Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 1995;76(1):1-19. 
  49. Suárez-Orozc C, Suárez-Orozco M. Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001. 
  50. Taylor ZE, Widaman KF, Robins RW, Jochem R, Early DR, Conger RD. Dispositional optimism: A psychological resource for Mexican-origin mothers experiencing economic stress. Journal of Family Psychology 2012;26(1):133-139. 
  51. Castro-Schilo L, Taylor ZE, Ferrer E, Robins RW, Conger RD, Widaman KF. Parents’ optimism, positive parenting, and child peer social competence in Mexican-origin families. Parenting: Science and Practice 2013;13(2):95-112. 
  52. Gamble WC, Modry-Mandell KL. Family Relations and the Adjustment of Young Children of Mexican Descent: Do Cultural Values Moderate These Associations? Social Development 2008;17:358-379. 
  53. Leidy MS, Guerra NG, Toro RI. Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families. Journal of Family Psychology 2010;24(3):252-260. 
  54. Rivera F, Guarnaccia P, Mulvaney-Day N, Lin J, Torres M, Alegria M. Family cohesion and its relationship to psychological distress among Latino Groups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 2008;30(3):357-378. 
  55. Stein GL, Gonzalez LM, Cupito AM, Kiang L, Supple AJ. The protective role of familism in the lives of Latino adolescents. Journal of Family Issues 2013. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X13502480 
  56. Cabrera NJ, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Bradley RH, Hofferth S, Lamb ME. Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development 2000;71(1):127-136.
  57. Crosnoe R. Early child care and the school readiness of children from Mexican immigrant families. International Migration Review 2007;41(1):152-181

How to cite this article:

Karberg E, Cabrera N. Latino Father Involvement in the United States. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Roopnarine JL, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/father-paternity/according-experts/latino-father-involvement-united-states. Published February 2016. Accessed January 15, 2019.