Triangular Interactions of Unmarried African American Mothers and Fathers with their 3-Month-Old Infants
- 10 Downloads
We examined the responsivity of unmarried African American fathers to bids from their 3-month-old infants during the Lausanne Trilogue Play (LTP), and the responses of mothers subsequent to father-baby exchanges. Twenty mother-father-infant triads (75% noncoresidential) with parents between the ages of 14 and 53 took part in the investigation. All fathers and the majority of mothers were African American with reported incomes at least 200% below the U.S. poverty line. All participants had previously completed a prenatal intervention study examining formation of coparenting alliances across their transitions to parenthood and were observed while playing together in videotaped LTP sessions at 3-months postpartum. We microanalyzed infants’ gaze orientation toward their fathers and the sequence of parent behaviors after babies’ bids to fathers. Father responses to bids from the infant were characterized as withdrawal, nonwithdrawal but failure to adapt behavior he had been showing prior to the baby’s bid, or affective and/or behavioral adjustment in response to the baby’s bid. Maternal reactions to the father-baby exchange were coded as either reinforcing, opposing, or neutral. Analyses revealed that fathers showed substantial evidence of intuitive parenting and matching behavior, and mothers overwhelmingly supported, rather than interfered with or disrupted, baby-father exchanges. Results are discussed in contradistinction to deceptive commonplace depictions of African American families that focus largely on deficits rather than strengths, and recommendations for family research and practice are offered.
KeywordsAfrican American Coparents Infants Noncoresidential Fathers
E.E.C. designed this study, served as primary evaluator, analyzed the data, worked in partnership in the writing of the Introduction, and wrote the Method and Results sections of the report. J.P.M. planned and served as Principal Investigator for the parent Brady Education Foundation project that provided observational data for this study, assisted with the data analyses, worked in partnership in the writing of the Introduction, and wrote the Discussion section.
The project generating data for this study was funded by a Brady Education Foundation Early Childhood Grant.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of South Florida and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Amato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. In A. Booth SpringerAmpamp; A. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 241–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. Scranton, PA: HarperCollins Publishers 18512.Google Scholar
- Carlson, M. J., & Hognas, R. S. (2011). Coparenting in fragile families: Understanding how parents work together after a nonmarital birth. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems (pp. 81–104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cherlin, A. J. (2010). The marriage go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
- Cohen, R. S., & Weissman, S. H. (1984). The parenting alliance. In R. S. Cohen, B. J. Cohler & S. H. Weissman (Eds.), Parenthood: A psychodynamic perspective (pp. 33–49). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Dyer, W.J., Fagan, J., Kaufman, R., Pearson, J., & Cabrera, N. (2017), Self-perceived coparenting of nonresident fathers: Scale development and validation. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12331. [Epub ahead of print]. Advance online publication
- Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle: A developmental systems view of fathers, mothers, and infants. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Philipp, D. A. (2014). The baby and the couple: Understanding and treating young families. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Gadsden, V. L., Davis, J. E., & Johnson, C. J. (2015). African American fathers and families within cultural and historical perspective. In J. L. Roopnarine (Ed.), Fathers across cultures: The importance, roles, and diverse practices of dads (pp. 155–182). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
- Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & McCaulley, G. (2012). Gatekeeping after separation and divorce. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 369–398). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lieberson, R., Rotman, T., Hartman, O., Giampa, S., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & McHale, J.P. (2004). An analysis of early coparenting dynamics at 3 months post-partum. Poster presented at the 9th World Congress of the World Association for Infant Mental Health, Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2014). The uneven retreat from marriage in the U.S., 1950–2010. In L. P. Boustan, C. Frydman & R. A. Margo (Eds.), Human capital and history: The American record (pp. 241–272). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- McHale, J. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1996). Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- McHale, J., & Dickstein, S. (2018). The interpersonal context of early childhood development: A systemic approach to infant-family assessment. In A. Carter & R. DelCarmen Wiggins (Eds.), Oxford handbook of infant, toddler, and preschool mental health assessment, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- McHale, J., Gaskin-Butler, V., McKay, K., & Gallardo, G. (2013). Figuring it out for the child: Fostering coparenting in unmarried expectant African American parents. ZERO TO THREE Journal, 33, 17–22.Google Scholar
- McHale, J., & Phares, V. (2015). From dyads to family systems: A bold new direction for infantmental health practice. ZERO TO THREE Journal, 35, 1–8.Google Scholar
- McLanahan, S. S., & Carlson, M. J. (2002). Welfare reform, fertility, and father involvement. The Future of Children, 12, 147–165.Google Scholar
- Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J., & Minuchin, S. (2007). Working with families of the poor (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Mixon, E. (1999). Deadbeat dads: Undeserving of the Right to inherit from their illegitimate children and undeserving of equal protection. Georgia Law Review, 34, 1773.Google Scholar
- Ooms, T. (1996). Where is the family in comprehensive community initiatives for children and families? Paper presented at the Aspen Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, Aspen, CO.Google Scholar
- Papoušek, H., & Papoušek, M. (1987). Intuitive parenting: A dialectic counterpart to the infant’s integrative competence. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.). (pp. 669–720). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Stier, H., & Tienda, M. (1993). Are men marginal to the family? Insights from Chicago’s inner city. In J. C. Hood & J. C. Hood (Eds.), Men, work, and family (pp. 23–44). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Wilson, W. J., & Neckerman, K. M. (1987). Poverty and family structure: The widening gap between evidence and public policy issues. In S. H. Danziger, D. H. Weinberg, S. H. Danziger & D. H. Weinberg (Eds.), Fighting poverty: What works and what doesn’t (pp. 232–259). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar