Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Feb 16;64(1):e70013. doi: 10.1111/famp.70013

Conflict and Father Involvement: The Unique Role of Postpartum Destructiveness for Fathers' Direct Care in Toddlerhood

Samantha A Murray‐Perdue 1,✉, Stephanie Rayburn 2, Lijuan Wang 3, E Mark Cummings 3, Julia M Braungart‐Rieker 2
PMCID: PMC11830849  PMID: 39956915

ABSTRACT

Father involvement in childcare is associated with positive outcomes for children. Growing evidence supports many predictors of fathers' involvement, including maternal gatekeeping and father characteristics. The present study focuses on fathers' postpartum experiences, exploring parallel insights from environmental, interpersonal, and internal factors after having a baby to predict later involvement. We investigated how early household chaos, couple conflict, and father depressive symptoms in infancy predict later direct involvement in toddler care. The current study utilized data from 202 families participating in a parenting intervention program. We longitudinally assessed father reports of household chaos and their depressive symptoms, and employed an observational measure of conflict, at 6, 12, and 18 months postpartum to predict mother and father reports of father direct contributions to childcare at 18 months. Latent variables were created for household chaos, depressive symptoms, and destructiveness to incorporate reports 6 months apart. A structural equation model indicated father appraisals of household chaos were positively associated with depressive symptoms over time. Furthermore, couple destructiveness was negatively predictive of mothers' reports, but not fathers' reports of father direct care at 18 months after controlling for direct care behavior within 6 months postpartum. These results suggest that although father appraisals of his environment likely relate to his mental health, couple functioning played a greater role over time in direct care. We emphasize including fathers' appraisals of their experience in future research and underscore the potential impact of intervening at the couple level postpartum to support fathers' direct involvement in childcare over time.

Keywords: depression, destructive conflict, father involvement, household chaos, infancy

1. Introduction

Historically, the academic literature on parenthood has been saturated with predictors and consequences of mothering; however, as the landscape of the family system evolves, academics have begun consistently attending to the contemporary norm of present and involved fathers. In the often chaotic context of new parenthood, both mothers and fathers experience heightened strain associated with parenting an infant. Increased parenting stress and interparental conflict, coupled with an increase in parenting responsibility on limited rest, encompass only some of the hurdles of parenting a new baby (Doss et al. 2009). Mothers of infants are the primary subjects of past studies on these topics. Fathers' contributions to childcare during this stage may be outshined by mothers' traditional role as primary caregivers, the significance of breastfeeding, and greater access to maternal leave (e.g., Petts and Knoester 2018). However, as infants slowly develop independence into toddlerhood, particularly in terms of eating, talking, and walking, each parent's role in childcare is likely to change. Moreover, most studies of father involvement focus broadly on fathers' “overall” involvement or coparenting (e.g., Christopher et al. 2015), lacking a focus on fathers' part in “hands‐on” tasks. The current study utilizes a layered, bioecological lens (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006) to investigate fathers' appraisals of their environment (household chaos), relationship functioning (interpersonal chaos), and mental health (internal chaos), during their child's infancy as it predicts specifically their direct care involvement, such as feeding, bathing, and tending to children's needs, in toddlerhood as perceived by both fathers and mothers.

1.1. Father Involvement

Modern fathers are more involved in childcare and have higher expectations for direct involvement in their children's lives than in past generations. As fathers increase time with their children, their influence on their children's development becomes more salient. The quality of father involvement in caring for their children is associated with positive cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes for children (Brown et al. 2007; Sarkadi et al. 2008). Children with involved fathers are more likely to demonstrate increased cognitive capabilities, especially when fathers are directly involved in supporting their children's cognitive development through educational activities (Cano et al. 2018). Involved fathers can also provide important positive and direct interaction for infants whose mothers are depressed (Hossain et al. 1994).

A variety of factors contribute to father involvement, including maternal attitudes (Fagan and Lee 2010), paternal attitudes (Trahan 2018; McGill 2014), paternal mental health (Roggman et al. 2002), and internal characteristics (Abraham and Feldman 2018). According to the bioecological model, the influences between individuals and their social and physical environments are likely bidirectional; personal thoughts and feelings interact with interpersonal processes, and an individual's environmental experiences are concomitant with their interpersonal and internal experiences (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). Extant research suggests that father involvement (an individual‐behavioral experience) is susceptible to interpersonal interactions with the infant (e.g., Brown et al. 2012) and co‐parent (e.g., Christopher et al. 2015). Thus, fathers' experience of their household, interpersonal, and internal context likely collaboratively relates to their behavior. In the context of early parenthood, each of these factors is often in a state of “chaos” or relative disorder (Doss et al. 2009); however, consideration of how these layered challenges predict fathers' behavioral contributions to childcare over time is less well‐understood.

1.2. Father Appraisals of the Environment: Household Chaos

Families across cultures and contexts navigate a range of household chaos, broadly defined as the experience of daily life in the home marked by family disorganization, structure, routines, and/or predictability (Marsh et al. 2020). After controlling for sociodemographic variables, the negative effects of high levels of household chaos on child outcomes are consistent (e.g., for a review of the impact of household chaos on executive function, see Andrews et al. 2021). Household chaos commonly serves as a mediator between other family system factors and children's outcomes. For example, Hur et al. (2015) highlight a significant mediating effect of household chaos between parent depression and 4‐ to 5‐year‐old children's social skills, such that parents who were more depressed tended to report managing a more chaotic household and observing less adaptive socioemotional development in their children. This evidence supports an association between household chaos and depressive symptoms; however, given these results were determined primarily by mothers (less than 9% were fathers), additional consideration is needed to understand how these factors collectively impact the experience of men in early fatherhood and to identify clear targets of intervention.

Researchers repeatedly find that household chaos is a risk factor for child well‐being; however, far fewer studies have considered its effect on parent mental health and behavior. Yalcintas et al. (2021) offer preliminary insight into the nature of this relation, finding that higher levels of household chaos predict increased depression, anxiety, and stress for mothers of twins. These results also supported existing, basic correlational analyses between maternal mental health and household chaos (Pike et al. 2006). Other researchers have sporadically identified associations between household chaos and maternal executive functioning, fatigue, and sleep quality (Marsh et al. 2020), but strikingly few of these studies include evidence related to the association between household chaos and father experiences and equally few consider father appraisals of chaos. As existing evidence supports the unique impact of fathers' mental health on involvement in childcare (e.g., Yogman et al. 2016), the investigation of household chaos, which is already recognized as a critical stressor for mothers, may reveal a key environmental target for supporting both coparents of infants and toddlers.

1.3. Interparental Conflict Behavior: Interpersonal Chaos

Particularly in the context of infancy parenting, in which parents undergo a significant life transition, decreases in marital quality and increases in conflict are not uncommon (Doss and Rhoades 2017; Twenge et al. 2003). Interestingly, published studies on this topic often lack a connection between the couple's coping with new environmental chaos during this life transition and their conflict communication practices. In other words, is a chaotic household context related to chaotic and/or ineffective communication? The current study evaluates couples' conflict communication in terms of destructiveness: communication strategies during a conflict discussion that are typically more negative and obstruct progress toward problem resolution, such as defensiveness, insults, stonewalling, and withdrawal Cummings et al. (2008).

Interparental relationship quality often predicts fathers' behavior. For example, Volling and Belsky (1991) highlight how more marital conflict and worse marital relations are predictive of more negative and intrusive fathering in infancy. In addition, the fathering vulnerability hypothesis posits that fathers' parenting behavior may be more susceptible to spillover from poor relationship quality with their partners (Cummings et al. 2010; Hoegler et al. 2024). Existing research further suggests the interparental relationship impacts fathers' appraisals of their relationship with their child and their child's development. Poor relationship quality and maternal criticism of the father have specifically been found to predict fathers' reduced feelings of attachment toward their infants (Wynter et al. 2009), whereas spousal disharmony may mediate the association between fathers' depressive symptoms and fathers' negative perceptions of their infants (Skjothaug et al. 2018).

Furthermore, the interparental relationship is predictive of father involvement, such that better relationship quality predicts fathers' greater involvement in childcare when the child is 5 years old; family distress, in contrast, impedes active fatherhood (Yoo et al. 2013). The current study furthers this existing evidence by assessing nuanced effects of relationship functioning, in terms of destructiveness, with consideration of the household environmental context during infancy on fathers' direct involvement in caring for their toddler.

1.4. Father Mental Health and Depression: Internal Chaos

Despite the relatively short history of father involvement in parenting research, father mental health has become a well‐established predictor of child well‐being. Researchers have often highlighted the impact of fathers' depression on their parenting quality (e.g., Wilson and Durbin 2010) and their relationship with their child (see Kane and Garber 2004 for a review). Knowledge of risk and protective factors of father mental health as it relates to fathers' role in their direct care of their children, however, is scarce. Yogman et al. (2016) offer some important evidence of the effect of father mental health on later involvement, but with limited consideration of household and relationship contexts. Elsewhere, de Montigny and colleagues (2013) found that father perceptions of parenting stress, infant temperament, and couple relationship quality have been identified as predictors of father depression. These results collectively reveal a potential context‐ and relationship‐based narrative of father socioemotional health, specifically in terms of depression, and perhaps offer a broader insight into fathers' involvement over time.

1.5. The Current Study

Context plays an important role in the human experience. When parenting, coping with chaos is of particular importance for supporting children's adaptive development (e.g., Hur et al. 2015). Existing research supports the significance of the associations between environmental, interpersonal, and internal chaos with parents' capacity for high‐quality parenting; however, less is known regarding how these factors cooperate with fathers' experiences and behavior when parenting during infancy into toddlerhood. Specifically, the current study focuses on father appraisals of his household environment postpartum alongside a socioemotional context: their mental health and relationship functioning over the first year after birth. We expected fathers' appraisals of household chaos would positively relate to his depressive symptoms (conceptualized here as “internal chaos”) and destructiveness in the couple relationship (interpersonal chaos). Finally, we investigate how these socioemotional factors during infancy each predict fathers' direct contributions to childcare in toddlerhood. We expected that each of these experiential factors (environmental, interpersonal, and internal chaos) would have a unique, simultaneous association with fathers' direct care in toddlerhood.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants included 202 mother–father–infant triads from a larger intervention study (Murray‐Perdue et al. 2024). Data collection was interrupted due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, at which point some participants completed the study virtually. To prevent the confounding effects of virtual participation during the study, particularly for the observational assessments (destructive conflict), the subset of participants included in these analyses completed the study fully in person. Most of the data used for the current analyses was collected before March 13th, 2020; however, we chose to also include the 9 families who participated fully in person following the full retraction of stay‐at‐home orders in the state where the study occurred (July, 2021). Mean‐level comparisons of study variables between families who participated before and after the pandemic revealed limited differences.

Families with infants between 5 and 7 months old were recruited from two Midwestern cities of similar demographic makeup using physical flyers, word of mouth, community events, and social media posts. Families were excluded if the infant was not born full‐term or had developmental delays or if the parents were not living together. A majority of study parents were married (87%), and approximately half were parenting for the first time. Fifty‐one percent of infants were male.

The sample was primarily White, 27% of participating children represented other races and ethnicities. Specifically, 14% were multiracial, 10% percent were multiracial Hispanic, 2% were Black, 1% were White Hispanic, and less than 1% were Asian. Furthermore, the sample was largely well‐educated, with 61% having at least a bachelor's degree (23% also had a graduate or professional degree). The mean household income range was between $50,000 and $60,000.

2.2. Procedures

The study included independently administered surveys, home visits, and lab visits. Parents filled out surveys shortly before attending each lab visit, which were scheduled for when the child was approximately 6, 12, 16, and 18 months old. The current study uses data from all but the 16‐month timepoint to retain consistent time intervals. The intervention was a combination of two psychoeducational programs focused on parenting sensitivity and communication and occurred in family homes between the 6‐ and 12‐month lab visits (pre and posttests). Families were compensated up to $230 for their participation. Because intervention effects are not the focus of this study, the randomized intervention groups were covaried out of analyses.

Filling out the survey before each lab visit, mothers and fathers each reported on a variety of demographic factors, as well as their experience of household chaos and the fathers' involvement in childcare. At each of the lab visits, after giving informed consent, parents participated in a video‐recorded Problem Solving Task (PST; adapted from Du Rocher Schudlich and Cummings 2003). For this task, couples were guided to a private room and asked to each write down three topics about which they often disagree. Then, they were asked to choose two conflict topics from their combined list to discuss over two 7‐min periods, one with and one without the infant, and attempt to reach a resolution for each topic. Videos of these private conversations were later analyzed by trained coders. Analyses for this study focus on data from the conversation without the infant in the room to reduce noise associated with child‐related distractions from the task.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Father Involvement: Direct Care

Fathers' direct involvement in childcare was evaluated using the direct care subscale of the child care activities scale (CCAS; Cronenwett et al. 1988). Items from this subscale allowed us to evaluate reports of each parent's proportional contribution to childcare (0% to 100%) from both parent's perspectives, with a focus on care activities that involve the fathers' direct contact with the child such as feeding or bathing (as opposed to indirect care activities, such as shopping for the child). Cronbach's alpha was 0.75 for mother reports of father involvement and 0.76 for the father reports of his own involvement. Higher scores indicate a greater contribution of fathers to direct childcare.

2.3.2. Father Appraisals of Household Chaos

Household Chaos was measured using the Confusion, Hubbub, and Organization Scale (CHAOS; Matheny et al. 1995). The scale included 15 items, each scored from 1 to 4, which described the participant's household, such as “there is very little commotion in our home” or “you can't hear yourself think in our home.” Fathers indicated whether each statement was very much like [their] own home (1), somewhat like [their] own home (2), a little bit like [their] own home (3), and not at all like [their] own home (4). Higher scores indicate more household chaos. The CHAOS measure is internally consistent and valid (Dumas et al. 2005), and alphas for the present sample were 0.83.

2.3.3. Observed Conflict Measure: Couple's Destructiveness

The current study uses data from the couple's conflict behavior as observed during the PST when the infant was 6, 12, and 18 months old using an observational coding system adapted from Cummings and Davies (2010) and further developed by Murray‐Perdue et al. (2024). The present study focused on parents' observable destructive conflict behaviors palpable in the PST. Interrater reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlations; 20% of the videos were double‐coded to establish interrater reliability (intraclass correlations ranged from 0.84 to 0.88).

Couple destructiveness was determined based on the presence of individual‐specific destructive behaviors leading to couple dyssynchronous communication. In other words, destructiveness at the individual level obstructed the couple's progress toward resolution. Examples of specific behaviors include defensiveness, condescension, blaming, and withdrawal. Couples are given a destructiveness score between 1 and 5, with 1 (low destructiveness) indicating no destructive behaviors were used during the conflict discussion and 5 (high destructiveness) indicating “the conversation progress is highly obstructed because of the behaviors and [lack of] synchrony of the couple.” Synchrony is defined as the constructive back‐and‐forth, collaborative dynamic of the conversation that allows for the conversation to progress toward resolution.

2.3.4. Father Depressive Symptoms

Symptoms of depression among fathers were evaluated using the general depression subscale of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS; Watson et al. 2007). Fathers responded to each of 19 items indicating to what degree they have experienced symptoms in the past 2 weeks on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Examples of depressive symptoms include “I had little interest in my usual hobbies or activities” and “I felt inadequate.” Higher scores indicate greater depressive symptomology. The subscale has strong internal consistency in this sample, with Cronbach's alpha of 0.90.

2.3.5. Covariates

At each stage of the model, we included several covariates. As noted, we covaried participants' exposure to the intervention (1 = intervention group, 0 = control group) to account for the impact of the intervention on parents' experiences because this study is not focused on intervention effects. We also accounted for child gender, as previous research suggests child gender may be related to father involvement in certain contexts (e.g., Lundberg et al. 2007). In addition, given the extensive literature on the impact of first‐time parenthood on parent well‐being for both mothers and fathers, we controlled for the potential influence of parity (0 = No other children; 1 = At least one other child).

To account for the potential systemic influences of socioeconomic status on the primary study variables, household income and each parent's level of education (1 = bachelor's degree or more education, 0 = less than bachelor's degree) were also included. These indicators of socioeconomic status have been associated with relationship and family system functioning in previous studies, such that those with more disadvantages might be at greater risk of maladaptive socioemotional outcomes (Cherlin 2010; Isen and Stevenson 2010; Murray‐Perdue et al. 2024). Lastly, to draw longitudinal conclusions about the predictive effects of the primary study variables (household chaos, couple destructiveness, and father depressive symptoms) for father involvement at 18 months, we controlled for each parent's report of father involvement at 6 months to account for earlier levels of this behavior.

2.3.6. Data Analysis

Data were evaluated for missingness and normality. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to handle all missing data. The average missingness rate across all study variables was 16%; the variable with the most missingness was couple destructiveness at 18 months, with 48% missing (notably, this variable is used only as a covariate in these analyses). This increase in missingness was due to study attrition over time (especially as a result of COVID‐19) and technical errors in video recordings. Furthermore, destructiveness at each time point was positively skewed (skewness at 6 months: 1.70; 12 months: 1.51; 18 months: 1.57); therefore, each variable was log‐transformed (Tukey 1977). After transformation, these variables were less but still slightly skewed (skewness at 6 months: 1.14; 12 months: 1.13; 18 months: 1.01); however, the use of maximum likelihood estimation addresses this nonnormality by approximating normal distributions (Little and Rubin 2019).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to evaluate the predictive effects of fathers' postpartum appraisals of their environment, relationships, and mental health on their direct involvement in later childcare. Standardized regression coefficients (i.e., b) were used to indicate effect size, with values of 0.14 being considered small, 0.26 small medium, 0.39 medium, and 0.59 large (Fritz and MacKinnon 2007).

Using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017), we created three‐factor latent variables for the predictors, incorporating fathers' reports of household chaos and postpartum depressive symptoms and observations of the couples' destructiveness at 6, 12, and 18 months. These variables were all notably consistent over time (i.e., reports were highly correlated, and paired‐sample t‐tests revealed no significant differences between reports/observations from 6 months to 12 months and 12 to 18 months at the group level). Thus, factor loadings were constrained to be equal for each of the independent latent variables for this study (a “no‐change” model approach). Although reports from mothers and fathers on father direct care were strongly correlated, we focused on analyses and results with mother and father reports of father involvement as separate, manifest variables to ensure we captured the unique associations between the primary study variables and mother and father reports of father direct care. The present study was approved by and compliant with the University of Notre Dame Institutional Review Board. Data for this study are not available to the broader public. The study's design and analyses were preregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

3. Results

Initial tests of the associations between covariates and the primary study variables revealed potentially notable relations. Household income had a small but significant correlation with destructiveness at 6 months (r = −0.16, p = 0.04), such that a higher household income displayed lower levels of destructiveness at 6 months postpartum. Higher household income was also significantly, positively associated with mothers' reports of fathers' direct care at 6 months (r = 0.15, p = 0.03).

T‐tests of group‐level differences for binary covariates offer additional insight. Across time points, fathers who had at least two children reported higher levels of household chaos compared to first‐time fathers (6 months: t(190) = −6.12, p < 0.001; 12 months: t(148) = −6.02, p < 0.001; 18 months: t(124) = −5.39, p < 0.001). When mothers or fathers had at least a Bachelor's degree, couples displayed significantly less destructiveness at 6 months (Mothers: t(108) = 3.34, p < 0.001; Fathers: t(147) = 3.48, p < 0.001) and 12 months (Mothers: t(73) = 2.27, p = 0.01; Fathers: t(79) = 3.27, p < 0.001) postpartum, compared to mothers or fathers without a Bachelor's degree; at 18 months, only fathers education remained significant (t(67) = 2.10, p = 0.02).

Correlations among primary study variables and descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1. Longitudinal reports of study constructs were moderately to highly correlated over time. As expected, mother and father reports of father involvement were significantly, largely correlated (r = 0.81, p < 0.001). Father appraisals of household chaos at 6 months postpartum were positively correlated with couple destructiveness at the same time‐point (r = 0.15, p = 0.04), but were not significantly correlated with later destructiveness. Furthermore, household chaos was consistently, positively correlated with father depressive symptoms over time (6‐, 12‐, and 18‐ months postpartum) with moderate effect sizes (effect sizes between 0.25 and 0.31, p < 0.001). Couple destructiveness at 6 months was significantly, negatively associated with mother reports of father involvement at 18 months with a moderate effect (r = −0.23, p < 0.001). Mother and father reports of father involvement in direct childcare were further tested for mean differences using a paired samples t‐test. Although these reports were highly correlated, fathers reported, on average, significantly higher contributions to direct care than mothers indicated in their reports of father involvement (t(121) = −4.85, p < 0.001).

TABLE 1.

Correlations and descriptive statistics of primary study variables.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Father direct care

  1. Mother report (6months)

 1
  • 2

    Father report (6months)

 0.80*** 1
  • 3

    Mother report (18months)

 0.61*** 0.52*** 1
  • 4

    Father report (18months)

 0.57*** 0.58*** 0.81*** 1
Household chaos
  • 5

    6 months

 −0.21** −14T −0.15 −08T 1
  • 6

    12 months

 −0.30*** −0.19b −0.05 0.00 0.69*** 1
  • 7

    18 months

 −0.24** −0.17 −0.03 −0.04 0.66*** 0.75*** 1
Destructiveness
  • 8

    6 months

 −0.12 −0.06 −0.23** −0.14 0.15* 0.07 0.04 1
  • 9

    12 months

 −0.10 −0.04 −0.15 −0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.38*** 1
  • 10

    18 months

 0.04 0.05 −0.02 0.00 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.52*** 0.36*** 1
Depressive symptoms
  • 11

    6 months

 −0.23** −12T −0.02 0.06 0.30*** 0.38*** 0.27** 0.09 0.04 0.06 1
  • 12

    12 months

 −0.12 −0.05 −0.02 0.05 0.28*** 0.38*** 0.28** 0.12 −0.01 0.10 0.62*** 1
  • 13

    18 months

 −0.05 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.25*** 0.27*** 0.31** 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.50*** 0.57*** 1
N 199 200 137 128 193 150 126 191 137 105 197 155 130
M 21.70 25.00 29.71 33.50 29.50 30.57 31.10 0.34 0.34 0.35 35.93 35.68 35.82
SD 14.88 15.15 16.43 17.34 6.87 6.55 7.58 0.52 0.54 0.53 9.41 8.32 9.54
Open in a new tab

Note: T 0.05 < p < 0.1, *0.01 < p < 0.05, **0.001 < p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

3.1. Longitudinal Model Results

Before testing the proposed structural model, we evaluated the validity of our measurement model with the three latent predictors (father perceptions of household chaos, couple destructiveness, and father depressive symptoms), each with three time‐point manifest factors (6 months, 12 months, and 18 months postpartum). The measurement model was well‐fit to the data: RMSEA = 0.00 (CI = [0.00, 0.04]); CFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.05; chi‐squared: (χ 2(36) = 32.30, p = 0.65). Once we added in the covariates and outcome variables, the structural model was also a strong fit. The hypothesized model had an RMSEA estimate of 0.02 (CI = [0.00, 0.05]), CFI of 0.99, SRMR of 0.04, and a nonsignificant chi‐squared (χ 2(118) = 134.66, p = 0.14). Results of the proposed model predicting father direct involvement in toddler care from household, interpersonal, and internal chaos are illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Structural equation model of environmental, interpersonal, and internal factors predicting father involvement in toddler care. The double‐headed arrows indicate a significant correlational association, including the correlation between mother and father reports of father involvement. We allowed all predictors to correlate, but only household chaos and depressive symptoms were significantly related. *0.01 < p < 0.05. **0.001 < p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Father appraisals of household chaos significantly, positively related to his postpartum depressive symptoms with a medium effect (β = 0.50). Neither postpartum chaos nor depressive symptoms for fathers were associated with couple behavioral destructiveness. Accounting for father postpartum reports of household chaos and depressive symptoms, couple destructiveness was significantly, negatively predictive of father direct involvement at 18 months when reported by mothers (β = −1.13). These results remained significant after controlling for the listed covariates and 6‐month reports of father direct care.

3.2. Notable Covariates

Although covariates had primarily nonsignificant effects in this model (demographic covariates had no significant effects on the primary outcomes), a few notable associations were revealed. Six‐month reports of direct care were significantly and positively correlated with 18‐month reports. Moreover, couples who reported having at least a bachelor's degree displayed less destructiveness in the problem‐solving task (β = −0.36 for mothers, β = −0.42 for fathers, p < 0.001). Lastly, parity significantly predicted father reports of household chaos, such that fathers with at least one additional child were more likely to report higher levels of household chaos (β = 0.52, p < 0.001). Otherwise, covariates did not significantly impact model results. All regression paths for the structural model can be seen in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Standardized estimates of regression paths predicting mother and father reports of father direct care at 18 months postpartum.

Father report Mother report
β SE p β SE p
Latent predictors
Household chaos 0.077 0.130 0.556 0.011 0.128 0.934
Couple destructiveness −0.046 0.102 0.653 −0.213 0.092 0.021
Depressive symptoms 0.033 0.113 0.768 0.034 0.106 0.746
Covariates
FR of direct care (6 months) 0.535 0.063 0.000 — — —
MR of direct care (6 months) — — — 0.551 0.065 0.000
Child gender −0.067 0.074 0.359 −0.098 0.070 0.159
Income 0.095 0.080 0.236 −0.036 0.078 0.647
Intervention group −0.011 0.070 0.877 −0.042 0.066 0.522
Father education −0.103 0.062 0.098 — — —
Mother education — — — 0.038 0.062 0.544
Parity −0.035 0.102 0.732 0.092 0.097 0.341
Open in a new tab

Note: The bold font was used to highlight significant values (p < 0.05).

Abbreviations: FR, father report; MR, mother report.

4. Discussion

Applying a bioecological lens (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006), we investigated the relations between father experiences of environmental/household, interpersonal, and internal chaos and father direct involvement in toddler care. We expected that father appraisals of these socioemotional factors postpartum would predict father involvement, such that greater household chaos, more destructiveness in the couple dynamic, and more depressive symptoms would each lead to less involvement, as reported by mothers and fathers. Our hypotheses were only partially supported by the results.

Postpartum father appraisals of chaos in the home environment are consistently related to paternal mental health over the first 18 months postpartum, wherein when fathers perceived greater household chaos, they also reported more depressive symptoms. These results are not surprising, given past evidence of a similar association between household chaos and mothers' mental health (e.g., Madigan et al. 2017) and studies describing households with older children during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Zhang 2022). Results from this study add nuance to the literature by focusing on how father appraisals of the home environment may contribute to his mental health in early parenthood. Although father appraisals of household chaos and depressive symptoms were significantly related over time, they unexpectedly did not predict fathers' direct care. Perhaps some factors moderate or buffer the degree to which household chaos or mental health affects fathers' care of children, such as perceived relationship quality or partner support (e.g., Paulson et al. 2011). Moreover, future studies are needed to determine the directionality and causal linkages between household chaos and mental health for fathers, as further exploration of this process may reveal mechanisms for their influence on other experiences or behaviors.

Couple destructive conflict behavior postpartum while not necessarily related to environmental or internal chaos, did predict fathers' direct involvement in childcare at 18 months, as reported by mothers but not fathers. These results uniquely reveal the longitudinal association of the postpartum couple dynamic with fathers' contributions to direct care as infants become toddlers. Although past studies have identified trajectories of postpartum couple conflict and relationship satisfaction as important for father involvement in coparenting among parents with older children (24 months; Christopher et al. 2015), the current study adds several critical factors. Firstly, the longitudinal component of these analyses (controlling for earlier involvement behavior) suggests that change in fathers' involvement from the postpartum period to toddlerhood is related to objective assessments of postpartum relationship dynamics. Secondly, this study specifies the predictive effect of a destructive dynamic on fathers' interaction directly with their children. A focus on direct father‐child interaction is key in contextualizing results with a family systems perspective. For example, criticism from mothers (a destructive conflict behavior) is associated with reduced father‐reported attachment to the infant (Wynter et al. 2009).

The difference in the predictive value of couples' destructiveness for mother reports compared to father reports is interesting. With these analyses, we cannot determine whether our results are consistent with fathers' true behavior or simply represent each partner's (differing) perspective. As noted, although mothers and fathers reported similar rates of father involvement, fathers in this sample did report significantly higher rates of involvement than mothers (consistent with Mikelson 2008). Notably, conflict behavior is strongly associated with relationship quality (e.g., Kluwer and Johnson 2007). Mothers who are experiencing high destructiveness and low relationship quality may underreport fathers' contributions to childcare (Coley and Morris 2002; Mikelson 2008). Future studies might explore whether mothers' perception of fathers' contributions to childcare is a driver of relationship quality or a consequence of it, leading mothers to view their partners “in red.”

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

The longitudinal design of this study allows for assessing developmental change in postpartum fathers over time. The use of an observational conflict measure also allows for dyadic interpersonal factors to be assessed beyond what self‐report would allow. Using a self‐report household chaos measure also allows us to specifically evaluate father appraisals of the home environment. Whether actual household chaos would have the same association with father functioning is unclear; rather, we argue that perceptions of household chaos may contribute more to understanding postpartum depression than an objective measure would.

Our understanding of the relations between postpartum conflict behavior and father involvement is limited using self‐report and mother‐report Likert scale measures. As noted, we cannot ensure whether reported involvement is fully reflective of actual involvement by fathers or only a change in mothers' perceptions of father involvement; however, incorporating perspectives from both parents is a strength and adds to the validity of the results. This study also does not assess how the quality of father direct care is related to fathers' postpartum experience. Furthermore, the generalizability of the current study is limited by sample demographics. Future studies should investigate whether these results would hold with a more diverse sample, such as among racially minoritized groups as well as more financially disadvantaged families.

5. Conclusion

Environmental, interpersonal, and internal chaos each have a unique role in the experience of fatherhood. The current study emphasizes the importance of considering father appraisals of the family context when predicting his involvement in childcare. Specifically, we demonstrate the significance of the association between paternal appraisals of household chaos and mental health while parenting an infant. Most importantly, after considering father perception of the household environment and mental health, the couple dynamic during postpartum parenthood had a persistent predictive effect. Thus, we underscore the value of intervening at the couple level within the first year of having a baby to facilitate more constructive (less destructive) conflict behavior for coparenting and prevention scientists. This programming focus may have critical implications for supporting fathers in the direct care of their infants and toddlers and improving mothers' perception of parenting support from fathers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: This research was funded by National Institutes of Health–Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: R01HD087319.

References

  1. Abraham, E. , and Feldman R.. 2018. “The Neurobiology of Human Allomaternal Care; Implications for Fathering, Coparenting, and Children's Social Development.” Physiology & Behavior 193: 25–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews, K. , Atkinson L., Harris M., and Gonzalez A.. 2021. “Examining the Effects of Household Chaos on Child Executive Functions: A Meta‐Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 147, no. 1: 16–32. 10.1037/bul0000311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. , and Morris P. A.. 2006. “The Bioecological Model of Human Development.” In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited by Lerner R. M. and Damon W., 793–828. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, G. L. , Mangelsdorf S. C., and Neff C.. 2012. “Father Involvement, Paternal Sensitivity, and Father−Child Attachment Security in the First 3 Years.” Journal of Family Psychology 26, no. 3: 421–430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, G. L. , McBride B. A., Shin N., and Bost K. K.. 2007. “Parenting Predictors of Father‐Child Attachment Security: Interactive Effects of Father Involvement and Fathering Quality.” Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers 5, no. 3: 197–219. 10.3149/fth.0503.197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cano, T. , Perales F., and Baxter J.. 2018. “A Matter of Time: Father Involvement and Child Cognitive Outcomes.” Journal of Marriage and Family 81, no. 1: 164–189. 10.1111/jomf.12532. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cherlin, A. J. 2010. “Demographic Trends in the United States: A Review of Research in the 2000s.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72, no. 3: 403–419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Christopher, C. , Umemura T., Mann T., Jacobvitz D., and Hazen N.. 2015. “Marital Quality Over the Transition to Parenthood as a Predictor of Coparenting.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24, no. 12: 3636–3651. 10.1007/s10826-015-0172-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coley, R. L. , and Morris J. E.. 2002. “Comparing Father and Mother Reports of Father Involvement Among Low‐Income Minority Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, no. 4: 982–997. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cronenwett, L. R. , Sampselle C. M., and Wilson W. R.. 1988. “The Child Care Activities Scale and Parental Role Preference Scale.” Research in Nursing & Health 11, no. 5: 301–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cummings, E. M. , and Davies P. T.. 2010. Marital Conflict and Children: An Emotional Security Perspective. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cummings, E. M. , Merrilees C. E., George M. W., and Lamb M. E.. 2010. The Role of the Father in Child Development, 154–176. John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cummings, E. M. , Faircloth W. B., Mitchell P. M., Cummings J. S., and Schermerhorn A. C.. 2008. “Evaluating a Brief Prevention Program for Improving Marital Conflict in Community Families.” Journal of Family Psychology 22, no. 2: 193–202. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Doss, B. D. , and Rhoades G. K.. 2017. “The Transition to Parenthood: Impact on Couples' Romantic Relationships.” Current Opinion in Psychology 13: 25–28. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Doss, B. D. , Rhoades G. K., Stanley S. M., and Markman H. J.. 2009. “The Effect of the Transition to Parenthood on Relationship Quality: An 8‐Year Prospective Study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 3: 601–619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D. , and Cummings E. M.. 2003. “Parental Dysphoria and children's Internalizing Symptoms: Marital Conflict Styles as Mediators of Risk.” Child Development 74: 1663–1681. 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00630.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dumas, J. E. , Nissley J., Nordstrom A., Smith E. P., Prinz R. J., and Levine D. W.. 2005. “Home Chaos: Sociodemographic, Parenting, Interactional, and Child Correlates.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 34, no. 1: 93–104. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fagan, J. , and Lee Y.. 2010. “Perceptions and Satisfaction With Father Involvement and Adolescent Mothers' Postpartum Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39: 1109–1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fritz, M. S. , and MacKinnon D. P.. 2007. “Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect.” Psychological Science 18, no. 3: 233–239. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoegler, S. , Vetterly S., and Cummings E. M.. 2024. “Evaluation of a Couple‐and Family‐Based Intervention: Implications for the Fathering Vulnerability Hypothesis.” Parenting 24, no. 1: 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hossain, Z. , Field T., Gonzalez J., Malphurs J., and del Vaulle C.. 1994. “Infants of “Depressed” Mothers Interact Better With Their Nondepressed Fathers.” Infant Mental Health Journal 15, no. 4: 348–457. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hur, E. , Buettner C. K., and Jeon L.. 2015. “Parental Depressive Symptoms and Children's School‐Readiness: The Indirect Effect of Household Chaos.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24: 3462–3473. [Google Scholar]
  23. Isen, A. , and Stevenson B.. 2010. Women's Education and Family Behavior. CESifo. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kane, P. , and Garber J.. 2004. “The Relations Among Depression in Fathers, children's Psychopathology, and Father–Child Conflict: A Meta‐Analysis.” Clinical Psychology Review 24, no. 3: 339–360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kluwer, E. S. , and Johnson M. D.. 2007. “Conflict Frequency and Relationship Quality Across the Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69, no. 5: 1089–1106. [Google Scholar]
  26. Little, R. J. , and Rubin D. B.. 2019. Statistical Analysis With Missing Data. Vol. 793. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lundberg, S. , McLanahan S., and Rose E.. 2007. “Child Gender and Father Involvement in Fragile Families.” Demography 44, no. 1: 79–92. 10.1353/dem.2007.0007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Madigan, S. , Wade M., Plamondon A., and Jenkins J. M.. 2017. “Trajectories of Maternal Depressive Symptoms in the Early Childhood Period and Family‐Wide Clustering of Risk.” Journal of Affective Disorders 215: 49–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Marsh, S. , Dobson R., and Maddison R.. 2020. “The Relationship Between Household Chaos and Child, Parent, and Family Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review.” BMC Public Health 20: 1–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Matheny, A. P. , Wachs T. D., Ludwig J. L., and Phillips K.. 1995. “Bringing Order Out of Chaos: Psychometric Characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 16, no. 3: 429–444. 10.1016/0193-3973(95)90028-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McGill, B. S. 2014. “Navigating New Norms of Involved Fatherhood: Employment, Fathering Attitudes, and Father Involvement.” Journal of Family Issues 35, no. 8: 1089–1106. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikelson, K. S. 2008. “He Said, She Said: Comparing Mother and Father Reports of Father Involvement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70, no. 3: 613–624. [Google Scholar]
  33. Murray‐Perdue, S. A. , Nowak A. L., O'Neill M. J., Wang L., Cummings E. M., and Braungart‐Rieker J. M.. 2024. “Postpartum Romantic Attachment and Constructiveness: The Protective Effects of a Conflict Communication Intervention for Parents' Relationship Functioning Over One Year.” Developmental Science 27, no. 3: e13470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Muthén, L. K. , and Muthén B. O.. 1998. –2017. Mplus User's Guide. 7th ed. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  35. Paulson, J. F. , Dauber S. E., and Leiferman J. A.. 2011. “Parental Depression, Relationship Quality, and Nonresident Father Involvement With Their Infants.” Journal of Family Issues 32, no. 4: 528–549. [Google Scholar]
  36. Petts, R. J. , and Knoester C.. 2018. “Paternity Leave‐Taking and Father Engagement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 80, no. 5: 1144–1162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pike, A. , Iervolino A. C., Eley T. C., Price T. S., and Plomin R.. 2006. “Environmental Risk and Young Children's Cognitive and Behavioral Development.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 30, no. 1: 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  38. Roggman, L. A. , Boyce L. K., Cook G. A., and Cook J.. 2002. “Getting Dads Involved: Predictors of Father Involvement in Early Head Start and With Their Children.” Infant Mental Health Journal 23, no. 1–2: 62–78. 10.1002/imhj.10004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sarkadi, A. , Kristiansson R., Oberklaid F., and Bremberg S.. 2008. “Fathers' Involvement and Children's Developmental Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.” Acta Paediatrica 97, no. 2: 153–158. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Skjothaug, T. , Smith L., Wentzel‐larsen T., and Moe V.. 2018. “Does fathers' Prenatal Mental Health Bear a Relationship to Parenting Stress at 6 Months?” Infant Mental Health Journal 39, no. 5: 537–551. 10.1002/imhj.21739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Trahan, M. H. 2018. “Paternal Self‐Efficacy and Father Involvement: A Bi‐Directional Relationship.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity 19, no. 4: 624–634. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tukey, J. W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading/Addison‐Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  43. Twenge, J. M. , Campbell W. K., and Foster C. A.. 2003. “Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, no. 3: 574–583. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Volling, B. L. , and Belsky J.. 1991. “Multiple Determinants of Father Involvement During Infancy in Dual‐Earner and Single‐Earner Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, no. 2: 461–474. 10.2307/352912. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Watson, D. , O'Hara M. W., Simms L. J., et al. 2007. “Development and Validation of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS).” Psychological Assessment 19, no. 3: 253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilson, S. , and Durbin C. E.. 2010. “Effects of Paternal Depression on Fathers' Parenting Behaviors: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 30, no. 2: 167–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wynter, K. , Rowe H., Tran T., and Fisher J.. 2009. “Factors Associated With Father‐To‐Infant Attachment at 6 Months Postpartum: A Community‐Based Study in Victoria, Australia.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 34, no. 2: 185–195. 10.1080/02646838.2015.1136051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yalcintas, S. , Pike A., and Oliver B. R.. 2021. “Household Chaos and Child Behavior Problems Predict Maternal Well‐Being.” Psychiatric Quarterly 92, no. 4: 1817–1824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yogman, M. W. , Garfield C. F., and AAP the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child, Family Health . 2016. “Fathers' Roles in the Care and Development of Their Children: The Role of Pediatricians.” Pediatrics 138, no. 1: e20161128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yoo, Y. S. , Adamsons K. L., Robinson J. L., and Sabatelli R. M.. 2013. “Longitudinal Influence of Paternal Distress on Children's Representations of Fathers, Family Cohesion, and Family Conflict.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24, no. 3: 591–607. 10.1007/s10826-013-9870-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhang, X. 2022. “Household Chaos and Caregivers' and Young Children's Mental Health During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Mediation Model.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 31, no. 6: 1547–1557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Family Process are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES