Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2016 Nov 3;31(4):485–494. doi: 10.1037/fam0000259

Father-Adolescent Engagement in Shared Activities: Effects on Cortisol Stress Response in Young Adulthood

Mariam Hanna Ibrahim 1, Jennifer A Somers 2, Linda J Luecken 3, William V Fabricius 4, Jeffrey T Cookston 5
PMCID: PMC5415433  NIHMSID: NIHMS821342  PMID: 27808523

Abstract

Parent-child relationships can critically affect youth physiological development. Most studies have focused on the influence of maternal behaviors, with little attention to paternal influences. The current study investigated father engagement with their adolescents in household (shopping, cooking) and discretionary leisure activities as a predictor of youth cortisol response to a challenging interpersonal task in young adulthood. The sample (N = 213) was roughly divided between Mexican-American (MA; n = 101) and European American (EA; n = 112) families, and included resident biological-father (n = 131) and resident stepfather families (n = 82). Salivary cortisol was collected before, immediately after, and at 20 and 40 minutes after an interpersonal challenge task; area under the curve (AUCg) was calculated to capture total cortisol output. Results suggested that more frequent father engagement in shared activities with adolescents (ages 11–16), but not mother engagement, predicted lower AUCg cortisol response in young adulthood (ages 19–22). The relation remained significant after adjusting for current mother and father engagement and current mental health. Further, the relation did not differ given family ethnicity, father type (step or biological), or adolescent sex. Future research should consider unique influences of fathers when investigating the effects of parent-child relationships on youth physiological development and health.

Keywords: father engagement, adolescent, cortisol, young adulthood

Relationships with caregivers can significantly affect youth physiological development, including the activity and function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Luecken & Lemery, 2004; Marsman et al., 2012). The HPA axis is a neuroendocrine stress response system that produces the hormone cortisol when activated by aversive or challenging events in the environment. Over time, neglectful, abusive, or negative caregiving can result in dysregulation in the HPA system, often evident in exaggerated or blunted cortisol levels (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). Dysregulated HPA activity is associated with a range of pathologies including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, and depression (Seeman & McEwen, 1996). In contrast, positive parental behaviors (e.g., warmth) have been associated with more adaptive HPA activity in response to stress (Luecken, Hagan, Wolchik, Sandler & Tein, 2016).

Most of the literature on caregiving and youth cortisol has focused on the influence of mothers or general parent-child relationships. Effects of early maternal caregiving and early parent-child relationships have been found to influence HPA activity later in life from studies using both prospective and retrospective reports. Luecken, Kraft, & Hagan (2009) found that college students’ retrospective reports of negative and high conflict relationships in their family of origin were associated with lower cortisol response to a challenging interpersonal task compared to those who reported positive relationship quality. Among prospective studies, greater levels of maternal warmth at age five predicted reduced HPA reactivity to a stress task at age seven (Kuhlman, Olson, & Lopez-Duran, 2014), and more maternal warmth in early adolescence predicted lower cortisol response to a challenging interpersonal task 15 years later for children from divorced families (Luecken et al., 2016). While many studies focus on maternal parenting only, other studies have combined maternal and paternal influences into a single parenting variable, or looked at the overall family environment to predict cortisol (Luecken, Kraft, & Hagan, 2009; Marsman et al., 2012). Few studies have considered the unique effects of fathers, especially over and above mothers, on youth cortisol.

While a majority of the literature with mothers generally involves more “emotional” components of parenting (e.g., warmth or harsh involvement), it is unclear whether these more emotional types of involvement similarly generalize to fathers (Adamsoms & Buehler, 2007), or whether there are other uniquely salient ways in which fathers express care and affection to their youth. Fathers tend to engage in more frequent play, physically stimulating, and goal-oriented tasks with their children (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2014); therefore, interactive involvement may be unique to the ways fathers engage and connect with their children. A recent review suggested links between greater amounts of residential parenting time with divorced fathers, more frequent daily father-child interactions, and children’s increased emotional security with fathers (Fabricius, Sokol, Diaz, & Braver, 2012). Greater amounts of residential parenting time with divorced fathers in childhood and adolescence predicted better long-term father-child relationship quality, which mediated the link to fewer somatic symptoms and better perceived physical health in young adulthood (Fabricius & Luecken, 2007). Stevenson et al. (2014) found that the frequency of time parents spent interacting with adolescents in household and discretionary recreational activities predicted how important adolescents believed they were to each parent (i.e., how much they felt that they mattered to each parent). The strength of the relation between time spent together and perceived mattering was stronger for fathers than for mothers. Schenck et al. (2009) found that perceived mattering to fathers was associated with adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Therefore, youth appear to derive meaning from the amount of time fathers spend with them about how important they are to their fathers, which confers both short- and long-term benefits on youths’ mental and physical health.

Limited research has addressed the potential link between fathering and youth stress physiology. Negative fathering behaviors (e.g., overprotective behavior) during childhood have been associated with elevated cardiovascular reactivity (Roubinov & Luecken, 2010) in young adults, and poorer relationship quality with fathers predicted dampened salivary alpha amylase (sAA) reactivity among adolescents (Lucas-Thompson & Granger, 2014). In one of the few studies that addressed the effects of fathering on youth HPA axis and cortisol activity specifically, Mills-Koonce et al. (2011) found that more observed father negativity was concurrently associated with higher child peak cortisol levels in response to a lab stressor at seven months of age and predicted greater overall levels of cortisol at 24 months of age. Boyce et al. (2006) found that father involvement during infancy moderated the impact of cortisol reactivity at age seven on the development of mental health problems at age nine; nine-year-old children who experienced low father involvement as infants and had high cortisol reactivity patterns at age seven exhibited the most symptoms of psychopathology. Fathering has also been found to impact cortisol reactivity in later developmental stages. Undergraduate women’s reports of negative current and childhood father-daughter relationships were associated with elevated cortisol reactivity during a lab stressor (Byrd-Craven et al., 2012).

Because fathering occurs within a family context that is heavily informed by culture and expectations for the involvement of men, it is important to examine ethnic group differences in father involvement. While fathers of European ancestry are overrepresented in the empirical literature, a growing knowledge base is emerging on Latino fathers (Cabrera & Bradley, 2012). Informed by an ecological developmental perspective on parenting (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2007), cultural values have been linked to different patterns of father involvement. For example, in a sample of Mexican-origin families, more involved fathers tended to endorse the belief that the father’s role in the family is culturally-prescribed (Cruz et al, 2011). In infancy, Latino fathers are warmer and more involved than White fathers and tend to engage in more child care (Cabrera, Hofferth, & Chae, 2011), however, less is known about whether those patterns continue into adolescence. Additionally, no studies to date have examined differences in father involvement across cultural groups and the links to biological processes.

Adolescence is a particularly important developmental period in which to study both father involvement and the HPA axis. Adolescence is a sensitive period of neurobiological development; during this developmental transition, basal cortisol and HPA reactivity to psychosocial performance stressors increase (Gunnar, Wewerka, Frenn, Long, & Griggs, 2009). It is also a period marked by pronounced changes across physical, social, cognitive and emotional domains (Dahl & Gunnar, 2009). Adolescent youth can experience higher levels of stress as they must respond to an increased number of environmental challenges (e.g., increases in academic and peer stress) associated with changes in social context, making it a developmental period in which the incidence of mental health problems dramatically increases (Kessler et al., 2005). Although adolescents typically shift their time allocation to favor peers and romantic partners, parents, including fathers, remain an important influence on development (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997).

Fathers have been found to have unique effects on adolescent adjustment over and above the effects of mothers. In a large nationally representative sample, father involvement accounted for a unique source of variability in adolescent adjustment above the contribution of other factors, including mother involvement (Cookston & Finlay, 2006). Adolescents’ perceptions of how much they mattered to their fathers predicted their future adjustment over and above their perceptions of how much they mattered to their mothers, and this held true for biological and stepfathers of sons and daughters in Mexican-American as well as Anglo-American families (Suh et al., 2016). Fathers can sometimes be more accessible than mothers and provide a unique source of emotional support (Flouri, 2008). However, father-child relationships can also be distant and unemotional as compared to mothers, and father-child interactions may be less frequent than mother-child interactions (Larson & Richards, 1994). At the same time, relative to mothers, fathers are more likely to be engaged in pleasurable leisure activities with their children, which may promote positive developmental outcomes (Grossman et al., 2008). Given that there is generally greater variability in how much fathers are involved in children’s lives as compared to mothers (Williams and Kelly, 2005), fathers may be uniquely influential on an adolescent’s ability to weather transitions and meet developmental challenges, which in turn may influence youth HPA axis functioning.

There are several limitations to existing research on fathers that we sought to address in the current study. Prior research often does not adjust for maternal behaviors when evaluating the effects of fathers on child outcomes, which is necessary to identify the unique effects of fathers (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). It is critical to consider mother involvement given that the child’s mother may influence fathering (Stevenson, et al., 2014), and the effects of father involvement may be due, at least in part, to the benefits of having two involved parents (Flouri, 2008). Longitudinal research designs are needed to adequately address the effects of fathering during adolescence on later cortisol responses, unbiased by retrospective recall of fathering. Further, the potential effects of stepfathers have been neglected, which is important given research suggesting youth from stepfamilies indicate more negative adjustment than youth from two birthparents (Amato & Rivera, 1999), possibly because stepfamilies may be more conflict prone and exposed to greater stress (Amato & Sobolewski, 2004). Stepparents tend to be less involved than two biological parents, possibly due to differences in parenting, and youth with a stepfather are more likely to show behavior and adjustment problems than those with two biological parents (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Leidy et al., 2011). There is also evidence that the effects of fathers on developmental outcomes can differ by youth sex. For example, some studies find a stronger link between paternal behaviors (e.g., support and acceptance) and adjustment among adolescent females compared to males (Leidy et al., 2011; Flouri & Buchanan, 2002).

The current study addressed these gaps in the literature by using a longitudinal design in which the frequency of father engagement with their adolescent children (youth from 7th to 9th grade) in household and recreational activities was used to predict cortisol stress response in early adulthood (youth ages 19 – 22) among a sample of Mexican-American (MA) and European American (EA) youth that included resident biological fathers and resident stepfathers. We hypothesized that young adults who experienced less frequent engagement in shared activities with their fathers in adolescence would exhibit greater cortisol response to a challenging interpersonal task compared to youth who experienced more frequent father engagement, and that this relation would remain significant after adjusting for mother-adolescent engagement, concurrent father-youth and mother-youth engagement, and concurrent mental health. We also assessed whether the relation between father-adolescent engagement in shared activities and youth cortisol responding differed based on ethnicity (MA or EA). Due to the limited amount of research focused on parenting and cortisol across different ethnic groups, there is not enough information to make a priori predictions about the role of ethnicity. Exploratory analyses evaluated whether the impact of father-adolescent engagement in shared activities on cortisol was moderated by youth sex or father type (i.e., biological or stepparent).

Method

Participants

Participants included 213 father-youth dyads from the longitudinal Parent & Youth Study (PAYS), a 10-year, 5-wave, two-site investigation (Phoenix, AZ and Riverside, CA) designed to examine father-youth relationships in Mexican American (MA) and European American (EA) families. IRB approval was obtained at both sites. Prior to interview, youths assented and parents gave informed consent regarding study procedures. Eligibility for the study included: 1) the target child currently resided with the mother and biological father or stepfather, 2) all family members were the same, self-identified ethnicity, 3) the family members were fluent in either English or Spanish, and 4) the in-house father was living with the family for at least one year prior to the beginning of the study (legal marriage between the parents was not a requirement).

Recruitment strategies between the two sites differed due to different laws and school district policies. In California, families were recruited from two school districts in the metropolitan area of San Bernadino County. School staff used emergency cards and enrollment information to determine eligible families, who were later contacted and screened. Upon meeting eligibility requirements and agreeing to participate, research staff contacted potential families, explained details of the project, and obtained the appropriate consent based on university IRB procedures. In California, a total of 540 families were contacted, and 248 were eligible for the study. Of those who were eligible, 192 (77%) initially agreed to participate, and 56 (23%) refused to participate. In Arizona, families were recruited from eight ethnically diverse schools in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Teachers administered a short survey to all 7th graders asking about students’ ethnic backgrounds and family composition, which resulted in a total of 2,459 appearing to be eligible. Families were contacted in order to determine eligibility, explain the project, and ask for consent to have research staff contact the family. Research staff contacted a total of 640 families to explain details of the project and obtain consent based on university IRB procedures. Of those contacted, 266 were eligible for the study. A total of 204 (77%) eligible families initially agreed to participate, and 62 (23%) refused to participate. From both sites, those who refused to participate were more likely to come from stepfather and MA families.

Data collection occurred across 5 waves. The current analyses used data from wave 1 when youth were in 7th grade (ages 11 – 14), wave 2 when youth were in 8th or 9th grade (ages 13 – 16), and wave 4 when youth were 19 – 22 years of age (young adulthood). Data included father reports of father-child engagement in shared activities in adolescence (Waves 1 & 2), mother reports of mother-child engagement in shared activities in adolescence (Waves 1 & 2), saliva samples from young adults who participated in an interpersonal challenge task (Wave 4), father reports of father-young adult engagement in shared activities (Wave 4), mother reports of mother-young adult engagement in shared activities (Wave 4), and young adult-reported mental health (Wave 4).

The study maintained adequate retention across waves. At wave 1, 392 families participated. Data were collected from at least one family member for 367 families at wave 2, and 289 youth participated at wave 4, resulting in a 74% retention rate for the overall study. The current study uses a subset N of 213 participants who had cortisol data at wave 4.

Approximately equal numbers of participants came from both sites and included 95 (45%) boys and 118 (55%) girls, 112 (53%) EA families and 101 (47%) MA families, and 131 (62%) with biological fathers and 82 (38%) with stepfathers. Among EA families, 36% had stepfathers; among the MA families, 42% had stepfathers. Sample descriptives are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Descriptives

European American (EA) (n = 112) Mexican American (MA) (n = 101)
N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) t
1. W1 Age 211 12.89 (0.48) 12.90 (0.49) 12.88 (0.48) .354
2. W2 Age 209 14.43 (0.69) 14.41 (0.68) 14.45 (0.71) −0.401
3. W1 Annual Household Income 213 72,496 (43,464) 89,332 (47,523) 53,828 (28,787) 6.66**
4. Father education 206 12.63 (3.56) 14.38 (2.45) 10.70 (3.62) 8.60**
5. W1W2 Father-Adolescent Engagement 192 28.15 (5.94) 27.19 (5.54) 29.30 (6.24) −2.48*
6. W1W2 Mother-Adolescent Engagement 207 30.01 (5.80) 30.30 (5.49) 29.69 (6.15) .754
7. W4 Cortisol AUCg (nmol/L) 209 301.39 (189.89) 312.88 (194.87) 288.39 (184.22) .930
8. W4 Anxious/Depressed 213 55.89 (7.17) 56.24 (7.51) 55.50 (6.76) .747
9. W4 Father-Young AdultEngagement 167 11.95 (3.10) 11.30 (2.87) 12.68 (3.20) −2.93*
10. W4 Mother-Young Adult Engagement 206 12.40 (3.41) 12.10 (3.41) 12.72 (3.40) −1.32
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

Note: A value of 14 on the Father Education variable indicates vocational or technical student graduate; a value of 10 indicates a completion of tenth grade. “W1” = wave 1; “W2” = wave 2; “W4” = wave 4 (young adulthood). “W1W2” = composite of wave 1 and wave 2 (adolescence) variables.

Procedure

During Waves 1 and 4, family members at the Arizona site were interviewed in separate rooms in their homes, and family members at the California site were interviewed in separate rooms at the research lab. Wave 2 was conducted over the phone. Across all waves, family members were interviewed in the participant’s preferred language (English: 96%, Spanish: 4%). Interviewers read questions aloud and entered responses into a computer. Participants received $100 each per interview.

Measures

Father-adolescent engagement in shared activities1

At Waves 1 and 2, fathers completed a five-item scale measuring the frequency of their engagement with their children on a variety of discretionary activities in the past three months (“How often did you play a video game, board game, or any other indoor game with your child at home?” “How often did you go shopping together?” “How often did you play a sport or participate in an outdoor activity together?” “How often did you bake or cook a meal together?” “How often did you go to entertainment, movies, or sporting events together?”), hereafter referred to as father engagement. This scale was shortened and adapted from its longer original form used in the Families First study (Coltrane, Parke, & Adams, 2004). Responses were on a 5-point scale from 1(Never) to 5 (Very Often). Reliability for father-adolescent engagement at wave 1 was α = .55 and at wave 2 was α = .62. Due to a high correlation between wave 1 and wave 2 father-adolescent engagement (r = .60, p < .001), wave 1 and wave 2 father-adolescent engagement variables were summed to create a combined father-adolescent engagement variable (α = .74).

Mother-adolescent engagement in shared activities

Also at Waves 1 and 2, mothers completed the same five-item scale as fathers measuring the frequency of their own engagement with their adolescents on the same discretionary activities over the past three months. Reliability for mother-adolescent engagement at wave 1 was α = .50 and wave 2 was α = .56. Wave 1 and wave 2 mother-adolescent engagement variables were summed to create a combined mother-adolescent engagement variable (α = .72).

Mother and father engagement in shared activities with their young adult child

At wave 4, mothers and fathers reported on their engagement with their child in the past three months, with items adapted to young adults (“How often do you work together on something (projects, hobbies, volunteering, school or work activities and so on)?” “How often do you have a meal together?” “How often do you and your child participate in recreation inside or outside the home (i.e. movies, TV, picnics, swimming, trips, fishing, and so on)?” “Engage in religious activities of any kind?”). Reliability for the father-young adult engagement variable at wave 4 was α = .71. Reliability for the mother-young adult engagement variable at wave 4 was α = .74.

Cortisol response

At Wave 4, youth provided cortisol samples at four time points pre- and post- engaging in a modified Trier Social Stress Task (Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993). The task included 3-minutes of mental arithmetic, followed by a four-minute video-recorded interpersonal speech task in which participants discussed their personal strengths and weaknesses. Saliva samples were collected immediately before the task, immediately after the task, 20 minutes post-task, and 40 minutes post-task. Youth were instructed to refrain from exercising, and consumption of food, alcohol, or caffeine in the two hours prior to the task. Their compliance with instructions was recorded for potential use as a covariate. Cortisol response was operationalized as area under the curve with respect to ground (AUCg), as a measure of total hormonal output across the task. AUCg is often used as a physiologic indicator of the HPA responsiveness by taking into account the intensity of a cortisol response across the task (how high cortisol responses are from zero; Fekedulegn et al., 2007). AUCg is also a useful way to summarize multivariate parameters and simplify statistical analyses without loss of information obtained by repeated cortisol assessments (Pruessner, Kirschbaum, Meinlschmid, & Hellhammer, 2003). Cortisol AUCg was sufficiently normally distributed and did not require log transformation. Cortisol levels were assayed in the Biological Psychology laboratory directed by Dr. Clemens Kirschbaum at the Technical University of Dresden in Dresden, Germany.

Cortisol samples were not collected from 66 out of the 289 youth who participated in Wave 4 due to phone interviews or task refusal, resulting in a total of 223 youth who completed the stress task. Cortisol values from 10 additional youth were excluded from analyses and set as missing due to the following reasons: two youth had cortisol values greater than four standard deviations above the mean, and eight did not complete both stress tasks. Additionally, AUCg was not calculated for four youth due to missing individual cortisol samples. The final dataset included 209 youth with AUCg cortisol data. The results of chi-square and t-tests indicated no differences between youth who provided cortisol samples and youth who did not provide cortisol samples on demographic variables including age, ethnicity, income, and father type (p’s > .05). Youth who did and did not provide cortisol samples also did not differ in their reports of smoking, daily alcohol use, and daily drug use.

Among youth with cortisol data, two completed the task in the morning (between 9AM and noon). Exclusion of the data from these two youth did not change the primary results, and they were retained in the dataset. Fifty-nine youth completed the task in the afternoon (between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.), and 152 youth completed the task in the evening (between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.). Due to variability in the time the task was completed, and a significant correlation of time of day with AUCg (r = −.40, p < .001), time of day was included as a covariate in the primary analyses.

Correlations were analyzed between other potentially relevant covariates and cortisol AUCg including: ethnicity, sex, age, smoking status, body mass index, use of birth control, father education, time of day, and adjusted annual income. Of these, only youth age (r = −.14, p = .04) was a statistically significant correlate of AUCg and youth sex was marginally significant (r = −.12, p = .079); both were subsequently included as covariates in the primary analyses.

Young adult mental health

At wave 4, youth completed the Achenbach Young Adult Self Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). The current analyses use the anxious/depressed syndrome subscale, assessing levels of depression and anxiety in the past 3 months (α = .86).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the primary study variables. T-tests were conducted to assess whether there were differences in key study variables for MA and EA families, biological father and stepfather families, and boys and girls. Youth from biological father versus stepfather families did not differ on father-adolescent engagement, t(190) = −.30, p = .77, or AUCg, t(207) = 1.04, p = .30. Fathers from MA families reported greater engagement with their adolescents than fathers from EA families (p = .01). Youth from MA and EA families did not differ on AUCg, p = .35. Father-adolescent engagement did not differ for boys and girls, t(190) = −1.38, p = .17. Boys and girls were marginally different on AUCg, t(207) = 1.77, p = .08, such that boys had higher AUCg (M = 327.15, SD = 193.54) than girls (M = 280.75, SD = 185.16). Table 2 presents bivariate correlations between primary study variables.

Table 2.

Bivariate zero-order correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Sex — −0.12 −0.01 0.12 −0.004 0.11 0.26* −0.17 0.07 0.02 0.18
2. W1 Age −0.16 — 0.10 0.11 −.06 0.12 0.12 −0.002 −0.09* −0.02 0.03
3. W1 Income 0.09 −0.06 — 0.31* 0.05 0.09 0.12 −0.28* 0.06 −0.01 0.003
4. Father Education −0.02 0.00 0.15 — 0.07 −0.02 0.27* −0.04 −0.12 0.07 0.18
5. Time of day −0.10 0.20* 0.02 0.18 — 0.03 0.17 −0.38* −0.06 0.03 −0.01
6. W1W2 Father-Adolescent Engagement 0.09 −0.12 −0.02 −0.15 0.02 — 0.22* −0.19 0.07 0.16 0.10
7. W1W2 Mother-Adolescent Engagement 0.25* −0.12 0.21* −0.02 −0.02 0.21* — −0.21* 0.06 −0.07 0.26*
8. W4 Cortisol AUCg (nmol/L) −0.09 −0.29* 0.01 −0.02 −0.47* −0.09 0.03 — 0.04 0.09 −0.18
9. W4 Anxious/Depressed 0.24* 0.03 −0.02 0.05 0.15 −0.15 −0.05 −0.12 — 0.03 −0.29*
10. W4 Father-Young Adult Engagement −0.02 −0.07 −0.08 −0.01 −0.17 0.28* 0.07 0.10 −0.25* — 0.37*
11. W4 Mother-Young Adult Engagement 0.05 −0.05 −0.01 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.20* −0.01 −0.08 0.55* —
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05.

Note. Correlation below diagonal: European American (EA) correlation. Above diagonal: Mexican American (MA). Sex is coded 1 = Male and 2 = Female; “W1” = wave 1; “W4” = wave 4 (young adulthood); “W1W2” = composite of wave 1 and wave 2 (adolescence) variables.

Attrition

Chi-square and T-tests were used to analyze whether those who dropped out by wave 4 differed on wave 1 adjusted annual income, age, ethnicity, sex, father-adolescent engagement, father type (stepfather or biological father), and study site compared to those who were retained in the overall study. Attriters were lower on adjusted annual income than non-attriters (t(390) = −3.56, p < .001, attriter M = $53,410, SD = $40,681; non-attriter M = $72,339, SD = $48,401). MA families were more likely to drop out than EA families (X2 = 3.925, p = .048). Youth with stepfathers were more likely to attrit than youth with biological fathers (X2 = 9.92, p = .002). Father-adolescent engagement in daily activities, youth age, youth sex, and study site did not significantly differ based on attrition (p’s > .05).

Primary Analysis

Linear regression models were estimated using MPlus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), with full information maximum likelihood to manage missing data (Enders, 2010). Bootstrap resampling with 1,000 bootstrap resamples was used to estimate model parameters with a method that is less affected by outliers and does not make assumptions about the distribution of the variables. Model results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting AUCg cortisol in young adulthood from the frequency of father-adolescent engagement in shared activities (N = 213)1

B SE(B) β p-value F R2
Initial Model 0.000 24.15 0.19
 W1W2 Father-Adolescent Engagement −5.10 2.13 −0.16 0.017
 Time of day −0.78 0.12 −0.40 0.000
Initial Model with Covariates 0.000 11.75 0.22
 W1W2 Father-Adolescent Engagement −5.11 2.18 −0.16 0.019
 W1W2 Mother-Adolescent Engagement 1.04 1.95 0.03 0.593
 Time of day −0.776 0.12 −0.40 0.000
 Youth age −42.48 18.59 −0.14 0.022
 Sex −54.84 −23.76 −0.14 0.021
Final Model 0.000 8.05 0.24
 W1W2 Father-Adolescent Engagement −5.89 2.39 −0.18 0.014
 W1W2 Mother-Adolescent Engagement 2.41 2.29 0.07 0.293
 Time of day −0.75 0.12 −0.39 0.000
 Youth Age −40.08 19.88 −0.13 0.044
 Sex −48.77 25.28 −0.13 0.054
 W4 Father-Adolescent Engagement 9.65 7.55 0.16 0.201
 W4 Mother-Adolescent Engagement −9.24 5.69 −0.17 0.104
 W4 Anxious/Depressed −0.81 1.65 −0.03 0.624
Open in a new tab
1

“W1W2” = composite of wave 1 and wave 2 (adolescence) variables; “W4” = wave 4 (young adulthood) variables; Sex is coded 1 = Male and 2 = Female; Youth age is in young adulthood; B = Unstandardized beta coefficient, β = Standardized beta coefficient

First, AUCg was predicted from father-adolescent engagement and time of day. Father-adolescent engagement was a statistically significant predictor of cortisol AUCg (B = −5.10, p = .017); more frequent father engagement in adolescence was associated with lower cortisol response to the interpersonal challenge task in young adulthood. Next, we assessed the relation between father engagement in adolescence and cortisol AUCg adjusting for mother-adolescent engagement, time of day, youth sex, and youth age. Father-adolescent engagement remained a statistically significant predictor of cortisol AUCg (B = −5.11, p = .019). Mother-adolescent engagement was not a statistically significant predictor of cortisol AUCg (B = 1.04, p = .59).

The final model adjusted for the effects of concurrent father- and mother-young adult engagement in shared activities, and young adult mental health. None of the concurrent variables were statistically significant predictors of cortisol AUCg (father engagement, p = .20; mother engagement, p = .10; youth mental health, p = .62). Father-adolescent engagement, however, remained a statistically significant predictor of cortisol AUCg (B = −5.89, p = .01).

Moderation by Ethnicity

To assess whether the relation between father-adolescent engagement and cortisol AUCg in young adulthood differed based on ethnic group, a linear regression was estimated to predict cortisol AUCg from father-adolescent engagement, ethnicity, the interaction of father-adolescent engagement and ethnicity, and covariates time of day, youth sex, and age. The father-adolescent engagement by ethnicity interaction term was not a statistically significant predictor of AUCg (B = 1.40, p = .75).

Exploratory Analyses

Exploratory analyses examined whether the relation between father-adolescent engagement in daily activities and cortisol AUCg was moderated by father type (biological versus step) or youth sex. Separate linear regressions were estimated to predict AUCg from father-adolescent engagement, family type and youth sex, including the interaction of father-adolescent engagement with each of the moderators, and relevant covariates. Family type (B = −5.76, p = .194) and youth sex (B = −3.73, p = .430) were not statistically significant moderators of the relation of father-adolescent engagement with AUCg.

Discussion

The current study evaluated the association between the frequency with which fathers engaged in quotidian activities with their adolescent children and youth cortisol response to a performance stressor in young adulthood. Previous research by Stevenson et al. (2014) reported that the frequency of these interactions with both mothers and fathers predicted in cross-lagged, longitudinal models same-sex adolescents’ later perceptions of how much they mattered to that parent. Further, concurrent relations were stronger in later adolescence than in early adolescence for both parents, and were stronger for fathers than mothers. Stevenson et al. noted that the discretionary time parents chose to spend with children appeared to become a more meaningful indication as adolescents age of how important they were in their parents’ eyes. In the current analyses, more frequent father-adolescent engagement in shared activities predicted lower cortisol AUCg response in early adulthood, over and above the effects of mother-adolescent engagement, current father-young adult engagement, current mother-young adult engagement, and current young adult mental health. Although Mexican-American fathers (but not mothers) reported more frequent engagement with their adolescents than did European-American fathers, the association between father-adolescent engagement and cortisol did not significantly differ based on ethnicity, nor did it differ by father type (i.e., resident biological or stepfather), or youth sex. These results provide evidence that the frequency of father-adolescent engagement in shared activities during early to mid-adolescence can influence youth HPA development.

We assessed one specific type of parental involvement, engagement, which encompasses shared recreational (e.g., playing indoor games, participating in outdoor activities, going to the movies) and household (e.g., shopping, cooking) activities. The relation we found with cortisol response warrants close consideration of the unique ways in which fathers engage with their children. Fathers tend to engage in more frequent playful and physically stimulating activities (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2014; Flouri, 2008), and are typically more encouraging of children’s competitiveness and independence (Baltes & Silverberg, 1994). Due to their greater emphasis on play, mentorship, and encouragement of goal pursuit, fathers may play a unique role in supporting their children’s secure exploration and burgeoning autonomy (Grossman, Grossman, Kindler, & Zimmermann, 2008). The exploratory system is an adjunct to the attachment system, and both are understood as relevant to the development of the stress response system. With one exception (i.e., play a sport or participate in an outdoor activity together) our engagement items were restricted to fairly low-active types of events; nevertheless, frequent participation in such events with their children might provide the context and foundation for fathers to encourage secure exploration in facing new challenges during late adolescence. While exploration in the early years is seen in children’s physical engagement with their surroundings, later in development “secure exploration” can be seen in children’s confident, attentive and resourceful exploration, as well as in their persistence in the face of challenges and tolerance of distress (Grossman et al., 2008). Secure exploration, in the context of secure parent-child relationships, may facilitate a successful transition to college by enabling young adults with the requisite emotional, cognitive and behavioral capabilities to balance personal autonomy with meeting social and cognitive challenges (Grossman et al., 2008).

Some of those challenges are academic, and we measured responses to academically-relevant (math challenge and public speaking) stressors. Paternal parenting may be uniquely associated with school achievement and cognitive outcomes, leading some researchers to suggest that father’s engagement of their children in play enhances children’s cognitive functioning (Pougnet et al., 2011). Sensitive support from fathers during joint play is related to children’s secure exploration of cognitive challenges, which can be characterized by persistence and a sense of mastery and confidence (Grossman et al., 2008). A foundation of frequent engagement in quotidian activities that nurture the exploratory system may help account for the fact that in adolescence, fathers are more likely than mothers to be consulted for help with homework (Steinberg & Silk, 2002) and are more likely to discuss instrumental and problem-solving topics like academic performance and goals with their children (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997).

The lack of a significant difference between ethnic groups in the influence of father-adolescent engagement on young adult cortisol response connotes the commonality of this relation between MA and EA father-youth dyads. Although MA fathers reported engaging in more frequent shared activities than EA fathers (consistent with research by Toth & Xu, 1999 and Cabrera, Hofferth, & Chae, 2011), this engagement did not have differential effects on youths’ biological stress response, suggesting that this type of paternal engagement is salient to HPA development across ethnic groups. Prior analyses with the same sample found no differences in mental health between MA and EA youth at wave 1 (Leidy et al., 2011) and wave 3 (Suh et al., 2016); the current results extend this work by indicating a lack of ethnic group differences in biological outcomes at wave 4. Also, we did not find a significant moderating effect of youth sex or father type, a result that merits attention given that previous research has found different relations between fathering and youth psychosocial adjustment based on father type and youth sex (Amato & Sobolewski, 2004; Leidy et al., 2011; Stevenson et al., 2014). Although it is possible that our model was under-powered, the results suggest that the effects of father-adolescent engagement on later cortisol response are consistent whether youth are MA or EA, male or female, or engaging with their step or biological father.

Future research should examine the pathways and mechanisms by which father engagement in an earlier developmental stage (adolescence) influence cortisol in young adulthood. Fathers’ more frequent engagement with their adolescents in shared activities may promote a closer and more secure father-child relationship, which may yield higher levels of youth self-esteem and/or self-efficacy to deal with environmental challenges. Close parent-child relationships and affection during adolescence have been associated with higher self-esteem in adulthood (Roberts & Bengtson, 1993), and lower self-esteem has been associated with elevated cortisol reactivity to a psychosocial stressor among young adults (Pruessner et al., 2004). Although the current study assessed multiple different two-way interactions, future research should investigate the potential for three-way interactions (e.g., youth sex by age by father involvement) given that cortisol can be sensitive to youth sex and pubertal timing (Netherton, Goodyer, Tamplin, & Herbert, 2004). Similarly, gender differences may be more prominent or may play out in unique ways in Mexican American families (Updegraff et al., 2005), which may moderate father involvement effects on cortisol. Although the current study found consistent levels of father involvement across adolescence, father involvement may change in frequency or quality as youth develop through adolescence and young adulthood. Future studies should examine how changes in father involvement across development can influence cortisol responding using longitudinal growth curve models, including how different types of fathering behaviors (e.g., emotional involvement and sensitivity) might influence HPA function.

Limitations to the study should be noted. First, only parent self-reports of involvement were evaluated, and self-reports may be inflated due to social desirability biases. Although correlated at r = .60, combining wave 1 and wave 2 assessments of father-adolescent engagement may not capture important variability that occurs across development. How fathers engage in shared activities with their adolescents may differ across developmental stages, and consequently have unique effects on youth outcomes. Second, because cortisol was only assessed in young adulthood, we cannot determine at what point in development fathering may have had an influence on youth HPA activity. It cannot be assumed that HPA functioning remains stable from adolescence to young adulthood and other developmental experiences may also influence cortisol function in young adulthood. Third, although AUCg is a commonly used measure of HPA and cortisol activity, it does not capture variability in patterns of cortisol responding, i.e., reactivity after baseline or recovery levels post-reactivity. Finally, we cannot determine the health implications of higher cortisol response. Both high and low cortisol responding have been associated with both negative and positive outcomes, and could be either advantageous or problematic depending on a multitude of factors (e.g., context, life history; Shirtcliff et al., 2014). Future longitudinal studies that include physical health outcomes will be necessary to delineate the long-term health consequences of father involvement in adolescence.

Despite these limitations, there are a number of strengths of the study. Our results suggest that father-adolescent engagement in shard activities influence their children’s biological responses to performance challenges later in life. The longitudinal design allowed for prospective assessment of father engagement across early-to-middle adolescence, avoiding potential biases of retrospective recall. A further methodological strength is that a father-reported measure (engagement in shared activities) predicted an objective youth outcome (cortisol) in young adulthood, avoiding biases due to common method variance. The influence of father-adolescent engagement remained significant after controlling for mother-adolescent engagement, suggesting that fathers’ engagement in various shared activities uniquely contribute to young adults’ responses to performance stressors. Further, father-adolescent engagement remained a significant predictor of young adult cortisol after accounting for potential proximal influences. Finally, our use of an ethnically diverse sample of families, which included both resident biological and stepfathers, allowed us to explore potential moderators of the relation between father-adolescent engagement and children’s physiological stress responses.

Overall, the results suggest that fathers can have a long-term influence on youth neuroendocrine development. Previous studies have found that paternal parenting is associated with markers of physical health risk (e.g., metabolic and cardiovascular risk; Ehrlich et al., 2015; Boyer & Nelson, 2015), and with health behaviors, including dieting and physical activity (Berge et al., 2010). However, a meta-analysis (Phares et al., 2005) examined the number of studies that included fathers in pediatric and clinical research journals and found that fathers are disproportionately underrepresented in health-related research; most studies focused on mothers or combined both parents. Future research devoted to understanding the role of parenting on youth physical health would benefit from evaluating the unique effects of fathers, identifying specific father behaviors that are salient to youth health outcomes across critical developmental stages.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant RO1HD0566-06A1 to William Fabricius, and by National Institute of Mental Health grant MH64829 R01 to Sanford Braver.

Footnotes

1

In Stevenson et al. (2014) this variable was referred to as father-child interaction.

Preliminary analysis was presented at the 2014 Special Topics Meeting, Parenting at Risk, of the Society for Research on Child Development, San Diego, CA.

Contributor Information

Mariam Hanna Ibrahim, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Jennifer A. Somers, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Linda J. Luecken, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

William V. Fabricius, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Jeffrey T. Cookston, Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California

References

  1. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamsoms K, Buehler C. Mothering versus fathering versus parenting: Measurement Equivalence in Parenting Measures. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2007;7(3):271–303. doi: 10.1080/15295190701498686. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amato PR, Rivera F. Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999:375–384. doi: 10.2307/353755. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Amato PR, Sobolewski JM. The role of the father in child development. 4th. John Wiley & Sons Inc; Hoboken, NJ: 2004. The effects of divorce on fathers and children: Nonresidential fathers and stepfathers; pp. 341–367. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baltes MM, Silverberg SB. The dynamics between dependency and autonomy: Illustrations across the life span. In: Featherman DL, Lerner RM, editors. Life-span development and behavior. Vol. 12. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1994. pp. 41–90. [Google Scholar]
  6. Berge JM, Wall M, Loth K, Neumark-Sztainer D. Parenting style as a predictorof adolescent weight and weight-related behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010;46(4):331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyce WT, Essex MJ, Alkon A, Goldsmith HH, Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ. Early father involvement moderates biobehavioral susceptibility to mental health problems in middle childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006;45(12):1510–20. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000237706.50884.8b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyer BP, Nelson JA. Longitudinal associations of childhood parenting andadolescent health: The mediating influence of social competence. Child Development. 2015;86(3):828–843. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Byrd-Craven J, Auer BJ, Granger DA, Massey AR. The father-daughter dance: the relationship between father-daughter relationship quality and daughters’ stress response. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012;26(1):87–94. doi: 10.1037/a0026588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cabrera NJ, Bradley RH. Latino fathers and their children. Child Development Perspectives. 2012;6(3):232–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00249.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabrera N, Fitzgerald HE, Bradley RH, Roggman L. Modeling the dynamics of paternal influences on children over the life course. Applied Developmental Science. 2007;11(4):185–189. doi: 10.1080/10888690701762027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cabrera NJ, Fitzgerald HE, Bradley RH, Roggman L. The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2014;6(4):336–354. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cabrera NJ, Hofferth SL, Chae S. Patterns and predictors of father–infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early childhood research quarterly. 2011;26(3):365–375. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cookston JT, Finlay AK. Father involvement and adolescent adjustment: Longitudinal findings from Add Health. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers. 2006;4(2):137–158. doi: 10.3149/fth.0402.137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coltrane S, Parke R, Adams M. Complexity of father involvement in low income Mexican American families. Family Relations. 2004;53:179–189. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00008.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0025128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl RE, Gunnar MR. Heightened stress responsiveness and emotional reactivity during pubertal maturation: Implications for psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 2009;21(1):1–6. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ehrlich KB, Hoyt LT, Sumner JA, McDade TW, Adam EK. Quality of relationships with parents and friends in adolescence predicts metabolic risk in young adulthood. Health Psychology. 2015;34(9):896–904. doi: 10.1037/hea0000213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fabricius WV, Luecken LJ. Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21(2):195–205. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fabricius WV, Sokol KR, Diaz P, Braver SL. Parenting time, parent conflict, parent-child relationships, and children’s physical health. In: Kuehnle K, Drozd L, editors. Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court. Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 188–213. doi: 9780199754021.003.0007. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fekedulegn DB, Andrew ME, Burchfiel CM, Violanti JM, Hartley TA, Charles LE, Miller DB. Area under the curve and other summary indicators of repeated waking cortisol measurements. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2007;69(7):651–659. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31814c405c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Flouri E. Fathering and adolescents’ psychological adjustment: The role of fathers’ involvement, residence and biology status. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2008;34(2):152–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00752.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Flouri E, Buchanan A. Father involvement in childhood and trouble with the police in adolescence Findings from the 1958 British cohort. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2002;17(6):689–701. doi: 10.1177/0886260502017006006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Grossmann K, Grossmann KE, Kindler H, Zimmermann P. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. Guilford Press; New York, NY: 2008. A wider view of attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of psychological security from infancy to young adulthood; pp. 857–879. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:145–173. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gunnar MR, Wewerka S, Frenn K, Long JD, Griggs C. Developmental changes in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity over the transition to adolescence: Normative changes and association with puberty. Development and Psychopathology. 2009;21(1):69–85. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hosley CA, Montemayor R. Fathers and adolescents. In: Lamb MA, editor. The Role of the Father in Child Development. New York: Wiley; 1997. pp. 162–178. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Walters EE. Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):617–627. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kirschbaum C, Pirke K, Hellhammer DH. The “Trier Social Stress Test”: A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology. 1993;28(1–2):76–81. doi: 10.1159/000119004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuhlman KR, Olson SL, Lopez-Duran N. Predicting developmental changes in internalizing symptoms: Examining the interplay between parenting and neuroendocrine stress reactivity. Developmental Psychobiology. 2014;56(5):908–923. doi: 10.1002/dev.21166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Larson R, Richards MH. Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  32. Leidy MS, Schofield TJ, Miller MA, Parke RD, Coltrane S, Braver S, Adams M. Fathering and adolescent adjustment: Variations by family structure and ethnic background. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers. 2011;9(1):44–68. doi: 10.3149/fth.0901.44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lucas-Thompson R, Granger DA. Parent–child relationship quality moderates the link between marital conflict and adolescents’ physiological responses to social evaluative threat. Journal of Family Psychology. 2014;28(4):538–548. doi: 10.1037/a0037328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Luecken LJ, Hagan MJ, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, Tein JY. A longitudinal study of the effects of child-reported maternal warmth on cortisol stress response 15 years after parental divorce. Psychosomatic medicine. 2016;78(2):163–170. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Luecken LJ, Kraft A, Hagan MJ. Negative relationships in the family-of origin predict attenuated cortisol in emerging adults. Hormones and Behavior. 2009;55(3):412–417. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.12.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Luecken LJ, Lemery KS. Early caregiving and physiological stress responses. Clinical Psychology Review. 2004;24(2):171–191. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marsiglio W, Amato P, Day RD, Lamb ME. Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2000;62:1173–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01173.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Marsman R, Nederhof E, Rosmalen JGM, Oldehinkel AJ, Ormel J, Buitelaar JK. Family environment is associated with HPA-axis activity in adolescents: The TRAILS study. Biological Psychology. 2012;89(2):460–466. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mills-Koonce W, Garrett-Peters P, Barnett M, Granger DA, Blair C, Cox MJ. Father contributions to cortisol responses in infancy and toddlerhood. Developmental Psychology. 2011;47(2):388–395. doi: 10.1037/a0021066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 7th. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012. [Google Scholar]
  41. Netherton C, Goodyer I, Tamplin A, Herbert J. Salivary cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in relation to puberty and gender. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004;29(2):125–140. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4530(02)00150-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Phares V, Fields S, Kamboukos D, Lopez E. Still looking for poppa. American Psychologist. 2005;60(7):735–736. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pougnet E, Serbin LA, Stack DM, Schwartzman AE. Fathers’ influence on children’s cognitive and behavioral functioning: A longitudinal study of Canadian families. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2011;43(3):173–182. doi: 10.1037/a0023948. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pruessner JC, Kirschbaum C, Meinlschmid G, Hellhammer DH. Two formulas for computation of the area under the curve represent measures of total hormone concentration versus time-dependent change. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003;28(7):916–931. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4530(02)00108-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pruessner JC, Lord C, Meaney M, Lupien S. Annual ISPNE conference: Protective and damaging effects of the biobehavioral stress response. New York Academy of Sciences; New York, NY: 2004. Effects of self-esteem on age-related changes in cognition and the regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; pp. 186–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE. Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128(2):330–366. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts EL, Bengtson VL. Relationships with parents, self-esteem, and psychological well-being in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1993;56(4):263–277. doi: 10.2307/2786663. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Roubinov DS, Luecken LJ. Father bonding and blood pressure in young adults from intact and divorced families. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2010;69(2):161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schenck CE, Braver SL, Wolchik SA, Saenz D, Cookston JT, Fabricius WV. Relations between mattering to step-and non-residential fathers and adolescent mental health. Fathering. 2009;7(1):70–90. doi: 10.3149/fth.0701.70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shirtcliff EA, Peres JC, Dismukes AR, Lee Y, Phan JM. Riding the physiological roller coaster: Adaptive significance of cortisol stress reactivity to social contexts. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2014;28(1):40–51. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2014.28.1.40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Seeman TE, McEwen BS. Impact of social environment characteristics on neuroendocrine regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1996;58(5):459–471. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199609000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Steinberg L, Silk JS. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and parenting. 2nd. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; Mahwah, NJ: 2002. Parenting adolescents; pp. 103–133. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stevenson MM, Fabricius WV, Cookston JT, Parke RD, Coltrane S, Braver SL, Saenz DS. Marital problems, maternal gatekeeping attitudes, and father-child relationships in adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 2014;50(4):1208–1218. doi: 10.1037/a0035327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Suh GW, Fabricius WV, Stevenson MM, Parke RD, Cookston JT, Braver SL, Saenz DS. Effects of the inter-parental relationship on adolescents’ emotional security and adjustment: The important role of fathers. Developmental Psychology. 2016 doi: 10.1037/dev0000204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Toth JF, Xu X. Ethnic and cultural diversity in fathers’ involvement: A racial/ethnic comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth & Society. 1999;31(1):76–99. doi: 10.1177/0044118X99031001004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Updegraff KA, McHale SM, Whiteman SD, Thayer SM, Delgado MY. Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology. 2005;19(4):512. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams SK, Kelly FD. Relationships among involvement, attachment, and behavioral problems in adolescence: Examining father’s influence. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2005;25(2):168–196. doi: 10.1177/0272431604274178. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES