The importance of fathers in the lives of infants (day care, ADHD, teaching)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A new study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that early father-infant interaction is predictive of future behaviors. Children whose fathers who interacted frequently and positively with them in early infancy had fewer behavior problems as toddlers. Among the many interesting findings in the report is the following:
"The association between remote father interactions and child aggressive behaviours was found in boys (β = −0.332; p = 0.01) but not in girls (B = −0.109; p = 0.38). Similarly, the association between remote father interactions and child externalising problems was found in boys (β = −0.408; p = 0.002) but not in girls (β = −0.001; p = 0.99)."
Fascinating, isn't it? Fathers begin making a significant difference in the lives of their sons even in early infancy. This would seem to counter those who claim that good parenting is "gender neutral", as well as those who claim that the presence of a father is unimportant in the lives of young children.
A new study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that early father-infant interaction is predictive of future behaviors. Children whose fathers who interacted frequently and positively with them in early infancy had fewer behavior problems as toddlers. Among the many interesting findings in the report is the following:
"The association between remote father interactions and child aggressive behaviours was found in boys (β = −0.332; p = 0.01) but not in girls (B = −0.109; p = 0.38). Similarly, the association between remote father interactions and child externalising problems was found in boys (β = −0.408; p = 0.002) but not in girls (β = −0.001; p = 0.99)."
Fascinating, isn't it? Fathers begin making a significant difference in the lives of their sons even in early infancy. This would seem to counter those who claim that good parenting is "gender neutral", as well as those who claim that the presence of a father is unimportant in the lives of young children.
I find it very interesting that fathers appear to have more impact than mothers. Later in life, involved fathers result in lower rates of drug use, teen pregnancy and higher rates of graduation from high school. Mothers have nothing like this to claim except that the daughters of working moms tend to have higher career and educational goals and attainment and higher self esteem but that's not just mom. It's her working status. Dad's seem to have an impact by just being active in their children's lives. This study is interesting because I never realized there was an impact during infancy.
It seems very clear that, like so many animals in the world, human infants and mothers are wired for bonding to occur; yet medical technology and scientific studies seem more geared to disprove than to see any validity in the assertion of this. Chemicals released in our brains promoting joy and contentment, sensory and neurological responses to identifying aspects of mother and baby, and the sad imprinting of babies to teddy bears and security blankets all support the fact that human mothers and babies are both designed to and need the opportunity to bond peri- and postpartum; why does our society choose to ignore this fact?
Men do the studies and tend to discount the importance of women, I think.
Note that some studies focus on the detrimental effects of depression in women on their infants. There appears to be a bias against mothers.
We have also learned from our analyses that the behavior of mothers and even very young babies is coordinated. Infants who achieved higher levels of physical development had mothers who encouraged their physical development more often. Infants who were more social had mothers who engaged in more social activities with them. And infants who explored the environment more had mothers who engaged in more "teaching" activities and provided a richer environment for them. That is, mothers and babies are not only "in tune," but they tend to be singing the same song! We find that this "meshing" of maternal and infant behavior is widespread and is similar in different cultural groups, suggesting that this behavioral coordination is a very basic and fundamental characteristic of human parenting and child development.
This is why those first years with mothers are important.
This is interesting because I have three children, and the first born (my only son) had both of us home with him for his first 18 months of life. He is the only one of my three children that has any type of behavorial problem (severe ADHD and other issues). I'm not saying that it is my husband's fault for being there ), but it just doesn't go along with this study. I don't discount the study, though, as I know that just because it's not the case for us, doesn't mean it's not true....we're just the exception .
This is why those first years with mothers are important.
No, this shows that good care those first years are important. It does not show that mothers themseves are important. You'd need to cite studies comparing kids raised by someone other than their mother to show that or that compare maternal involvement levels. You're citing the wrong material. The research in question does show that fathers are important as does other research. Involved dads improve children's lives in many ways. I find it interesting that dad's mere presense has such an impact. Moms seem to have to do something to have impact. Dad's just have to be there.
Yes, maternal depression impacts children because it impacts the quality of care. Why would you think that wouldn't impact children? Having a caregiver who is depressed is going to impact the quality of care the child recieves and the child's interactions with the depressed caregiver (I would expect this to be true whether the caregiver in question is mom, grandma, dad or a DCP but kids who are trapped home with mom would be, especially, negatively impacted). What is the relevence of posting about having a caregiver who is ill in this thread? Of course having a caregiver who is too ill to respond to you normally is going to impact a child. This is one of the situations where they find that kids do better in day care (most of the time there is no difference). Being home with a depressed mother is a bad situation to be in. Unfortunately, SAHM's are actually more likely to be depressed than working moms. I don't know that SAH is causal. It may simply be that depressed mothers are more likely to SAH.
Still, I find it fascinating that dad just being around seems to have significant impact on kids, apparently, of all ages. Given the fact that mothers provide most of the care during the early years, I would not have predicted this. Maybe dad's presence stabilizes the household? Maybe dad being there to help mom out when she needs it helps keep her more on even keel. I'm curious to see if they uncover why there is a difference.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-11-2012 at 04:53 PM..
Still, I find it fascinating that dad just being around seems to have significant impact on kids, apparently, of all ages. Given the fact that mothers provide most of the care during the early years, I would not have predicted this. Maybe dad's presence stabilizes the household? Maybe dad being there to help mom out when she needs it helps keep her more on even keel. I'm curious to see if they uncover why there is a difference.
Indeed. It's an even deeper mystery because the father's role when the child was just three months old was predictive of behavior just nine months later. And this was only true of the sons! Wow.
Indeed. It's an even deeper mystery because the father's role when the child was just three months old was predictive of behavior just nine months later. And this was only true of the sons! Wow.
I hope they do further research on this. I wouldn't have thought the presence of a non primary caregiver (let's face it, dads are not, usually, the primary caregivers at this point) at just 3 months of age would have a long lasting impact on boys. I wouldn't think the baby knows it's a boy at that point. Just goes to show that fathers are not trivial and they're needed right out of the gate.
I wonder if there will be a correlation to aggression later in life? This one is surprising.
Interesting. I guess if the father bonds earlier in the baby's life, then maybe he's more likely to keep the bond strong - even when the child approaches adolescence and starts with the defiance? (just a little something I notice, which may or may not be true, is that boys tend to challenge their fathers' authority moreso than their mothers')
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but it just doesn't go along with this study. I don't discount the study, though, as I know that just because it's not the case for us, doesn't mean it's not true....we're just the exception 
