National Fatherhood Initiative ::: Father Facts: Research Notes

Father Facts: Research Notes
by Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., and Tom Sylvester

Some people have raised objections to the data presented in past editions of Father Facts. These objections center on a few themes. The first is that the negative effects of father absence on children are highly exaggerated. After all, the critics contend, father absence does not condemn a child to psychiatric problems, educational failure, drug addiction, and a life of crime; indeed, most children from single-parent families and stepfamilies turn out fine. Nor, they point out, does marriage guarantee good parenting, and a marriage marked by high-conflict or abuse can be far worse for children than divorce. Overall, they assert, there is no evidence that father absence irretrievably harms the majority of children who experience it.

We do not deny that some children who grow up without involved fathers do well, often due to the tremendous efforts of single mothers. There are great stepfathers out there, too, who contribute to their stepchildren in countless ways. To ignore or demean their efforts would not only be insulting, but wrong. Indeed, nowhere does Father Facts indicate that a child who grows up without his or her father is doomed. What research cited in Father Facts does show is that father absence significantly increases the risk that a child will suffer negative outcomes.

The argument that fatherhood is not essential because not all children who grow up without an involved father are "irretrievably harmed" is a weak and practically meaningless statement. We cannot ignore father absence as a serious risk factor for children just because many children from father-absent homes do not drop out of school or become involved in crime. Analogously, smoking cigarettes may not irretrievably harm the majority of those who have ever smoked, but it does harm many. Similarly, while growing up poor may not irretrievably harm many children living in poverty, it does make it more likely they will suffer from a wide range of disadvantages. Likewise, a child who grows up without an involved, committed father is significantly more likely to suffer disadvantages, lower levels of well-being, and other negative psychological effects.

A second common response by skeptics is to point out that statistical correlation does not equal causation. In other words, just because father absence is associated with poorer outcomes for children does not mean that father absence "per se" or "in and of itself" causes those outcomes. Confounding variables or unmeasured factors might influence both the likelihood of growing up with both parents and certain outcomes. For example, surveys show that married people tend to be happier than individuals who are divorced or single. This proves that marriage makes people happier, right? Well, not necessarily. It could also be that happy people are more likely to get married, or that some other factor, such as income, influences both happiness and the likelihood of marriage.

It is notoriously difficult to prove causation in the social sciences, and those concerned about the effects of father absence should be aware of the complexity of the causation/correlation conundrum. Two prominent examples: 1) Children who grow up in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor--strong evidence that fatherlessness causes poverty. It is also true, however, that poverty contributes to father absence. Unemployed or underemployed men are less likely to get married than men with stable, well-paying jobs, and economic instability often leads to family instability. 2) Children of divorce are more likely to suffer emotional problems. But divorce occurs in families that are troubled to begin with. Therefore, some, but not all, of the observed negative effects of divorce are not from the divorce per se, but from the conflict that ultimately led to the divorce.

Acknowledging complexity does not weaken the case for fatherhood, though, and pointing out that correlation does not equal causation is not a trump card that nullifies the findings in Father Facts. While no single study can prove that father absence hurts children (social science is messier than mathematics), the evidence that it does is abundant and compelling. Even after researchers control for socioeconomic variables such as race and income, children who grow up without their fathers still consistently score lower on measures of well-being.

Closely related to the notion that fatherhood "per se" doesn't matter, the other familiar refrain heard from critics is that it is the quality of family relationships that matter for children, not their formal structure. Different family structures, they say, are not monolithic entities that can be used to categorize families as "good" or "bad" for children. What goes on inside of a family is inevitably more important than its formal structure.

We agree that it would be absurd to argue that a highly dysfunctional family with two married parents is better for children than a healthy stepfamily or single-parent family. But comparisons such as these obscure the fact that a family's resources and relationships are highly contingent upon its form.

For example, Judith Stacey, a sociologist critical of the fatherhood movement, argues, "Access to economic, educational, and social resources; the quality and consistency of parental nurturance, guidance, and responsibility . . . affect child development and welfare far more substantially than does the particular number . . . and marital status of parents or the family structure in which children are reared (italics in original)." What Judith Stacy and others who have made similar arguments fail to acknowledge, however, is that it is the married two-parent family that is the family structure best equipped to provide children with these resources.

Similarly, psychologists Louise Silverstein and Carl Auerbach argue that it is not fathers, but "the stability of the emotional connection and the predictability of the caretaking relationship [that] are the significant variables that predict positive child adjustment." Yet this stability and predictability is most likely to occur in a married two-parent family.

Therefore, while some may cling to the idea that father absence "per se" or "in and of itself" does not matter, in the real world fathers matter a great deal. Statements that family processes are more important than family structure are closer to truisms than to critical arguments.

The fundamental weakness of the "function over form" argument is that, in actuality, the two are often inextricably linked. Silverstein and Auerbach point out that "father absence covaries with other relevant family characteristics, i.e. the lack of a male income; the absence of a second adult; and the lack of support from a second extended family system." But the co-variance of these characteristics is no coincidence. In real life, one cannot separate the many contributions fathers provide from the fathers themselves, especially when much of what fathers contribute is unique and irreplaceable.

Therefore, while it is not a perfect measure, family structure is the best proxy measure we have for father involvement and the provision of parental resources. If our society cares about its children, we must recognize the importance of married fatherhood. And, even more importantly, we must reduce the high levels of fatherlessness that bode ill for our children and our nation's future.