Marquette University

e-Publications@Marquette
Social and Cultural Sciences Faculty Research and
Social and Cultural Sciences, Department of
Publications

6-1-2015

Single-Father Families: A Review of the Literature

Roberta L. Coles
Marquette University, [email protected]

Accepted version. Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol. 7, No. 2 ( June 2015): 144-166. DOI. ©
2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Used with permission.
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Single-Father Families: A Review of

the Literature

Roberta L. Coles
Department of Sociology, Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI

Abstract: The number of children residing in single-father families in the

United States quadrupled as a proportion of children's living arrangements
during the past few decades of the 20th century. Research on single fathers
also increased and changed in nature. This article is a review of the research
on single fathers and their families from the 1970s until recently, focusing on
modifications in methodology and theoretical underpinnings. In general,
research on single-father families evolved from qualitative studies focused on
the well-being of single fathers to quantitative studies focusing on child
outcomes and within-group variation among single fathers. Research also
moved from descriptive studies to those testing gender and microstructural
theories. This article also summarizes the main findings on single fathers and
concludes with directions for future research.

The announcements have been coming for several decades

now—single fathers are increasing in the United States, particularly
since 1960. However, there are many ways to slice and dice the
numbers. One thing that needs to be kept in mind when reading data
on the rise in US single-father households is whether researchers are
measuring the number or percentage of single-father households or
the number or percentage of children living in such households. A Pew
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Research Center Report (Livingston, 2013) recently announced that

“the number of single father households has increased about nine-fold
since 1960, from less than 300,000 to more than 2.6 million in 2011.
In comparison, the number of single-mother households increased
more than fourfold during that time period” (n.p.). It is not surprising
that the number has increased; the population has increased.

Increases in number, therefore, are not equivalent to an

increase in rate. Even when the percentage of single-father families
increases as a portion of all families, as it has done, part of that
increase is because the pool of family households has decreased as a
portion of all households. That is, in 1960 family households
represented about 85% of all US households; today they represent
about 66%, because nonfamily households (single persons and
cohabitors without children) have increased (US Census, 2013b).
Therefore, the rate of one-parent father households has increased
about fourfold since 1960 (US Census, 2013c). However, the
percentage of children being raised in those households has increased
at a slower rate.

Another way to measure single fatherhood is according to the

percentage of children living with their father only, which is longer-
term data from the US Census Bureau. That data indicate that the
proportion of children living with fathers increased nearly threefold
since the 1960s, from 1.3% in 1960 to 3.7% in 2009, but the period
1950–1980 was a historic low in father-only parenting. In 1880, 2.6%
of children under 18 were living in father-only families, and in 1920,
2.9% were (US Census, 2011), making the long-term increase less
than twofold.

Another measurement issue that may contribute to an inflated

increase in single fathers is that the census definition of father-only
families includes fathers who cohabit with romantic partners. As Table
1 shows, about 22% of children living in father-only households are
living with cohabiting fathers. (This does not include single fathers who
are cohabiting with the biological mothers; those households are
included under two-parent households.) Including cohabiting single
fathers likely increases the number and percentage of men included as
father-only families.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Table 1. Characteristics of Father-Only and Mother-Only Households, 2013*

Characteristics of Children (under 18) in Children (under 18) in
household father-only households mother-only households
(%)a (%)b
• Note. Total number of children (under 18) in US = 73,910,000. Table
data calculated from Table C3. Living Arrangements of Children Under
18 Years (excluding group quarters) and Marital Status of Parents, by
Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, and Selected Characteristics of
the Child for All Children: 2013. US Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
• aTotal number of children in father-only households = 2,998,000, or
4.1%.
• bTotal number of children in mother-only households = 17,532,000,
or 23.7%.

Marital status of parent

Married, spouse 4.5 5.1
absent
Widowed 4.4 2.9
Divorced 43.8 29.9
Separated 16.7 14.1
Never married 30.6 47.9
Household configuration
No other adults in 51.6 56
household
Cohabiting, not with 22.4 10.5
mother
Other relatives 21.3 29.7
present
Male children 53.2 50.4
Children 5 or under 23.2 30.6
1 child 35.4 24.3
≥2 siblings 26.3 39.1
Parental characteristics
Some college or more 50.6 52.4
education
Income of $30 K or 66.6 43.0
more
At or below poverty 21.2 44.6
threshold

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

No matter what the exact increase is, several legal and cultural
factors have played a role in producing it. The concept of fatherhood
has changed so that more “parenting,” not only the provision of
income, is expected of fathers (Taylor, Parker, Morin, Cohn, & Wang,
2013). Laws governing divorce and custody have changed in ways
designed to treat spouses and parents more equally, and they have
thus facilitated more father custody (although several studies indicate
that most single fathers obtain custody through out-of-court
agreements between parents) (Coles, 2009; Hamer & Marchioro,
2002; Pearson, Munson, & Thoennes, 1982). Single men are now
allowed to adopt children (usually older children), but these adoptions,
whether by gay or straight men, account for a very small percentage
of single fathers. Adoption statistics are hard to come by because
states are not required to keep record of them. However, it is
estimated that in recent years, about 3% of adoptions through foster
care have been by single men, often gay, and adoptions by single men
through foster care are usually of older, harder-to-place children
(Koch, 2007). In 2007, the Williams Institute estimated that about
65,000 adopted children were being raised in LGBT homes, but many
of these are households headed by lesbian women (Gates, Badgett,
Macomber, & Chambers, 2007).

The most significant contributing factors have been demographic

in nature. Until the 1980s, divorce and, secondarily, widowhood largely
accounted for single fatherhood. Divorce has since declined from its
1980 peak, but it has leveled off at a relatively high rate and thus
remains a primary contributing factor. In 1980 the proportion of
widowed single fathers was surpassed by never-married single fathers.
Nonmarital births accounted for about 41% of all births in 2011 (Child
Trends Databank, 2013). This trend intersects with the growing
popularity of cohabitation, as the majority of nonmarital births occur
with cohabitation (Child Trends Databank, 2013). Thus, a much
greater percentage of single fathers attain their role following
nonmarital births, whether or not they cohabit. As Table 1 shows,
according to 2013 census data, children in never-married father-
households are now the second-largest group of children (30.6%) in
father-only households, and widowed (4.4%) households are the
smallest group.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Research on single fathers has mirrored the increase in single

fathering, evolving over the years in quantity and quality. This article
reviews the research on single fathers and their families from the
1970s, focusing on changes in methodology and theoretical
underpinnings over the years. The article also summarizes the main
findings on what we know about single fathers, and it concludes with
directions for future theorizing, research, and practice.

It is important to note here that the terms designating single

fathers vary, so who qualifies as a single father may vary from one
study to the next. The Census Bureau uses the terms father-only
households or male-headed households with own children. As
mentioned earlier, these labels include men who cohabit with someone
other than the child's mother (22.4%), cohabit with other relatives
(21.3%), or are currently married but are separated (16.7%), or the
spouse is absent for some reason (4.5%) (see Table 1). In the Pew
report mentioned earlier (Livingston, 2013), single fathers included
unmarried men who reported that their children had been living with
them for at least two months, and 41% of the fathers were cohabiting.
It is unclear in the report what percentage, if any, of cohabiting
partners were the biological mother.

Some researchers study “custodial fathers,” which often means

divorced fathers who have custody of children, and some of those
fathers may be remarried. For instance, in Grall's (2011) study of
custodial parents' receipt of child support, which relied on census data,
about 22% of custodial fathers were married (compared to 18% of
custodial mothers). However, most of the time, custodial just means
the father has custody, legal or otherwise, of one or more of his
children. Occasionally, single father is used to refer to nonresident
fathers, although I excluded such studies from this review. Throughout
this review I have used single fathers generally to refer to men,
cohabiting or not, who are coresiding with their children, separately
from the child's mother. But when discussing specific research, I have
tried to employ the terms used by the researchers.

Some claim that fathers who cohabit or live with extended

family are not truly single fathers, as if they were cheating some
idealized type of single fatherhood, but they are legally single, and
single mothers are measured in the same way (although usually a
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

smaller percentage of them are cohabiting, and a higher percentage

lives with extended family; see Table 1). It remains to each specific
study to determine the extent to which the fathers are coparenting
with their new spouses or cohabiting partners or other adults and the
extent to which coparenting is beneficial to the fathers and the
children (some research seems to indicate that it is not that
beneficial). In addition, keep in mind that even fathers residing alone
with their children are often coparenting with nonresident mothers or
other helpful adults. Let's also keep in mind that single mothers who
are also coparenting or getting help from other adults don't usually
have their “single parent” status questioned. Finally, it is often integral
to the research question to include single and custodial fathers who
are married or cohabiting. Grall's (2011) study needed to compare the
effect of marriage on receipt of child support; other studies have
aimed to detect the effects of the presence of other adults on single
fathers and their children. Most research to date, particularly
quantitative data sets, for which data are originally collected with
some other purpose in mind, has not found a way to fully capture all
these possible scenarios and their repercussions simultaneously.
Hence, it is up to researchers to be aware of and weed out various
father categories according to the needs of the research question and
to clarify differences among fathers' residences in their conclusions. It
is readers' responsibility to discern how the research defines and
counts “single father.”

The articles included in this review were obtained by searching

for the keywords single father in social science databases, such as
JSTOR and Academic Elite. A few secondary articles were added if they
were repeatedly cited in the first-level articles. A few of those
secondary articles actually stemmed from research focusing on “family
structure,” but they included a sample of single fathers. (For a
chronological listing of the studies included in this review, along with
the basic theory, method, and data used, see Table 2.)

Table 2. Characteristics of Research Studies

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-
Father
Type(s)
1. Note. Divorced includes separated in most studies.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
1976 Gasser & Father None applied (N/A) Qualitative 40 single Divorced or
Taylor adjustment (Qual) fathers (SF) widowed. Race
unspecified.
1976a Mendes Father N/A Qual 32 SF Divorced,
adjustment widowed. 47%
Black, 44%
White.
Outcomes not
specified by
race.
1976b Mendes Father N/A Qual 32 SF Divorced,
adjustment widowed. 47%
Black, 44%
White.
Outcomes not
specified by
race.
1976 Orthner, Father N/A Qual 20 SF Divorced,
Brown, & adjustment widowed,
Ferguson North never married.
Carolina Race
unspecified.
1979 Orthner & Father N/A Meta-analysis 5 studies SF, but
Lewis competence 1976–1979 unspecified
1979 Santrock & Children's Same-sex parent- Qual & 60 families: Divorced
Warshak social child quantitative
development (Quant) 20 SF All White

Videotapes 20 single
mothers
Texas (SM)

20 2-parent
(2-p)
1981 DeFrain & Parental N/A Qual 38 SF Divorced
Eirick adjustment
Nebraska 38 SM All White
1981 Rosenthal Father N/A Qual 49 SF Divorced.
& Keshet adjustment Caring for
children 2+
days a week.
Race
unspecified.
1981 Smith & Father N/A Qual 27 SF Divorced &
Smith experience widowed. All
White.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
1982 Ambert Child N/A Qual 20 SM Divorced
behavior (some
toward 7 SF cohabiting).
parent Race
unspecified.
Toronto
1982 Chang & Father N/A Survey 80 SF Divorced, 90%
Deinard adjustment White
1983 Warshak & Children's Same-sex parent- Qual & Quant 60 families: Divorced. All
Santrock outcomes child videotapes White
20 SF
Texas
20 SM

20 2-p
1984 Gladding & Father N/A Review 1970s– Varied
Huber profile 1980s
research
1986 Norton & Profile N/A University of 24,339 2-p Demographic
Glick Michigan's profile by
Panel Study of 5,907 SM race.
Income
Dynamics
800 SF
1986 Risman Father Gender v. Quant 121 SF Prior marital
competency microstructural status
& NE United unspecified.
satisfaction. States 90% White.
Parent-child
closeness
1987 Risman Parental Gender vs. Quant 55 SF SF = widowed
behaviors microstructural or deserted.
73 SM Mostly White.
Outcomes not
specified by
155
race.
married
couples

NE United
States
1988 McLanahan Family Intergenerational Quant: 1982 7,969 adult Whether from
& Bumpass structure instability due to NSFG women 2-parent or
effect on economic single parent,
adult deprivation, role, due to death,
outcomes stress, or selection divorce, &
never married.
60% White,
40% Black.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
Outcomes
similar by
race, except
no family
structure
effect for
Blacks on
early
marriage.
Otherwise,
effect size
larger for
Whites.
1988 Risman & Parent-child Gender/individualist Quant 148 SF SF = widowed,
Park relations vs. microstructural divorced,
73 SM deserted.

Race
unspecified.
1992 Thomson, Parental Gender vs. Quant: 1987– 3,738 2-p, SF, SM,
McLanahan, socialization structural 88 NSFH parents of w/stepparents.
& Curtin children Divorced,
ages 5–18 widowed,
never married.
Race
unspecified.
1993 Downey & Child Same-sex Quant: 1987– 3,892 8th Divorced,
Powell outcomes 88 NELS graders in widowed,
M-only & F- never married.
only Race
households unspecified.
1993 Meyer & Child N/A Quant: 1987 814 SF Excluded
Garasky support CPS, 1986 those with
receipt SIPP 385 CF other adults
and widowed.
16,402 MF
>80% White.
Outcomes not
4,937 SM
specified by
race.
2,114 CM
1994 Downey Children's Microstructure vs. Quant: 1988 8th Cohabiting &
school gender NELS graders: step excluded.
performance 409 in SF, Outcomes not
3,483 in specified by
SM, & race.
14,269 biol.
2-p

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
1995 Hall, Parental Gender, Quant: 1987– 1,433 SM Divorced,
Walker, & involvement microstructural 1988 NSFH widowed,
Acock 128 SF never married.
SF = 80%
White, 12%
Black.
Outcomes not
specified by
race
1996 Clarke- Children's Same-sex Quant: 187 Divorced,
Stewart & psychological Southern CA children mother or
Hayward well-being sample father
custody. 80%
white
1996 Cooksey & Time spent Evolutionary vs. Quant: 1987– 1,250 2-parent,
Fondell w/children & microstructural & 1988 NSFH fathers biological,
academic gender w/children step. SF & SF
achievement ages 5–18 w/stepmom,
stepfather, &
SM.
1996 Eggebeen, Demographic N/A Quant: 1960, 1960: 703; 9 types of
Snyder, & profile over 1970, 1980, 1970: single fathers:
Manning time 1990 PUMS 1,250; lone, complex,
1980: cohabiting,
1,291; divorced,
1990: widowed,
115,972 never married.
1996 Greif & Profile N/A Quant: 1987– 933 SF Divorced. 96%
DeMaris 1988 Survey White
of Parents w/o
Partners
1997 Powell & Child well- Same-sex Quant: NELS, 1,205 teens Father-only &
Downey being high school in SF & mother-only,
and beyond, 6,089 in no other adult.
and GSS SM. 3,724
adult
children
1998 Downey, Children's Gender vs. Quant: 1990 3,039 ages 456 in SF, no
Ainsworth- well-being structural NELS & 1972– 15–16 other adult.
Darnell, & 1994 GSS 2,583 in SM,
Dufur no other adult.
1998 Guttman & Children's Same-sex Quant 31 boys Boys & girls
Lazar social and 28 girls from single
adjustment in junior divorced
high parents, and
2-p families
1998 Hilton & Children's Ecological theory Quant: data 30 SM Divorced, 90%
Devall behavior from 2 white.
elementary Outcomes

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
schools in 30 SF unspecified by
Southwest race.
30 2-parent
1998 Hoffmann & Adolescent Economic Quant: 22,237 2-parent.
Johnson drug use resources, mobility NHSDA adolescents biological, M &
stepfather,
father &
stepmother,
mother-only,
father-only,
mother &
other relative.
69% White,
15% Black,
12% Hispanic.
Outcomes not
specified by
race.
1999 Cookston Parental N/A Quant: NLSAH 684 SM vs. SF v 2-
supervision adolescents p. 64% White,
& adolescent 27% Black,
behavior 2% AIAN,
2.5% Asian
American, but
outcomes
unspecified
1999 Heath & Parental Family adaptation Quant: 1995 346 SF Divorced,
Orthner coping perspective US Air Force never married.
sample 364 SM Race not
specified
1999 Hill & Hilton Parental Role theory Quant: 1987– 626 SM Divorced, 64%
well-being 1988 NSFH White.
100 SF Outcomes not
specified by
race
1999 Roy Effect of N/A Qual 40 SF Includes
welfare nonresident
policies on fathers. All
paternal African
involvement American.
2000 Brown Use of public N/A Quant: 1997 965 SF SF, cohabiting
monies CPS and not,
13,065 MF widowed,
divorced,
never married.
Married
fathers

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
11
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
Black, White,
Hispanic, but
outcomes
unspecified by
race.
2001 Coles Parenting N/A Qual 10 SF Divorced,
role identity widowed,
never married,
adoptive.
Father only.
All African
American
2001 Nord & Parent Gender, biological, Quant: 1996 16,145 Previous
West involvement family structure, NHES families marital status
in school & economic resources of Grade 1–12 2-p not specified.
student Race not
outcomes specified.
Stepfamilies

SM

SF

Other
2002 Coles Motivations N/A Qual 10 SF Divorced,
to parent widowed,
never married,
adoptive.
Father only.
All African
American
2002 Hamer & Path to Ecological Qual 24 SF Never
Marchioro single married.
fatherhood
All African
American.
2004 Battle & Child N/A Quant: NELS, 40,907 Father-only
Coates outcomes, 3 waves female (no other
school students adult).
achievement Mother-only.
All African
American
2004 Demuth & Adolescent Social control Quant: 1995 16,304 2 biological
Brown delinquency NLSAH adolescents married-
couple parents

SM &
w/stepfather,

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
12
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
SF &
w/stepmother.
Included
White, Black,
Hispanic, but
outcomes
unspecified by
race.
2004 Zhan & Education & Human capital Quant: 1993 930 SM Noncohabiting.
Pandey economic PSID Race
well-being of 168 SF unspecified
single
parents
Bokker, Father well- N/A Quant 97 fathers Divorced fewer
Farley, & being than 7
Bailey Midwest months; full-
custody vs.
joint custody
vs.
noncustody.
98% White
2006 Eitle Adolescent Structural, 2002 Florida 9,657 high SF & SM: 28%
delinquency maternal, paternal, Youth schoolers Black, 13%
Substance Hispanic, 69%
Same-sex Abuse, 2000 White.
Census Outcomes
specified by
race.
2006 Hawkins, Parental Gender v. Quant: 1995 17,330 2-parent
Amato, & involvement microstructural NLSAH adolescents married, SM,
King SF,
repartnered
(remarried or
cohabiting).
70% White,
14% Black,
11% Hispanic.
Outcomes not
specified by
race.
2007 Hilton & Parental N/A Quant: 1992 1,792 MM Divorced &
Koperafrye relations NSFH never married.
w/extended 1,293 MF 75% White.
family Outcomes
unspecified by
916 SM
race.

135 SF

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
13
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
2008 Hook & Parental Microstructural & Quant: 2003– 7,587 MM Prior marital
Chalasani involvement gender 2006 ATUS status
6,184 MF unspecified.
Majority
White.
2,452 SM
Outcomes not
specified by
431 SF race.
2008 Lee & Children's Same-sex v. Quant: 2002 1,755 high SF, SM: 61%
Kushner academic opposite-sex parent ELS schoolers White, 10%
achievement and child Black, 10%
Asian Pacific
Islander, 13%
Hispanic.
Outcomes
unspecified by
race.
2009 Coles Father N/A Qual 20 SF Father-only.
parenting & African
well-being American.
Widowed,
never married,
divorced,
adoption.
2009 Forste, Father Life course Qual 36 low- Includes
Bartkowski, perceptions income nonresident,
& Jackson fathers married, lone,
& cohabiting
2010 Bronte- Parental Life course & social Quant 3,977 youth SF, cohabiting
Tinkew, involvement capital and not; SF
Scott, & & child NLSY97—3 w/other
Lilja outcomes waves adults; SM,
cohabiting &
not; 2-parent.
Black, White,
Hispanic but
outcomes
unspecified
2011 Grall Child N/A Quant: 2010 2010 CPS Custodial
support CPS fathers &
mothers, could
be remarried.
Divorced,
widowed,
never married.
63% White,
16% Black,
18% Hispanic.
Racial

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Year Author(s) Focus Theory Method/Data Sample Single-

Father
Type(s)
outcomes
specified
2013 Livingston Profile N/A Quant: Census 2.6 million Divorced,
& IPUMS widowed,
never
married;
cohabiting or
not, married
but separated.
Compared to
SM and MF.
Race specified
but
descriptive.

Early Qualitative Research

As is often the case, the first studies in the 1970s and 1980s
were understandably small (16–80 respondents), qualitative, and
exploratory, and they were chiefly descriptive and atheoretical. They
also largely focused on White, divorced (occasionally widowed), single
fathers, who accounted for the majority of single dads in those years.
If they included fathers of color, the analysis still often did not address
race (this is still largely true today). With few exceptions, such as
Ambert (1982), DeFrain and Eirick (1981), Gersick (1979), and
Santrock and Warshak (1979), who included groups of single mothers
or noncustodial single fathers, these small studies contained no
comparison groups.

For the most part, these studies gathered their data from the
fathers' perspectives, which is both a strength and a weakness of
qualitative research. Such studies give voice to the fathers'
perspective, which historically has been missing in most family
research, but they are often the voices of select, nonrandomly
sampled fathers. In general, the studies found that fathers were
capable, confident, and satisfied in their parenting (signifying “well
adjusted”), and they reported few behavior problems with their
children (Ambert, 1982; Bartz & Witcher, 1978; Chang & Deinard,
1980; DeFrain & Eirick, 1981; Gasser & Taylor, 1976; Gersick, 1979;

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Orthner, Brown, & Ferguson, 1976; Orthner & Lewis, 1979; Risman,
1986).

Another advantage of qualitative research is that it can more

likely focus on the subjective why of a phenomenon, so most of those
initial studies investigated the reasons and motivations for father
custody and the role of those reasons in fathers' adjustment and
satisfaction. Mendes's (1976a) sample of 32 single fathers and
Hanson's (1981) study of 37 fathers distinguished between fathers
who actively sought custody (seekers) and those who took custody by
default (assenters); they found that seekers, despite lacking
knowledge of child development, adjusted more easily to single
parenthood than did assenters (see also Risman, 1986). Similarly,
Gasser and Taylor's (1976) study of 40 single, divorced, and widowed
fathers concluded that divorced fathers adjusted better than widowed
fathers. In contrast, Rosenthal and Keshet's (1981) 49 full-time single
fathers mostly felt that they had had little choice in taking custody of
their children; in most cases the mothers had been unable or
unwilling. Smith and Smith's (1981) study of 27 single fathers
concluded that these men had likely been involved fathers prior to
divorce, although Gersick (1979) didn't find the custodial fathers in his
study to have been any more involved than his comparison group of
noncustodial fathers—nor did Orthner and Lewis's (1979) review of
five single-father studies.

The few studies of this period that included a comparison group

of single mothers similarly concluded that single-father respondents
were doing pretty well—in fact, similar to (DeFrain & Eirick, 1981) or
better than (Ambert, 1982) many single mothers. For instance,
Ambert's (1982) single fathers reported better child behavior and
higher satisfaction than did single mothers in the study. Ambert
attributed this to a “conspiracy” of appreciation; friends and family
regularly complimented fathers and offered them more help and social
invitations, and that appreciation was reflected to their children, who
then also expressed more appreciation of their fathers. Mothers, in
contrast, did not receive the same level of kudos and aid, and they
reported a lower level of appreciation from their children.

Gersick's (1979) study compared 20 divorced custodial fathers

with 20 divorced noncustodial fathers. He found that both sets of men
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

had participated in child rearing about equally in their marriages.

Instead, what distinguished the two groups was that custodial fathers
were more likely middle- or last-born of their siblings, whereas
noncustodial fathers were more likely firstborn. Also, custodial men
were closer to their mothers and from more traditional gender
relations, whereas noncustodial expressed closeness to both parents.
(Interestingly, no other studies have followed up on this finding.)
Although Gersick suggested that custodial fathers had often been
motivated to seek custody because of feeling wronged or betrayed by
the wife, he also reported that the vast majority of ex-wives had
agreed to father custody. In their review of five single-father studies,
Orthner and Lewis (1979) found no evidence that fathers sought
custody to deliberately hurt former spouses.

In general, from these studies (and more recent ones), we know

that on most key socioeconomic characteristics, single dads lie on a
continuum between single moms and married fathers. That is, in terms
of income, education, and poverty, single fathers are generally less
well-off than married fathers, but they are better off than single
mothers. For the most part, this economic pattern has held true
throughout the four or five decades that research has been conducted
on single fathers (although recently single mothers have surpassed
single fathers in education; see Table 1). In terms of family
configuration, single fathers also consistently differ from single
mothers. They tend to have custody of a smaller number of children,
older children, and more males than do single mothers (Brown, 2000;
Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, & Dufur, 1998; Eggebeen, Snyder, &
Manning, 1996; Hook & Chalasani, 2008; Livingston, 2013; Norton &
Glick, 1986; see also Table 1). Also, as Table 1 shows, single fathers
are currently less likely than single mothers to have “no other adults”
in the household, meaning that they are more likely to have other
adults in the household. This is because of their higher rate of
cohabitation—they are more than twice as likely as single mothers to
cohabit with a partner (22.4% vs. 10.5%) but less likely to reside with
extended family members in complex (i.e., extended) households
(21.3% vs. 29.7%).

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
17
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

The Turn to Quantitative Research

Norton and Glick's (1986) demographic study of single fathers

using US Census data and Greif and DeMaris's (1990) quantitative
study of more than 1,000 single fathers obtained through Parents
Without Partners signaled a turning point in research focused on single
fathers. Although Greif and DeMaris's respondents were quite
homogeneous (96% White, middle class, and all divorced or
separated), there soon followed more systematic studies and growing
recognition in the 1990s that single-father homes were increasingly
formed by young, never-married men with lower incomes and fewer
children (Eggebeen et al., 1996). Since then, the field has been
increasingly dominated by quantitative studies using national, more
representative data sets. Commonly used data sets include the
American Time Use Survey (ATUS), National Education Longitudinal
Study (NELS), National Household Education Survey (NHES), National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY), National Survey of Families and Households
(NSFH), National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the National
Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (NLSAH), and various US
Census data (e.g., Current Populations Survey, CPS; Public Use
Microdata Sample, PUMS). These better reflect the growing diversity
among single fathers, particularly in terms of prior marital status and
current living arrangements. Therefore, recent studies more frequently
measure within-group variation and test several theories.

Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on

Single Fathering

In general, studies of single fathers have been interested in two

questions: (a) How similarly do single mothers and single fathers
parent (sometimes the question is, “Can single dads ‘mother’?”) (Hook
& Chalasani, 2008; Risman, 1986, 1987), which is frequently
measured in terms of time involvement and closeness; and (b) Do the
outcomes for children differ by gender of the single parent or by
gender matching of the child and parent? I begin with the first
question.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
18
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Involvement and Family Processes Among Single

Fathers

Parental involvement is a common focus of parenting studies,

and although it is acknowledged that “involvement” is difficult to fully
capture, it is often measured in hours or frequency of time(s) spent
with children in shared meals, reading, at school, or in leisure
activities; by quality of relationship (e.g., respondents' assessment of
closeness, attachment, warmth); and investment in the parental role
(awareness of and monitoring children's activities, friends, homework).
With respect to single-father involvement, scholars have wondered
how single fathers' parenting compares to that of married fathers and
single mothers. Therefore, researchers have generally tested a
microstructural explanation versus a gender explanation. A
microstructural approach (sometimes called an interactional approach;
see, e.g., Hook & Chalasani, 2008) argues that fathers and mothers
behave differently not because of enduring or inherent gendered traits
but because they face different social conditions. Specifically, it is
suggested, the social conditions of being a single parent generate
similarities in the parenting behaviors of single mothers and single
fathers (Nord, Brimhall, & West, 1997; Risman, 1986, 1987; Thomson,
McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). The expectations, demands, and
opportunities of the single-parenting environment (and from others in
that environment, e.g., children) will counter or override gender
differences. Therefore, the microstructural approach expects that
single mothers and fathers act out gender roles that are less
traditionally separate and instead more similar to each other in both
their parenting behavior and the amount of time they invest in
household work than is the case for mothers and fathers in married
two-parent families.

In contrast, a gender approach (sometimes referred to as an

individualist approach; see, e.g., Downey et al., 1998) suggests that
gender roles, whether manifested in personalities or physiology and
whether acquired through biology or early socialization, create stable,
immutable parenting attributes. Thus, no matter the parenting
situation, men will parent similarly to one another and differently than
women. Women will more likely attend to primary and daily parenting

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
19
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

tasks, such as feeding, dressing, and emotional nurturance of children,

whereas men will attend to play activities and financial provision.

Virtually all research finds that single fathers do more household

and child-care work when mothers are not around, particularly when
they are not in two-parent families. In fact, several studies find that
single fathers do more of such work than any other type of father
(Cooksey & Fondell, 1996; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Hawkins, Amato,
& King, 2006; Nord & West, 2001; but for an exception, see Jones &
Mosher, 2013). For instance, Nord et al. (1997) used data from the
National Household Education Survey to measure involvement in
school activities (class events, parent-teacher conferences,
volunteering, general school meetings). They found that single
mothers and fathers displayed similar rates of participation, with single
mothers less involved than married mothers and single fathers more
involved than married fathers.

Such findings support a microstructural approach; that is, at

least to some extent, men's parenting styles adapt to the
contingencies of the new environment. However, most findings have
been more mixed. Commonly, studies find evidence, with variation by
measure and data set, to support both microstructural and gender
theories. The researchers, nevertheless, often conclude that one
explanation is stronger than the other.

In her 1987 study of 55 single fathers, 73 single mothers, and

155 married couples, Risman measured role priority, household tasks,
child self-disclosure, physical affection, and parent-child intimacy.
Single mothers and fathers were similar on most measures, but single
mothers reported more physical affection and intimacy with their
children than did single fathers. Risman concluded that microstructural
elements were more important explanatory factors than was gender.
(Similarly, see Demuth & Brown, 2004; Heath & Orthner, 1999; Hilton
& Devall, 1998; Risman, 1986, 1987; Thomson et al., 1992.)

However, Hawkins et al. (2006) analyzed adolescent reports

from the 1995 NLSAH to compare parental involvement among two-
parent, single-parent, and stepparent households, as well as
nonresident parents. Using 10 measures of involvement (shopping,
playing sports, religious and cultural events, school projects, various
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
20
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

types of verbal interaction, and closeness), the researchers found that

teens from single-father households rated their fathers highest among
all fathers, supporting a microstructural view. Nevertheless, single
fathers were no more involved overall than nonresident mothers, and
unpartnered single mothers rated higher on involvement than single
dads on all 10 measures. Hence, the authors concluded that the
results supported a gender approach, as gender accounted for
approximately 95% of the variance between parental categories.

Using NSFH 1987–1988 data, Hall, Walker, and Acock (1995)

compared noncohabiting single-mother (1,433) and single-father
(128) households. They found that single mothers and fathers did not
differ in the number of meals per week they ate with at least one of
their children, and they spent similar amounts of time with children in
other activities, such as doing homework or reading. Thus, these
findings provided some support for microstructural theory. But Hall et
al. also found that single fathers spent slightly more time than single
mothers in leisure activities with children away from home, and
mothers spent slightly more time in private talks with children. More
significant, parents differed considerably in the time spent in
housework; single mothers spent more time on housework overall and
more time specifically on “feminine” tasks (e.g., meal preparation,
washing dishes, cleaning, laundry), whereas single dads spent more
time on “masculine” tasks (e.g., outdoor work, auto maintenance),
indicating that household duties remained gendered.

Hook and Chalasani (2008) approached their study from a more

nuanced perspective. The authors suggested that not all interactional
(microstructural) pressures encourage men to behave as mothers;
single fathers face competing pressures to behave both as moms and
as traditional men. They argued that the “doing gender” perspective
suggests that, regardless of structural position, gender exerts distinct
pressures holding individuals accountable to their gender. They argued
that even in identical structural positions behaviors can be expected to
diverge by gender precisely because the microstructural position is
incongruent with macro gender norms. The ideology of intensive
motherhood, for example, shapes the involvement of mothers even if
they are noncustodial, and the “good provider” cultural norm pressures
single fathers to forefront provision even when they are primary
caretakers.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

With this in mind, using 2003–2006 ATUS data, Hook and

Chalasani (2008) compared single fathers to married fathers and
single mothers in terms of the amount of time spent on child care,
accounting for differences in employment profiles, household
composition, and care arrangements. They found that single fathers
spend slightly less time caring for children than single mothers, but
more time than married fathers. In particular, for children age 5 years
and younger, single fathers spend less time on physical care and more
time on play than do single mothers. Single fathers spend less time on
housework and more time eating. The researchers concluded that both
microstructural and gender theories were supported.

Where studies have been most consistent are those measuring

closeness, monitoring, and supervision; these have been most likely to
find that single fathers are less close to and less involved with their
children's friends and school, and monitor and supervise their children
less than single mothers do (Bronte-Tinkew, Scott, & Lilja, 2010;
Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Cookston, 1999; Demuth &
Brown, 2004; Downey, 1994; Hall et al., 1995; Hilton & Devall, 1998;
Maccoby & Mnooken, 1992; Risman, 1987).

For instance, with 1995 NLSAH data on 7th–12th graders,

Cookston (1999) used three measures of parental supervision: how
often the parent is home when the child leaves for school, when the
child returns, and when the child goes to bed. Compared to single
mothers and two-parent families, single fathers had the lowest
supervision scores. However, Cookston pointed out, as did Hook and
Chalasani (2008), that because single fathers have greater
employment hours than single mothers and married fathers, their
employment may account for their lower supervision.

Finally, using their own data set of 30 each of single fathers,

single mothers, and married couples, Hilton and Devall (1998)
measured 18 positive (e.g., spending time together, comforting,
showing affection) and negative (e.g., criticizing, yelling, nagging)
parental behaviors through a survey administered to both parents and
children. They found that single fathers displayed more positive
behaviors than married fathers. But similar to the already-mentioned
studies, they concluded that single fathers were less restrictive than
single mothers; they were more likely to allow their children to
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
22
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

participate in the activities of their peers and try activities on their

own.

Within-Group Variation

Descriptive in nature, Brown's 2000 study, based on 1997 CPS

data, began laying out the demography of within-group variation.
Brown compared married fathers to single fathers, but he also divided
the latter into nine types by previous marital status (divorced,
widowed, and never married) and by current living arrangements
(cohabiting; lone; or complex, i.e., living with extended family) to
delineate demographic differences. Among single fathers, Brown found
that cohabiting fathers (about 25% of single fathers) had the least
amount of education and income and were younger than married or
noncohabiting fathers. Cohabiting fathers were more likely to be racial
minorities and least likely to be married. Sixteen percent of Black
fathers were single (twice the overall rate). Never-married fertility was
the primary path for cohabiting single fathers (61% had never been
married), but divorce was the primary path for noncohabiting fathers,
although 25% of all noncohabiting fathers were never married. More
than 33% of cohabiting fathers were divorced or separated, and so
probably not living with the child's mother. The vast majority of single
fathers headed their own household; about 14% of noncohabiting
fathers lived in households headed by his parent or other adult
(compared to 6% of cohabiting single fathers and 2% of married
fathers). Most (60%) single fathers lived with only one child. Thirty-
four percent of cohabiting single fathers had young children (younger
than age 2), whereas only 10% of noncohabiting single fathers and
19% of married fathers had children that young.

Related to parenting involvement, the few within-group

variation studies have focused on comparing noncohabiting to
cohabiting single fathers. Bronte-Tinkew et al. (2010) used two
theoretical perspectives: (a) a life course perspective that suggests
that recent and past experiences, as well as interactions and
relationships with family members, contribute to current conditions
and roles (Elder, Liker, & Cross, 1984; Roberts & Bengston, 1993),
and (b) a social capital framework, suggesting that the strength of ties
and levels of closeness and involvement between single fathers and

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
23
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

their adolescent offspring would aid adolescents in future development

of financial and human capital. Specifically, Bronte-Tinkew et al., using
five rounds of NLSY data from 1997 to 2003 and using only those
cases in which the family structure remained the same throughout the
five rounds, explored how the presence of cohabiting partners affects
parenting involvement among single fathers. The researchers found
that single custodial-father families with a coresident partner had the
lowest levels of family routines; adolescents in such families are least
likely to participate in regular family activities such as eating dinner
together. Single-father households with a partner also exhibited lower
levels of closeness and awareness of their children's friends and
activities than all other parent types, which may lower social capital for
the child.

Similarly, the previously mentioned Hawkins et al. (2006) study

found that unpartnered single fathers had the highest levels of
engagement with their adolescent children in comparison to any other
type of father, particularly in regard to traditionally feminine activities.
These findings confirmed a few earlier studies (Maccoby & Mnookin,
1992; Thomson et al., 1992) that also found that parental involvement
tends to be lower in cohabiting families relative to both single-parent
families and married two-parent families.

Outcomes for Children of Single Fathers

The discussion of parenting differences between single mothers

and fathers flows logically into a discussion of the second question
addressed in many studies of single fathers: whether parenting
differences, even modest ones, between single mothers and single
fathers have important consequences for children's well-being. If not,
this gives greater credence to the microstructuralist view. If significant
outcome differences exist, then individualist, gendered arguments
carry more weight.

For several decades, many studies focused on single-mother

households, comparing their children's outcomes to those of two-
parent families. Most found that living in a single-mother family
increases the risk for delinquency. In those studies, the most popular
explanation centers on a resource deprivation argument—single
mothers have fewer resources (e.g., income, time, energy), thus
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
24
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

leading to diminished social control and socialization (Amato & Keith,

1991; Lareau, 1989; McLanahan & Booth, 1989; McNulty & Bellair,
2003; Meyer & Garasky, 1993; Rankin & Wells, 1994). Because we
now know that, on average, single fathers have higher income and,
until recently, higher education than single mothers, and fewer
children in whom to invest those resources, we might expect that
single fathers would be more effective than single mothers at
controlling child delinquency.

To explore this expectation, several studies have tested what

Eitle (2006) called the “maternal” and “paternal” hypotheses, although
the studies do not always explicitly refer to those hypotheses. The
maternal hypothesis suggests that children are less likely to be
engaged in delinquency when raised by single mothers, instead of
single fathers because single fathers have weaker interpersonal and
affective bonds with their children. This thesis often assumes that men
also have less access to extended family to buttress social control, but
according to Hill and Hilton (1999) and Hilton and Koperafrye (2007),
single fathers have as much, if not more, access to support from
friends and extended families. In contrast, the paternal hypothesis
suggests that children of single fathers are at lower risk because men
are more effective disciplinarians, but, as mentioned already, several
studies indicate that single fathers exhibit less closeness, supervision,
and monitoring, and so we should not expect much support for this
thesis. As explained before, a structuralist theory suggests that single
fathers and mothers adapt to the exigencies of the single-parent
context, which makes their children at about the same risk for
delinquent or “deviant” behavior.

Using data from the 1982 NSFG, McLanahan and Bumpass

(1988) found no differences in the likelihood of teen marriage, teen
birth, premarital birth, or marital disruption between youths in single-
mother households and youths in single-father households. Adult
children from both single-father and single-mother households had
equivalently higher rates of these outcomes than those in two-parent
households.

Most more recent studies have concentrated on adolescent

respondents and have distinguished between internalizing behaviors
(e.g., depression, anxiety, low self-esteem) and externalizing
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
25
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

behaviors (e.g., antisocial or violent behavior) and substance use.

Current evidence from these studies indicates that for internalizing
behaviors (Buchanan et al., 1996; Downey et al., 1998) and academic
performance (Downey, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1997; Mulkey,
Crain, & Harrington, 1992), outcomes for children from single-father
and single-mother households are similar. Again these conclusions
support a microstructural approach.

However, turning the lens to externalizing behavior (e.g.,

antisocial and violent behavior) and substance use (e.g., cigarette
smoking, alcohol, drugs), parental gender effects become more
salient, with children of single fathers consistently showing higher
levels of both (Buchanan et al., 1996; Cookston, 1999; Demuth &
Brown, 2004; Downey & Powell, 1993: Hoffmann & Johnson, 1998)
over children of single mothers. (Although this review is of US studies,
I note that Breivik and Olweus's (2006) study of Norwegian single
fathers came to the same conclusions.)

For instance, Eitle's own findings from the 2006 study using
data from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey, an annual
survey of middle and high school students, found that living with a
single father increased the risk of alcohol use among boys and girls,
the risk of delinquent behavior among daughters, and the risk of
marijuana use among Latino students (the study included Whites and
African Americans as well). Parental gender didn't matter for other
illicit drug use. The inconsistent nature of the findings led Eitle (2006)
to conclude that both the microstructural and the maternal hypotheses
were somewhat supported, but not the paternal hypothesis.

Hoffmann and Johnson (1998) focused on drug use among

adolescents ages 12–17, using 3 years of NHSDA data. They compared
family structures that included two parents, single parents, and
stepparents, and they concluded that the risk of drug use, including
problem use, was greatest for adolescents in single-father households
(see also Cooksey & Fondell, 1996). Similarly, Cookston (1999) used
1995 NLSAH data (adolescent reports) to measure involvement
(parental supervision) and outcomes. He found that alcohol and drug
behaviors, as well as delinquency rates, were highest in single-father
homes. Using the same data, Demuth and Brown (2004) likewise
found that family process scores (measures of closeness, supervision,
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

and monitoring) were consistently higher in single-mother families,

and this was reflected in lower delinquency rates among children of
single mothers versus those of single fathers. However, once they
controlled for family process variables—that is, once they compared
single mothers and fathers with similar levels of closeness,
attachment, supervision, and monitoring—they concluded that gender
was of no importance.

One of the few exceptions was a study conducted by Downey,

Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur (1998). Using 1990 NELS data, which
includes reports from adolescent students, parents, and teachers,
Downey et al. compared adolescents from single-mother and single-
father households on adolescent well-being (measured as teen
parenthood, delinquency, marijuana use, disruptive behavior, getting
along with others, and effort in school). Only two measures revealed
significance—teachers judged youths raised in a single-father
household as less successful at getting along with others and putting
forth effort. There were no significant differences on self-concept or
relationships with peers. Controlling for socioeconomic resources,
children from single-father families had slightly lower standardized test
scores. However, given the small size and number of differences, the
researchers concluded that there was more support for a
microstructuralist view. If women's and men's contributions are
distinctive, they would have expected larger and more consistent
differences in adolescent outcomes that those observed. In addition,
Clarke-Stewart and Hayward's (1996) study found that children were
emotionally better off in single-father homes, but they were studying
younger children (ages 5–13) and were not using a national,
representative sample.

Related to outcomes and within-group variation, Buchanan et

al.'s (1996) Stanford Custody Project found that having a cohabiting
partner in the household, which as stated earlier is more common
among single fathers than single mothers, was associated with higher
levels of virtually every problematic outcome they measured: poorer
conflict resolution skills, substance use, school deviance, antisocial
behavior, and lower grades and effort at school. Not surprisingly, the
authors concluded that the association between having an unmarried
partner in the household and poor adjustment, especially for boys, was
strong and consistent.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Interaction Between Sex of Parent and Child

Several studies related to outcomes for children have gone one

step further than asking whether children are better off with single
fathers or single mothers; rather, they have asked whether the
consequences for children's outcomes are a result of an interaction
between the gender of the parent and of the child. For the most part,
these studies ask whether children will fare better when they are
raised by a parent of the same sex. Remember that single fathers tend
to raise more sons than daughters, which can be attributed to both a
greater propensity of fathers to seek custody of their sons and to
mothers' and courts' willingness to grant those requests, in part
because the parties assume that fathers will be more effective parents
for sons than for daughters. Underlying this is Freud's classic
psychoanalytic theory, which emphasizes the importance of a child's
ability to identify with the same-sex parent as a prerequisite for his or
her healthy emotional development (Downey & Powell, 1993).
Similarly, social learning theory stresses the importance of the child
modeling the behavior of the parent more similar to her- or himself, as
well as the reinforcement received from others for doing so (Bussey &
Bandura, 1984). In addition, others have suggested that parents may
better understand the needs of their same-sex children (Thompson,
1983), or researchers have highlighted concerns that custodial
heterosexual parents may seek emotional fulfillment from their
opposite-sex children in the absence of an adult partner (Weiss,
1979).

Among the first studies to support the same-sex theory was the
Texas Custody Research Project (Santrock & Warshak, 1979), which
compared 64 White middle-class families, matched on socioeconomic
status, size, and sibling status. About 33% were intact families, 33%
mother custody, and 33% father custody (all were single parents
following divorce). The children were compared on several
psychological well-being measures (e.g., self-esteem, warmth,
anxiety, anger, maturity, sociability, conformity, independence). The
results of the study, published in several articles (see, e.g., Santrock &
Warshak, 1979; Warshak & Santrock, 1983), concluded that the
pattern of results consistently revealed more socially competent
behavior in children living with the same-sex parent than in children

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
28
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

living with the opposite-sex parent. Boys in father-custody homes

showed greater maturity and sociability than did girls in father-custody
homes, and girls in mother-custody homes were rated as more socially
competent than boys in mother-custody homes. In addition, children
were more likely to indicate a preference for same-sex custody.

However, subsequent studies have not reached the same

conclusions. Using data from the 1988 NELS, Downey and Powell
(1993) looked at 35 social, psychological, and educational outcomes
and could not find even one in which both males and females benefit
significantly from living with their same-sex parent. Only four
outcomes regarding interaction between the sex of the parent and the
child were significant, and the effects were counter to the same-sex
thesis: On several educational outcomes—educational expectations of
the child, some standardized test scores, and educational objects in
the home—girls scored higher if they were in father-only households.

Using a sample of 187 children from 160 divorced families in

Southern California, with roughly equal numbers of children in same-
sex and opposite-sex custodial arrangements, Clarke-Stewart and
Hayward (1996) tested the maternal versus paternal theory,
hypothesizing that children would do better in the custody of their
same-sex parent. Although they found that children were generally
emotionally better off in father custody, none of the interactions by
gender matching of child and parent was significant for any measure of
psychological well-being (e.g., divorce adjustment, self-esteem,
depression, anxiety). (A 1998 study in Israel by Guttman and Lazar
came to similar conclusions.)

Summary

In summary, what can we conclude regarding single fathers and

their children? Single fathers tend to be better off in terms of income
and social support than single mothers. They tend to have fewer,
older, and more male children than single mothers. More often than
not, studies indicate that single fathers' involvement with children and
household duties increases as they take on the single-parent role. This
involvement is quantitatively similar to that of single mothers but
perhaps differs in traditionally gendered ways, with single mothers
being more likely to participate in private talks and housework,
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
29
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

whereas single fathers are more involved in play and provision. Single
mothers tend to provide more closeness, monitoring, and supervision
than do fathers, who appear more lenient, allowing children to
experiment a bit more. Thus, these studies provide support for both
microstructural (single dads are more involved than married dads) and
gender theories (single dads' and single moms' parenting nevertheless
differs in some qualitatively gender-normed ways).

With a few possible exceptions, the children of single fathers do

about as well in terms of internalizing behavior and academic
performance (sometimes better), which again provides support for
microstructural theories. However, the children of single fathers
appear to be more likely to participate in externalizing behavior and
substance use (do not confuse with “abuse”), perhaps a reflection of
the already-mentioned style differences, which indicates that resources
play a lesser role than parental processes in these outcomes and
provides some support for maternal theories. As of yet, the few
studies of young adults (as opposed to adolescents) do not seem to
indicate significant long-term differences, as related to marriage, teen
birth, and divorce, between those reared in single-father versus single-
mother homes (Downey & Powell, 1993; McLanahan & Bumpass,
1988).

Discussion

Early research on single mothers often generalized findings to

all single parents (e.g., Bianchi, 1995). So the inclusion of, or focus
on, single fathers has contributed to a resolution of that bias.
Nevertheless, further refinements are needed within the single-father
literature itself. Hill and Hilton (1999) complained that the literature on
single fathers suffered from poorly defined samples, thus making
comparison across studies difficult. To some extent, that weakness
lingers and is difficult to resolve. As mentioned earlier, getting a firm
grasp of the prevalence of single fathers in the United States can be
slippery because single fathers can be called by various labels with
slightly different meanings—for example, father-only household or lone
father usually means that the child's mother is not present, but
another partner might be. In some studies, single fathers includes
fathers who are nonresident with their children (Forste, Bartkowski, &

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
30
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Jackson, 2009; Roy, 1999). In addition, custodial fathers can include

remarried fathers who have custody of their children (see Grall's 2011
study on receipt of child support). Some researchers may try to delete
remarried custodial or cohabiting single fathers from their studies, but
it often depends on the focal research question as to whether that is
advisable. In addition, the definition of children may vary. Most
commonly included are households containing children younger than
age 18, but occasionally studies include children younger than age 21,
which, of course, increases the overall count of single fathers. Hence,
“single fathers” is a fluid concept, and it pays to read the fine print.

Once the pool has been defined, some researchers fail to

distinguish prior marital status—never married, divorced or separated,
and widowed (although most studies continue to focus on divorced
fathers). The different transitions involved in these may portend very
different outcomes for father and child. I have seen no studies on
single fathers that distinguish among biological or adoptive fathers.
Some studies exclude fathers who are living with extended kin
(complex households), whereas others allow those fathers to be
among the respondents but may not control for that. Controlling for
those distinctions is essential, because demographic studies indicate
that fathers differ greatly in income, race, education, and age,
according to marital status and current living arrangements. Finally,
although we can assume that inevitably some of the single fathers are
gay, none of the studies using large data sets distinguish sexual
orientation.

For at least the first two decades, virtually all studies on single
fathers focused on White fathers. Although that has changed with the
use of nationally representative data sets, most studies, except those
profiling demographic differences among single fathers (e.g., Brown,
2000; Eggebeen et al., 1996; Grall, 2011; Meyer & Garasky, 1993), do
not delineate findings according to race. (Among the few exceptions,
see Eitle, 2006; Zhan & Pandey, 2004; the research of the latter, not
described herein, looked at the effect of a 4-year college education on
economic well-being of single parents.) Although research on
fatherhood among various racial groups is increasing, the status of
studies on single fathers of color currently resembles those of White
single fathers of the 1970s and 1980s; that is, the studies are small,
qualitative, descriptive, and exploratory in nature, and they focus on
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
31
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

African American single fathers (Coles, 2009; Green, 2010; Hamer &
Marchioro, 2002). Battle and Coates (2004) and Battle and Scott
(2000) are the only larger, comparative, quantitative studies on
outcomes of Black children in single-father homes. I have seen no
studies focused on single fathers of other ethnic minority groups.

Most research on single fathers, whether qualitative or

quantitative, has been cross-sectional in nature, thus prohibiting the
examination of cause and effect. Even research using longitudinal data
sets often uses only one wave of data in the study (Bronte-Tinkew et
al., 2010, is an exception). In addition, cross-sectional data make it
difficult, if not impossible, to rule out selection effects of the children
and the father. For instance, in terms of higher delinquency rates,
does single fathering precede delinquency of children, or vice versa?
That is, is there a tendency to place problematic children with male
parents? Although Powell and Downey (1997) could find no evidence
of more troubled children, particularly boys, being sent to live with
their fathers, they came to this conclusion by determining that a very
small percentage of the children in their study had switched from living
with single mothers to living with single fathers. They were unable to
determine whether more troublesome children had gone to live with
fathers immediately at the initial divorce. Most existing studies cannot
attempt to address that question.

Single fathers do have more choice (seekers) than single

mothers regarding whether and when they assume child custody, and
some studies have found that father custody is more likely to be the
result of a problematic family environment (e.g., ex-spouse or mother
has serious emotional problems, high interparental conflict) than when
mothers obtain custody (Buchanan et al., 1996). So children's
outcomes, whether positive or negative, could to some extent be
selection effects of the single father or the child. More longitudinal data
would be able to address these questions better.

Several important variables have no measure in most studies, and

thus researchers are unable to account for their effects. These include
the following:

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
32
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

• Length of time children have been living in a single-father

household (exceptions: Bokker, Farley, & Bailey, 2006, whose
respondents had to be divorced fewer than 7 months).
• Extent of involvement of any noncustodial parents. Hawkins et
al. (2006) and Nord and West (2001) found that nonresident
mothers were more involved than nonresident fathers. Clarke-
Stewart and Hayward's (1996) conclusions were less clear. They
found that nonresident mothers and fathers were no different
“in the amount or kind of contact they had with their children
(frequency of visits, length of visits, shared activities, and
holidays). Nor did nonresident mothers live closer to their
children” (p. 263), but they also said that nonresident mothers
“somehow seemed to stay more involved with their children”
(p. 263) and that children living with their fathers were more
likely to continue thinking of their mothers as part of the family
and in more positive terms than did children in mother custody
of their nonresident fathers. More research on this might clear
up the role of nonresident parents.
• Measures of income or poverty (these are more common in
studies but still not present across the board).
• Number of children (most usually use one focal child), types of
custody (split, joint, sole), whether the father also has custody
of nonbiological children or has other biological but nonresident
children.
• Hours employed by parents. As mentioned earlier, the studies
that did include hours employed (Hook & Chalasani, 2008; Lin &
Chen, 2006) consistently found that single fathers spend more
time in the paid labor force, so this would seem to be an
important variable to include on a consistent basis.

Most of the child outcome research has been conducted on teens.

The field of single-father research would be enhanced by more studies
on adult children of single fathers. This would provide insight into
whether those higher rates of substance use, for instance, continue
into adulthood and whether they convert to higher levels of abuse. In
what ways do the lower levels of talk, affection, and closeness
apparently associated with single fathering translate into adult child-
father relations or into the relationships the adult child creates with his
or her peers and partners?

Although the shift to quantitative studies has contributed to the

quality of the research in several ways (broadening the pool to be
more representative; containing respondent numbers large enough to

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
33
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

make generalizations; controlling for factors that qualitative studies

could not capture; including respondents other than the fathers
themselves (e.g., mother, children, teachers), many quantitative
studies are less focused on the single father and his family per se and
more on comparing the effects of various family structures (e.g.,
married, step, cohabiting, single), among which single fathers happen
to be a small subset. Consequently, there is still room for good
qualitative studies to focus in depth on the experience, motivations,
and perceptions of single fathers and their children, asking how the
children themselves play a role in shaping the fathering experience
and expanding to special subgroups (e.g., different racial groups,
sexual orientation, adoptive fathers), for which exploratory, descriptive
studies may be most useful.

Conclusion

In terms of theoretical directions, the research has

understandably fallen into a dichotomous comparison of mother-
female-feminine versus father-male-masculine parenting, often with
the goal of determining who is the better parent (and often with the
presumption that “mothering” is the gold standard, as illustrated in
Risman's, 1986, “Can Men Mother?”). When single-father parenting
seems to be more similar to that of a single mother's and less similar
to that of a married father's, more weight is given to a microstructural
explanation, even when we know little about the structural situation
itself, except that it has one fewer parent. A microstructural
hypothesis would best be tested by a longitudinal study that follows
the same men who are first in a married or two-parent situation and
who then subsequently enter a single-parent situation. However, as we
all know, it is hard to create perfect social experiments with human
lives. Though still imperfect, qualitative studies could partially capture
these transitional structural effects on fathers' parenting goals, styles,
and outcomes by purposively sampling fathers who have experienced
this transition, but such studies would still have the limitation of
retrospective answers.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that both

microstructural factors and gender are at play. Single fathers parent
differently than married fathers because of the needs of the structural

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

context, particularly the number of adults available. But by the time

they reach single fatherhood, fathers have already spent a lifetime in
their genes and gendered norms, and the effects of these pervasive
normative factors likely resist total obliteration. Hence, in this respect,
it is probably time to move the research on single fathers in a more
integrated direction.

First, similar to the model used in Hooks and Chalasani (2008),

theory should assume that parenting reflects the constraints and
pressures associated with both gender and structural perspectives.
Which constraints and pressures do fathers (and mothers) perceive
regarding their gendered roles as men (and women) and as fathers
and mothers? For instance, do single fathers feel more pressured to be
employed, to be providers, to take off less work time, than do single
mothers? In what ways and to what extent do single fathers hold
themselves to lower or higher parenting standards than do single
mothers? How do such differences in gendered expectations, if any,
play out in their parenting in practical ways? Because of gender
differences and gendered cultural expectations, fathers appear to have
more choice about whether and when they take custody of children; to
what extent are father and child outcomes influenced by selection
factors mentioned earlier? Are single fathers more motivated to parent
than single mothers? Research already indicates that single fathers are
more financially prepared, but does this extend to other resources,
such as social and emotional?

Second, despite having just suggested ways that research could

compare gendered roles within a structural model, a second line of
research needs to veer from the research comparing mothers and
fathers and continue the nascent trend toward more within-group
variation research, using more ecological, family systems, or
developmental models, for instance. More studies that make
comparisons among the single fathers themselves—such as between
cohabiting and noncohabiting fathers or between those fathers living
or not living with relatives, will inform us about the dynamics and
effects of various coparenting configurations. Studies distinguishing
among fathers of previous marital statuses (e.g., divorce, widowhood,
never married) will help us better understand the preparation and
transition effects of life passages. Sorely needed are studies comparing
adoptive and biological fathers or gay or straight fathers or fathers by
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
35
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

race. A growing population, though still small, is men who have

children by more than one woman, which adds at least another layer
of structural constraints and pressures; an exploratory study on this
population could be quite useful to scholars, policymakers, and
practitioners alike, at least those who want to make policy and practice
evidence based. Studies such as these would fill a huge chasm in the
literature on single fathers.

Third, as mentioned earlier, most studies on outcomes have

looked at middle school and high school children. More studies
focusing on the adult population, where the long-term results can be
detected, are essential. In this respect, studies that go beyond the
“child's” educational attainment, school behavior, and the like, to look
at attitudinal differences, their relationships with their parents, and the
effects on their own life choices and parenting would greatly facilitate
the evaluation of single fatherhood.

Finally, although the recent increase in single fatherhood has

sparked a welcome upsurge in research on single fathers, there are
still more than five times as many children (23.7%) residing in
mother-only than in father-only households (4.1%) as of 2013 (see
Table 1). The percentage of children living with neither parent has
always been higher than those living with fathers only and has also
risen since the 1970s (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). This could indicate that
there is room for growth in single-father households, although as
mentioned earlier, census data since 1880 indicate that the percentage
of children residing in father-only families has never hit 5% (Kreider &
Ellis, 2011), which raises the question as to whether single fathering
has a “glass ceiling.” From a practitioner perspective, teachers, social
service providers, local community providers, and the courts could
continue to (or increase their efforts to) facilitate father responsibility
and inclusion in the family matrix. Even when fathers are not custodial
parents, including them—by communicating with them directly, not
through the mother or child—in school activities and social services will
help prepare men who might end up being primary custodial parents in
the future. Increasing the employment of men in social services and
local community centers also increases the idea that men can be
proficient caretakers. Although single fathers are often financially
better resourced than single mothers, there are many who could use
social services. Fathers need to be better apprised of social and
Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
36
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

community services available to them and access to such services

needs to be facilitated. Homeless shelters, to give an example of more
dire circumstances, often allow only single men or mothers with
children, not men with children. The foregoing studies indicate that
single fathers give their children more freedom, with the result that
adolescents of single fathers tend to experiment more with drugs and
alcohol. We don't know whether this carries into adulthood or results
in long-term substance abuse, but practitioners who work with children
of single fathers could incorporate this information into their parenting
programs and counseling.

Rather than researchers and practitioners keeping score as to who

makes the best parent, or posing differences between single mothers
and fathers as deficits, research could focus on identifying the
obstacles to single fatherhood, as well as on the potential strengths of
single fathering (or male parenting generally) and how those can be
replicated. In the long-term such a strategy could contribute to a
closing of the gap in the percentage of children living with single-
fathers as compared to single mothers and to more cooperative
coparenting.

*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies

included in the systematic review.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of
children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.
*Ambert, A. (1982). Differences in children's behavior toward custodial
mothers and custodial fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 73–
86.
Bartz, K. W., & Witcher, W. C. (1978). When father gets custody. Children
Today, 7, 2–6, 35.
Battle, J., & Scott, B. (2000). Mother-only versus father-only households:
Educational outcomes for Black men. Journal of Black Men, 5, 93–116.
*Battle, J., & Coates, D. L. (2004). Father-only and mother-only, single-
parent family status of Black girls & achievement in grade 12 and at
two years post high school. Journal of Negro Education, 73, 392–407.
Bianchi, S. M. (1995). The changing demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of single parent families. Marriage and Family Review,
20, 71–97.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
37
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

*Bokker, L. P., Farley, R. C., & Bailey, W. (2006). The relationship between
custodial status and emotional well-being among recently divorced
fathers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44, 83–98.
Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006). Adolescents' adjustment in four post-divorce
family structures. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44, 99–124.
*Bronte-Tinkew, J., Scott, M. E., & Lilja, E. (2010). Single custodial fathers'
involvement and parenting: Implications for outcomes in emerging
adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1107–1127.
*Brown, B. V. (2000). The single-father family: Demographic, economic, and
public transfer use characteristics. Marriage and Family Review, 29,
203–220.
Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1992). Adolescents
after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social
power on sex-linked modeling. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 1292–1302.
*Chang, P. N., & Deinard, A. S. (1982). Single-father caretakers:
Demographic characteristics and adjustment processes. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 236–243.
Child Trends Databank. (2013). Births to unmarried women. Retrieved from
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=births-to-unmarried-women
*Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody
and contact for the psychological well-being of school-age children.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 239–270.
*Coles, R. L. (2001). The parenting roles and goals of single Black full-time
fathers. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 101–116.
*Coles, R. L. (2002). Black single fathers: Choosing to parent full-time.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31, 411–439.
*Coles, R. L. (2009). Best kept secret: Single Black fathers. New York, NY:
Rowman & Littlefield.
*Cooksey, E. C., & Fondell, M. M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects
of family structure on fathers' and children's lives. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 693–707.
*Cookston, J. T. (1999). Parental supervision and family structure: Effects on
adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 32,
107–122.
*DeFrain, J., & Eirick, R. (1981). Coping as a divorced single parent: A
comparative study of fathers and mothers. Family Relations, 30, 265–
273.
*Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and
adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus
parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41,
58–81.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
38
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

*Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-

mother and single-father families: Economic or interpersonal
deprivation? Journal of Family Issues, 15, 129–147.
*Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Dufur, M. J. (1998). Sex of
parent and children's well-being in single-parent households. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 60, 878–893.
*Downey, D. B., & Powell, B. (1993). Do children in single-parent households
fare better living with same-sex parents? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 55, 55–71.
*Eggebeen, D. J., Snyder, A. R., & Manning, W. D. (1996). Children in single-
father families in demographic perspective. Journal of Family Issues,
1, 441–465.
*Eitle, D. (2006). Parental gender, single-parent families and delinquency:
Exploring the moderating influence of race/ethnicity. Social Science
Research, 35, 727–748.
*Forste, R., Bartkowski, J. P., & Jackson, R. A. (2009). “Just be there for
them”: Perceptions of fathering among single, low-income men.
Fathering, 7, 49–69.
*Gasser, R. D., & Taylor, C. M. (1976). Role adjustment of single-parent
families with dependent children. Family Coordinator, 25, 397–401.
Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V. L., Macomber, J. E., & Chambers, K. (2007).
Adoption and foster care by gay and lesbian parents in the United
States. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute; Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-Macomber-Chambers-Final-Adoption-
Report-Mar-2007.pdf
Gersick, K. E. (1979). Fathers by choice: Divorced men who receive custody
of their children. In G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.), Separation and
divorce (pp. 307–323). New York, NY: Basic Books.
*Gladding, S. T., & Huber, C. H. (1984). The position of the single-parent
father. Journal of Employment Counseling, 21, 13–18.
*Grall, T. S. (2011, December). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child
support: 2009. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: US
Census Bureau.
Green, C. (2010). Single custodial fathers and mothers meeting the
challenge: A comparative note. In R. L. Coles & C. Green (Eds.), The
myth of the missing Black father (pp. 100–124). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
*Greif, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (1990). Single fathers with custody. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 71, 259–266.
*Guttman, J., & Lazar, A. (1998). Mother's or father's custody: Does it matter
for social adjustment? Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 18, 225–234.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
39
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

*Hall, L. D., Walker, A. J., & Acock, A. C. (1995). Gender and family work in
one-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 685–
692.
*Hamer, J., & Marchioro, K. (2002). Becoming custodial dads: Exploring
parenting among low-income and working class African American
fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 116–129.
Hanson, S. M. H. (1981). Single custodial fathers and the parent–child
relationship. Nursing Research, 30, 202–204.
*Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2006). Parent-adolescent
involvement: The relative influence of parent gender and residence.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 125–136.
*Heath, D. T., & Orthner, D. K. (1999). Stress and adaptation among male
and female single parents. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 557–587.
*Hill, L. C., & Hilton, J. M. (1999). Changes in roles following divorce:
Comparison of factors contributing to depression in custodial single
mothers and custodial single fathers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,
31, 91–114.
*Hilton, J., & Devall, E. (1998). Comparison of parenting and children's
behavior in single-mother, single-father, and intact families. Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage, 29, 23–54.
*Hilton, J. M., & Koperafrye, K. (2007). Differences in resources provided by
grandparents in single and married parent families. Journal of Divorce
& Remarriage, 47, 33–54.
*Hoffman, J. P., & Johnson, R. A. (1998). A national portrait of family
structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
41, 392–407.
*Hook, J. L., & Chalasani, S. (2008). Gendered expectations? Reconsidering
single fathers' child-care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70,
978–990.
Jones, J., & Mosher, W. D. (2013). Fathers' involvement with their children:
United States, 2006–2010. National Health Statistics Reports.
Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Koch, W. (2007, June 15). Number of single men adopting foster kids
doubles. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-14-
foster_n.htm
Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011, June). Living arrangements of children:
2009. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: US Census
Bureau.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
40
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

*Lee, S. M., & Kushner, J. (2008). Single-parent families: The role of parent's
and child's gender on academic achievement. Gender and Education,
20, 607–621.
Lin, T.-F., & Chen, J. (2006). Custodial fathers—Do they work more or fewer
hours? Journal of Family Economic Issues, 27, 513–522.
*Livingston, G. (2013). The rise of single fathers. Pew Research Social &
Demographic Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-
fathers/
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal
dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
*McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Single mothers and their children:
problems, reproduction, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 51, 557–580.
McLanahan, S., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of
family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 130–152.
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent:
What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences
in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and
social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20, 1–31.
*Mendes, H. A. (1976a). Single fatherhood. Social Work, 21, 308–312.
*Mendes, H. A. (1976b). Single fathers. Family Coordinator, 25, 439–444.
*Meyer, D. R., & Garasky, S. (1993). Custodial fathers: Myths, realities, and
child support policy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 73–89.
Mulkey, L. M., Crain, R. L., & Harrington, A. J. C. (1992). One-parent
households and achievement. Sociology of Education, 65, 48–65.
Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers' involvement in their
children's schools. National Center for Education Statistics No. NCES
98–091. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
*Nord, C. W., & West, J. (2001). Fathers' and mothers' involvement in their
children's schools by family type and resident status (National
Household Education Survey: Statistical Analysis Report). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
*Norton, A. J., & Glick, P. C. (1986). One-parent families: A social and
economic profile. Family Relations, 35, 9–17.
*Orthner, D. K., Brown, T., & Ferguson, D. (1976). Single parent fatherhood:
An emerging family life style. Family Coordinator, 25, 429–437.
*Orthner, D. K., & Lewis, K. (1979). Evidence of single-father competence in
child-rearing. Family Law Quarterly, 13, 27–47.
Pearson, J., Munson, P., & Thoennes, N. (1982). Legal change and child
custody awards. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 5–24.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
41
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

*Powell, B., & Downey, D. B. (1997). Living in single-parent households: An

investigation of the same-sex hypothesis. American Sociological
Review, 62, 521–539.
Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E. (1994). Social control, broken homes, and
delinquency. In G. Barak (Ed.), Varieties of criminology: Readings
from a dynamic discipline (pp. 97–116). Westport, CT: Praeger.
*Risman, B. J. (1986). Can men “mother”? Life as a single father. Family
Relations, 35, 95–102.
*Risman, B. J. (1987). Intimate relationships from a microstructural
perspective: Men who mother. Gender & Society, 1, 6–14.
*Risman, B. J., & Park, K. (1988). Just the two of us: Parent–child
relationships in single-parent homes. Journal of Marriage and Family,
5, 1049–1062.
*Rosenthal, K. M., & Keshet, H. F. (1981). Fathers without partners: A study
of fathers and family after marital separation. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &
Littlefield.
*Roy, K. (1999). Low-income single fathers in an African American
community and the requirements of welfare reform. Journal of Family
Issues, 20, 432–457.
*Santrock, J. W., & Warshak, R. A. (1979). Father custody and social
development in boys and girls. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 112–125.
*Smith, R. M., & Smith, C. W. (1981). Child-rearing and single-parent
families. Family Relations, 30, 411–417.
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Morin, R., Cohn, D., & Wang, W. (2013). The new
American father. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/FINAL_Fathers_report.p
df
Thompson, R. A. (1983). The father's case in child custody disputes. The
contributions of psychological research. In. M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi
(Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy (pp. 53–100). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
*Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure,
gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
54, 368–378.
US Census Bureau. (2011). Table 2. Historical living arrangements of
children: 1880 to 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/children/data/sipp/living2009/t
ables.html
US Census Bureau. (2013a). Table C3. Living arrangements of children under
18 years and marital status of parents, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic
origin, and selected characteristics of the child for all children: 2013a.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
42
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Retrieved from www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-

fam/cps2006/tabC3
US Census Bureau. (2013). Table HH-1. Households, by type: 1940 to
present. Current Population Survey. March and annual economic and
social supplements, 2013 and earlier. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/households.html
US Census Bureau. (2013b). Table FM-2. All parent/child situations, by type,
race, and Hispanic origin of householder or reference person: 1970 to
present. Current Population Survey. March and annual economic and
social supplements, 2013 and earlier. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/families.html
Warshak, R. A., & Santrock, J. W. (1983). The impact of divorce in father-
custody and mother-custody homes: The child's perspective. In L. A.
Kurdek (Ed.), Children and divorce: New directions for child
development (pp. 29–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, R. S. (1979). Growing up a little faster: The experience of growing up
in a single-parent household. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 97–111.
Zhan, M., & Pandey, S. (2004). Post-secondary education and economic well-
being of single mothers and single fathers. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 661–673.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol 7, No. 2 (June 2015): pg. 144-166. DOI. This article is © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. John Wiley & Sons, Inc does
not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
43