1

The Role of Father Involvement in the Perceived Psychological Well-Being of Young Adult

Daughters with a Focus on Women of Color

Diamond Crisa Sciequan

Department of Community Care Counseling, Liberty University

A Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

School of Behavioral Sciences

Liberty University

2023
 2

The Role of Father Involvement in the Perceived Psychological Well-Being of Young Adult

Daughters with a Focus on Women of Color

Diamond Crisa Sciequan

A Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

School of Behavioral Sciences

Liberty University

2023

Approved By:

Robyn Simmons, Ed.D., Committee Chair

Jeffrey Boatner, Ph.D., Committee Member

 3

Abstract

The study of father involvement from the perspective of the daughter is a field rarely explored,

especially from the perspective of young adult women of color. Fathers being more present in

the lives of their children has changed the culture of society as more mothers are working outside

of the home full-time. With fathers more involved in the rearing of children the questions of

what impact do fathers if any have on their children compared to mothers. More importantly

what do these children believe regarding their father’s impact on their lives as they reach

adulthood The research field is saturated with information about the mother-child relationship,

but the father-daughter relationship is yet to be fully explored. This study explored the

relationship from the perspective of the daughter with a focus on daughters of color. It examined

father involvement and father nurturance from the daughter’s perspective and the effects on her

self-esteem, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. Results from Pearson’s correlation

analyses showed a significant relationship between perceived father nurturance and self-esteem

(p < .001.). Results of psychological well-being and life satisfaction yielded non-significant

results. Thus, future studies need to continue researching the importance of father involvement

and nurturance in their child’s development, and more specifically the development of daughters.

Keywords: Father involvement, father nurturance, self-esteem, psychological well-being,

life satisfaction.
 4

Copyright 2023 by Diamond Crisa Sciequan

 5

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to those that influenced and supported this research and in

true millennial fashion I must start with my fur babies.

To Pinky, thank you for starting this doctoral journey with me. You were with me

through all those all-nighters and cuddled with me when my anxiety took over. You were a

source of so much comfort and love during those long-hard nights. I am saddened that you are

not here to celebrate this accomplishment with me, but you are furever in my heart.

To Mío, thank you for completing this doctoral journey with me. As a special needs pup,

you have showed me the meaning of determination and what it looks like to be a fighter and

survivor. Thank you for all the cuddles and brightening every day with your dances.

To my grandmothers, Lela and Grandma I dedicate this dissertation to you. Thank you

for being pioneers and coming to America from Puerto Rico and Trinidad many decades ago.

You both made this journey as young mothers with little education. However, your tenacity for a

change in life and sacrifices has led the way and opened doors for me to complete this doctorate.

Your hard-work and sacrifices do not go unrecognized. I completed this dissertation to not only

honor you both, but also to open doors and lead the way for the future generations to come just

as you did for me.

To my Mami, where do I even begin. I’ll kept it short and sweet before this part becomes

a dissertation of its own. What I want you to know is that this doctorate and accomplishment is

as much yours as it is mine. This could not have been completed without you. I am forever

thankful for all of your support, sacrifices, and prayers. You have always supported and guided

me through all my dreams while sacrificing your own. You are the definition of a Proverbs 31
 6

woman. “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all” - Proverbs 31:29. I am

blessed to have you as my Mami. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

To my Dad, this dissertation would not be complete without an acknowledgement of you.

Even though we have spent more time apart than physically together, know that you are and have

always been present in my heart. This dissertation is dedicated to you. You were the first person

that said I was going to be a doctor even though I do not think this is the doctor you meant. This

is one of the core memories that I have as a little girl. I was playing with my doctor kit, giving

you a check-up while an episode of Cheers played in the background. You told me that I would

be Dr. Sciequan when I grow-up. Well, here it is. Your daughter, Dr. Sciequan is at your service

just not for medical reasons. Thank you for always making me feel like a princess or in this case

a doctor.

Lastly, and most importantly, this dissertation is dedicated to my heavenly father, Jesus.

Without Him I am nothing and this is nothing. This accomplishment and ending of this journey

in success is owed to my father, Jesus. How great it is to have a parent that is so powerful,

gracious, empathetic, watchful, and loving. Thank you for your outpouring of blessings and

guiding me through this journey. Events during the time of this writing have caused me to reflect

on the blessings that I have experienced through the works of Your hands. I often question why

me as I think about my past and things that only Jesus knows. My life could have looked very

much different, but yet here I am experiencing a blessing from Jesus. Thank you Jesus for saving

me even though I am not worthy. All that I have and am, I owe to Jesus. THANK YOU JESUS!
 7

Acknowledgments

To Dr. Volk, thank you for being on this journey with me. I appreciate you always

checking on me and all of your support. I first met you in the fall 2014, in your human

development class. Little did I know then that I would be getting ready to embark on this

doctoral journey that would include more classes with you (making very scared… just kidding

kind of). I was scared of statistics, but you made this journey much more doable with your

knowledge, expertise, and most importantly your patience and desire to push your students

towards success. There is no doubt that you are statistically significant!

To Dr. Boatner, thank you for being on this journey with me. I appreciate you sharing

your knowledge and research of father-daughter relationships. Thank you for letting me borrow

your books on the father-daughter relationship and guiding me in this field of research. I

appreciate your support and sharing your own dissertation experience with me. You helped me to

recognize that everyone’s dissertation journey is different, and that the symptoms I experienced

were a normal part of the process. You helped me to see that I was not a failure in the “timeline”

that I thought everything had to be completed by. Thank you for always lending a listening ear

and supporting me on this journey.

To Dr. Simmons, thank you for being on this journey with me. I appreciate you sticking

with me through all the ups and downs, especially covid brain! This has been a long time coming

and I cannot believe that it is finally here. I appreciate all your texts, emails, and calls checking

in on me and setting up goals for me to accomplish. All of the small feats have finally added up

to this big accomplishment. You encouraged and pushed me through this process. Thank you for

never giving up and always believing in me, even when I did not believe myself or could not see
 8

that progress that was being made. Your support and confidence in me helped me to successfully

finish the race that God set before me and for that I am grateful.
 9

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Copyright………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………5

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………7

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….9

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….……...….15

Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…16

Overview....………………………………………………………………………………16

Background...…………………………………………………………………………….16

Fathers Understudied...………………………………………………….……….17

Societal Shifts...………………………………………………………………….18

Daughters and Father Involvement...…………………………………………….19

Adolescent and Young Adult Daughters...……………………………………....20

Promoting and Supporting Fatherhood...………………………….…….……….21

Problem Statement…...……………….………………………………….………………22

Purpose Statement……………………………………………………….……….………23

Significance of the Study……………………………………….……….…….…24

Assumptions and Limitations………………………………………………………....…25

Research Questions…………………………………………………………....…………26

Definitions…………………………………………………………………………..……27

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………28
 10

Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………………………………...29

Overview…………………………………………………………………………………29

Fathering…………………………………………………………………………………29

Father Importance……………………………………………………………..…30

Benefits of Fathers……………………………………………………….31

Roles of Fathers………………………………………………………….32

Father Involvement………………………………………………………32

Non-Residing Fathers……………………………………………………………35

Divorce…………………………………………………………………..36

Father Figures……………………………………………………………37

Absent by Life Circumstance……………………………………………38

Non-Residing Fathers and Policies……………………………………...39

Benefits for Fathers……………………………………………………...39

Attachment………………………………………………………………………………40

Mother Attachment……………………………………………………………...41

Father Attachment……………………………………………………………….42

Fathering and Minority Families…………………………………………………...……44

Latino Culture and Fathers………………………………………………………45

Black Culture and Fathers……………………………………………………….48

Asian Culture and Fathers……………………………………………………….51

Research Lacking………………………………………………………..………53

Daughter’s Perspective………………………………………………………………..…53

Benefits for Daughters…………………………………………………………………...54

 11

Self-Esteem………………………………………………………………………55

Psychological Distress…………………………………………………………...55

Life Satisfaction………………………………………………………………….56

Emerging Adulthood…………………………………………………………………….57

Adolescence……………………………………………………………………...57

Emerging and Young Adults……………………………………………….……58

Perception of Father-Daughter Relationship………………………………….…60

Development of Romantic Relationships………………………………………..61

Research Lacking………………………………………………………………..61

Summary..……………………………………………………………………………….62

Chapter Three: Methods…………………………………………………………………64

Overview…………………………………………………………………………64

Design……………………………………………………………………………64

Research Questions………………………………………………………………65

Hypotheses………………………………………………………….……………66

Participants and Setting……………………………………………………..……66

Recruitment………………………………………………………………67

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria…………………………………………67

Instrumentation………………………………………………………………..…68

Father Involvement Scale……………………………………………..…69

Nurturant Fathering Scale……………………………………………..…69

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale……………………………………………70

Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales…………………………………...70

 12

Satisfaction with Life Scale…………………………………………...…71

Procedure……………………………………………………………………...…71

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………72

Statistical Procedures……………………………………………………72

Validity…………………………………………………………………..73

Summary…………………………………………………………………………74

Chapter Four: Findings…………………………………………………………………………..76

Overview…………………………………………………………………………………76

Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………………..76

Pearson’s Correlation Analysis………………………………………..…………76

Self-Esteem………………………………………………………………77

Psychological Distress…………………………………………………...78

Life Satisfaction……………………………………………………….…81

Independent-samples t-test……………………………………………………….82

Self-Esteem………………………………………………………………83

Psychological Distress………………………………………………...…83

Life Satisfaction………………………………………………………….84

Results……………………………………………………………………………………86

Hypothesis One…………………………………………………………………..86

Hypothesis Two………………………………………………………….………86

Hypothesis Three…………………………………………………………...……87

Hypothesis Four……………………………………………………………….…88

Chapter Five: Conclusions……………………………………………………………………….90

 13

Overview…………………………………………………………………………………90

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..…90

Research Question One…………………………………………………………..91

Research Question Two………………………………………………………….92

Research Question Three………………………………………………………...94

Research Question Four………………………………………………………….96

Implications………………………………………………………………………………97

Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….99

Recommendations for Future Studies…………………………..………………………100

References…..…………………………………………………………………………………..102

Appendix A: IRB Approval…………………………………………………………………….116

Appendix B: Informed Consent….……………………………………………………………..118

Appendix C: Study Invitation ...………………………………………………………………..120

Appendix D: Demographic Questionnaire….…………………………………………………..121

Appendix E: FIS and Permission to Use….…………………………………………………….123

Appendix F: NFS and Permission to Use.…….………………………………………..............126

Appendix G: DASS and Permission to Use...…………………………………………………..129

Appendix H: SWLS and Permissions to Use...………………………………………………....131

Appendix I: Frequencies……...………………………………………………………………...132

Appendix J: Histograms………………………………………………………………………...135

Appendix K: Correlations…..………………………………………………………………......156

Appendix L: Independent-samples t-test……………………………………………………….158

 14

List of Tables

Table 1 Participants’ Demographics

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations (RSE, SWLS, DASS, FIS, NFS)

Table 3 Pearson’s Correlations

Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations (White and Women of Color)

 15

List of Abbreviations

Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS)

Father Involvement Scale (FIS)

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Nurturant Fathering Scale (NFS)

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

 16

Chapter One: Introduction

Overview

The research field is saturated with literature regarding the relationship between mothers

and their children. The topics of mother attachment, the impact of mothering on the development

of her children, and the mother-child relationship have dominated the research field (Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Palm, 2014; Nielsen, 2012). However, there is

one participant that is involved in creating the mother-child dynamic that is missing. Fathers.

There is a scarcity of research concerning the father-child relationship, especially the father-

daughter relationship.

This initial chapter introduces the dynamic of the father-daughter relationship and

discusses the importance of research on the father-daughter relationship, including identifying

gaps in this area of study. Additionally, this chapter discusses the significance of the study,

present the research questions, provide definitions of terms used throughout the study, and

concludes with a summary.

Background

The scarcity of literature regarding the father-daughter relationship raises numerous vital

questions such as whether fathers really matter, are they essential, and do they have any

influence on the overall wellbeing of their daughters. There is limited research on how fathers

influence the development of their children and their outcomes as adults (Palkovitz & Hull,

2018). In addition, there is a lack of research on the father-daughter relationship from the

daughter’s perspective (Allgood et al., 2012). When studying the family dynamic of father,

mother, and child, all participants should be studied in relation to one another. The mother-child

relationship has been studied liberally, but less can be said about the father-child relationship,
 17

and the influence fathers have on their children (Nielsen, 2012). Less can be said about the

child’s perspective, especially for this study, the daughter’s perspective.

Fathers Understudied

Nielsen (2012) compared the father-daughter relationship to the light in a refrigerator. It

is always there but rarely recognized until the light bulb blows out and the inside of the fridge

becomes dark. Father-daughter relationships exist; however, they are seldom recognized until

attention is brought to their relationship. The lack of acknowledgment of fathers is evident in the

delay in establishing Father’s Day as a nationwide celebration. Father’s Day was signed into a

proclamation in 1966, but Mother’s Day was recognized in 1914 (Nielsen, 2012). Studies have

demonstrated that fathers are an underappreciated factor in their child’s development (Barco,

2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). Furthermore, research lacks evidence on how fathers contribute

to their child’s development (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). A small fraction of research has

determined that fathers play a unique and crucial role in their child’s development (Midha &

Geetanjali, 2014). Further investigation is vital to determine how fathers can positively affect

their child’s development and, more specifically, their daughters' development.

Fathers often question their role in the life of their children and if they are needed

(Nielsen, 2012). In the American culture, fathers are viewed primarily as the financial provider,

and in terms of building an intimate relationship with their children, they are considered aloof

and naïve (Devlin, 2005; Nielsen, 2012). Additionally, the father-daughter relationship is often

characterized as awkward, distant, and dysfunctional (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2012). This further perpetuates the problem that the father’s role is to

provide money and remain distant from building relationships with his children.
 18

There is also another group of fathers that remain primarily understudied, known as

father figures. In the Black community, father figures play a vital role (Langley, 2016). Absent,

biological fathers may be replaced by a grandfather, uncle, brother, or other male figures.

Research is lacking if father figures have the same influence as biological fathers (Langley,

2016; Nielsen, 2012). Father figures in the Black community often feel invisible and disregarded

regarding their contributions to the fathering role (Nielsen, 2012).

Societal Shifts

American society has changed during the past couple of decades. Studies show that

fathers spend more time than ever with their children, which is about 20 percent less than

mothers (Nielsen, 2008). The rate of mothers in the workforce with children under eighteen

nearly doubled between 1975 and 2009, and the amount of time fathers spend with their children

doubled between 1965 and 1985 (Bianchi, 2011; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen,

2008). The increase in mothers returning to work after having children has allowed the

opportunity for father involvement to increase. With the increase in father involvement, very

little is known about the effects on children with fathers who are more involved. Research on

father involvement has gained slight momentum during the past two decades in regards to

changes in social norms and the family structure (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Flouri,

2008). More mothers are returning to work, and fathers are assisting in rearing their children.

While older generations viewed the father’s primary role as the financial provider and the mother

as the homemaker (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Miller, 2010; Nielsen, 2008), the current

generation tends to promote more egalitarian roles, and fathers are increasingly becoming

essential participants in childrearing (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Meteyer & Perry-

Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). This is especially true for younger fathers who prefer to reduce
 19

their salary to spend more time with their children (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Meteyer

& Perry-Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2008). A national survey found that 70% of young fathers are

willing to earn less money to spend more time with their children (Radcliff Policy Center, 2000).

Additionally, most fathers reported they want to spend more time with their families and feel

guilty about their time at work (Bianchi et al., 2006; Radcliff Policy Center, 2000).

Daughters and Father Involvement

The limited research on the father-daughter relationship has demonstrated that involved

fathers positively influence their daughter’s development (Allgood et al., 2012; Gordon, 2016;

Jeynes, 2015; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Trahan & Cheung, 2018). Gordon (2016) and Jeynes

(2015) found a positive outcome between father involvement and educational outcomes in

children, including children living in disadvantaged communities. Children benefit educationally,

and those with involved fathers also tend to have fewer drug abuse rates, teenage pregnancy, low

self-esteem, and more life satisfaction (Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). Studies have

demonstrated that fathers may influence cognitive development and provide intellectual

stimulation (Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015; Nielsen, 2012). Current research promotes that

involved mothers and fathers positively affect their child’s development and may have distinct

roles in their child’s development (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014).

Research by Palkovitz and Hull (2018) described father involvement as a combination of

three qualities: accessibility, engagement, and responsibility (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018).

Accessibility is the father’s availability and accountability, including providing safety and

finances, while engagement is an active and emotionally charged experience (Allgood et al.,

2012; Trahan & Cheung, 2018). Fathers who assume societal gender norms may lack father

involvement. In addition, the quality of father involvement triumphs over the amount of time a
 20

father spends with his child (Allgood et al., 2012; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). No amount of

time can compensate for a high-quality and involved father-daughter relationship.

Adolescent and Young Adult Daughters

During adolescence, individuals go through a period of transition and growth. This time

is often met which difficulties which can lead to depression. Duchesne and Ratelle (2014) found

that adolescents often experience more depression symptoms during their transition to high

school. Adolescents who perceived a secure attachment with their mother or father experienced

fewer depressive symptoms during adolescence (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014). Father-daughter

interactions during adolescence can influence the social cognition and stress response carried

into adulthood (Allgood et al., 2012; Byrd-Craven, Auer et al., 2011; Trahan & Cheung, 2018).

Adolescents who characterize their relationship with their parents as positive or securely attached

are less likely to experience anxiety and depression symptoms during adulthood (Jakobsen et al.,

2012).

Young adults with secure attachments tend to express a higher level of life satisfaction

(Allgood et al., 2012; Guarnieri et al., 2015). Parental involvement is still significant for young

adults even though it is a time to separate from their parents. Young adults tend to seek parental

support. Fathers provide not only guidance but also financial support and encouragement for

exploration (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Nielsen, 2012). Female college students that reported a

fearful or avoidant attachment style with their father were at a higher risk for developing

negative psychological symptoms (Pace et al., 2012),including a binge eating disorder and low

self-esteem.

As daughters transition from childhood to adolescence and into young adulthood, father

involvement tends to diminish, leaving daughters to question their importance to their fathers
 21

(Nielsen, 2012). Adolescence is a tumultuous period filled with change for daughters (Nielsen,

2012; Schwartz & Finley, 2010). Fathers can provide a buffer and reduce the adverse effects of

this transition (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020; Schwartz &

Finley, 2010). Nielsen (2020) and Nielsen (2012) sum up the father-daughter relationship

perfectly by explaining there is no expiration regarding issues that affect the father-daughter

relationship over a lifetime. Problems between fathers and daughters often extend well into old

age, so research in this area is imperative.

Promoting and Supporting Fatherhood

Carlson et al. (2015) describe fatherhood as a “developmental engine” that brings a new

identity to men as they enter a caregiving role. Fatherhood is a developmental process that

changes with time (Carlson et al., 2015; Nielsen, 2012). Fathers often receive minimal

preparation before the birth of their first child. Mothers-to-be have baby showers and receive

advice from their mothers, while fathers-to-be tend to be ignored in the transition into new

parenthood. In addition, fathers are frequently excluded from maternity leave policies and

support services related to parenting (Cabrera, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). The assumption is that

fathers are content with being excluded since the primary responsibility of fathers is limited to

the breadwinner role. Fathers often feel discouraged discussing the stress of managing

fatherhood and work, which implies there needs to be more recognition of fathers’ struggles in

their roles (Humberd et al., 2015; Nielsen, 2008, 2020). Open dialogue on the transition to

fatherhood can help fathers manage their stress into fatherhood and diminish confusion about the

role of fathers.

Fathering programs must move from the traditional family structure to one incorporating

new cultural norms in fatherhood today, including an uncle, brother, or grandfather (Langley,
 22

2016; Nielsen, 2012; Richardson, 2009). Furthermore, fathering programs can promote and

encourage father-daughter relationships while ultimately promoting the overall well-being of

daughters (Yoder et al., 2016). Nielsen (2012) and Sieber (2008) found that fathers often feel

excluded from their children’s lives. Fathers are less likely to attend their children’s medical,

school, and mental health appointments or counseling (Nielson, 2012; Sieber, 2018). This is due

to a lack of exclusion of fathers and supporting fathers to attend these appointments. Fathers who

are involved and included in their daughter’s activities report overall satisfaction and are more

inclined to be available to become involved in their daughter’s life (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012).

Problem Statement

Due to the lack of research on the father-daughter relationship, this study will explore the

relationship and investigate the connection from the daughter’s perspective. Over the past few

decades, as more women have entered the workforce full-time, fathers have become more

involved in their children's lives (Bianchi, 2011; Meteyer & Perry-Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2012).

Yet, much remains unidentified about how fathers influence their child’s development

(Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). The research field is saturated with the mother-child relationship

but remains minimal regarding fathers and their children (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Palm, 2014;

Nielsen, 2012). Furthermore, the father-daughter relationship remains invisible in the research

field (Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2012). The limited research on the father-child relationship has

noted that healthy relationships can have long-lasting benefits into adulthood (Allgood et al.,

2012; Gordon, 2016; Jeynes, 2015; Nielsen, 2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Trahan & Cheung,

2018). If fathers can positively influence their child’s development, the question remains in what

ways they positively impact their children, specifically their daughters. It must also be noted that
 23

the research field lacks studies regarding women of color. Blacks, Latinos, and Asians comprise

13.1%, 19.1%, and 6.3% respectively of the American population (United States Census Bureau,

2022t). Latinos and Asian have many similarities, including an increase in population,

immigration, acculturation, and colorism (Nielsen, 2012). Due to this increase in the minority

population, it is imperative to understand the dynamic of minority families, including minority

women and their fathers. Allgood et al. (2012) examined the father-daughter relationship from

the daughter’s perspective. However, their study consisted of 97% white female participants

(Allgood et al., 2012). The study did not include women of color, and recommendations were

made to include Black, Latino, and Asian women in future studies (Allgood et al., 2012). The

problem is an apparent gap in research regarding the daughter’s perspective on the father-

daughter research and, more specifically, the perspective of Black, Latino, and Asian daughters.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to examine the daughter’s perspective of her relationship

with her father or father figure and the effects of the perceived relationship on the daughter’s

self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. This study will focus on the perspective

of adult Black, Latino, and Asian daughters and their relationship with their biological father or

father-figure. Allgood et al. (2012) recommended that research in the father-daughter field needs

to develop and include responses from fathers and daughters and, more importantly, Black,

Latino, and Asian daughters. Involved fathers may contribute positively to their daughter’s

development; however, the daughter’s perception of her father’s involvement will affect her

development the most (Allgood et al., 2012; Gordon, 2016; Jeynes, 2015; Nielsen, 2012).

Quality versus quantity becomes very significant for fathers and daughters to develop a healthy

relationship (Allgood et al., 2012; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). Fathers may spend hours with
 24

their daughters, but if they are not engaged with one another, the time spent together becomes

nonexistent. This study will allow Black, Latino, and Asian daughters to share their perspectives

on father involvement and what they consider influential and essential. It demonstrated the

impact fathers of Black, Latino, and Asian daughters have on their self-esteem, psychological

distress, and life satisfaction well into adulthood. The results of this study provided insight into

how to develop further and promote the father-daughter relationship in the Black, Latino, and

Asian communities. In addition, it considered father figures and how they can build relationships

with their “daughters” even though they may not be biological fathers. As explained by Nielsen

(2012), father-daughter relationships are fragile and unstable due to the lack of understanding

that fathers often experience on how to be impactful fathers to their daughters.

Significance of the Study

This study’s significance expands on the research demonstrated by Allgood et al. (2012).

Further research is needed on the daughter’s perspective of her relationship with her father or

father figure. Research also needs to include Black, Latino, and Asian communities since their

population size has grown, and there is minimal research on the father-daughter relationship in

these communities (Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). By examining these relationships,

future research can bring awareness to fathers’ influence on their daughters’ lives. Moreover,

results of this research can be used to initiate programs that encourage and support fathers, father

figures, and the father-daughter relationship. Nielsen (2012) notes that the father-daughter

relationship is a fragile relationship that remains invisible. This can be attributed to social

systems and institutions such as mental health services, schools, and doctors’ offices that do not

necessarily encourage fathers to be present (Cabrera, 2010; Coleman & Garfield, 2004; Nielsen,

2008; Nielsen, 2012).

 25

Furthermore, this study may help limit stereotypes often placed on fathers, such as being

aloof and unempathetic towards their daughters (Nielsen, 2012). There seems to be an

assumption that the only purpose and responsibility of fathering is financial support. This study

will contribute to the father-daughter relationship research field and include father figures of

Black, Latino, and Asian daughters that have often been excluded.

Assumptions and Limitations

Data collection for this particular study is not without assumptions and limitations. As

Hayes (2013) explained, assumptions are not always realistic and may only be met by the

methods applied. Due to assumptions, the data in this study are only approximations of reality.

Along with assumptions, this research does have limitations in which the results must be

regarded carefully in how they are applied (Heppner et al., 2016). This research examines the

correlations between a daughter’s perception of her father’s nurturance and involvement and her

level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. This research assumes that a

daughter’s perception of her father’s involvement and nurturance is most likely to affect her

developmental outcome in adulthood (Allgood et al., 2012; Carlson, 2006; Finley & Schwartz,

2004).

Furthermore, this study is a correlation study and cannot be generalized to other women

outside of the population of this study. The participants in this study are women between the

ages of 18 and 24 who identify as White, Black, Latino, or Asian. Some of these women may

identify with more than one race. Future studies are encouraged to explore women that identify

as biracial or multiracial. The participants in this study were surveyed from a faith-based,

Christian university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The results of this study

cannot accurately be overgeneralized to all women, and future studies may want to study various
 26

women of diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to other educational and faith

backgrounds.

As research on the father-daughter relationship continues to expand, it may provide more

insight into how fathers can be more intentional with the time they spend and the affection they

provide their daughters. This research area is vast, and there is more to accomplish. Future

studies can provide more mental health services for not only daughters but fathers as well and

improve life satisfaction for many men and women (Allgood et al., 2012; Carlson, 2006; Finley

& Schwartz, 2004).

Research Questions

This study will examine the daughter’s perspective of her relationship with her father or

father figure and the effects of the perceived relationship on the daughter’s self-esteem,

psychological distress, and life satisfaction. The daughters in this study will include Black,

Latino, and Asian women and will seek to answer the following vital questions pertaining to this

research:

RQ1: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of self-esteem and is there a difference in the level of self-

esteem for women of color, and White daughters?

RQ2: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of psychological distress and is there a difference in the level

of psychological distress for women of color, and White daughters?

RQ3: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of life satisfaction and is there a difference in the level of life

satisfaction between women of color, and White daughters?

 27

Definitions

The terms listed below will be used throughout this study. The definitions provided are

related to the instruments used in this study and are supported by previous literature.

1. Father- Father is a child’s male biological parent (Nielsen, 2012).

2. Father Accessibility- Father accessibility is the availability a father provides to the child,

whether physical or psychologically (Allgood et al., 2012).

3. Father Engagement- Father engagement is the direct interaction between a father and

child (Allgood et al., 2012).

4. Father-Figure- Father-figure is a male who is not a child’s biological father (Nielsen,

2012).

5. Father Involvement- Father involvement consists of engagement, accessibility, and

responsibility and is measured by frequency of contact and relationship quality (Allen &

Daly, 2007; Allgood et al., 2012).

6. Father Responsibility- Father responsibility is the care and welfare a father provides for

his child (Allgood et al., 2012).

7. Life Satisfaction- Life satisfaction is the long-term characteristic of psychological well-

being (Allgood et al., 2012).

8. Psychological Distress- Psychological distress is the exhibition of anxious and depressive

symptoms (Allgood et al., 2012).

9. Self-Esteem- Self-esteem is a person’s evaluation of themselves and includes self-

acceptance and self-worth (Bastaits et al., 2012; Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009).
 28

Summary

This chapter introduced the dynamic of the father-daughter relationship, discussed the

importance of research on the father-daughter relationship, and identified gaps in the study of

father-daughter relationships. The research field on the father-daughter relationship is minuscule

and continues to shrink when considering the connection from the daughter’s perspective

Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). The standpoint of Black, Latino, and Asian daughters is

predominantly non-existent. Nielsen (2012) classifies these families as fragile and further

investigation into their family relationships may help to promote healthy and positive life

outcomes.

Examining the daughter’s perspective of her relationship with her father or father figure

and the effects of the perceived relationship on the daughter’s self-esteem, psychological

distress, and life satisfaction can lead to future research investigating ways to promote and

support the father-daughter relationship. Fathers are essential to their children’s lives, and

father-daughter relationships should not remain invisible (Nielsen, 2012). Many fathers want to

be at the forefront of their child’s life. Still, they are often confused and uneasy about how to

evolve their relationship with their child, especially their daughters

x (Nielsen, 2012). This research will attempt to address these concerns and the effects on

daughters.
 29

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Overview

To date, much research has focused on mothers’ impact on their children. However, there

is a lack of research on fathers’ effects on their children. Due to the evolving role of fathers,

there is increasing importance on the influence a father has on a child’s development (Allgood et

al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Palm, 2014). More importantly, there is

growing interest in the father-daughter relationship due to the lack of research in this area, and

the potential benefits fathers can provide their daughters (Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012;

Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). Jain (2015) explained the importance and impact of a secure father

attachment on a female’s well-being. Allgood et al. (2012) and Nielsen (2012) found that fathers

positively influence a female’s life satisfaction and self-esteem. The relationship between a

father and daughter is imperative to the daughter’s psychological well-being, self-esteem, and

life satisfaction. The father’s interactions with his daughter, and the daughter’s perspective of

their relationship, will influence her development and trajectory throughout adulthood (Jain,

2015; Keller, 2013; Nielsen, 2020).

Fathering

The influence fathers have on their children is often viewed as indirect and often

presented through resources that they bring to the household, such as finances (Allgood et al.,

2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2020). Cabrera and Tamis-LeMonda (2013)

explain that fathers not only influence their children through indirect influences but also through

direct influences. Indirect influence comes through providing a salary for household expenses

and supporting their partner emotionally and physically with household chores. In contrast, a

direct influence comes through responsiveness and engagement. This can include reading a book
 30

to their child, playing outside with their child, or assisting their child with homework. The

influence fathers have on their children is rarely recognized, and research is beginning to expand

in the area of fathering (Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012).

Nielsen (2008) has studied the relationship between fathers and daughters and has found that

fathers have as much or more impact on their daughters as moms do. Numerous studies have

demonstrated that fathers are often deemed insignificant in the development of children (Barco,

2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). For this reason, further research is necessary to determine how

fathers can positively affect their child’s development and, more specifically, daughters'

development.

Studies on the father-daughter relationship not only contribute to understanding the

influence fathers have on their child’s development but also an understanding of how men view

fatherhood. Humberd et al. (2015) found that men often feel discouraged communicating the

stress of managing fatherhood and work. Future research can assist with developing support and

open communication for men learning to balance family and work life. Carlson et al., (2015)

describe fatherhood as a developmental engine. Entering fatherhood is a process that develops

over time.

Father Importance

Mothers and fathers influence various constructs of their child’s life differently (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Rostad et al., 2014). For many females, her father is

her first attachment to a male figure (Jain, 2015). Fathers represent the first relationship a

daughter will have with the opposite sex. This means that a healthy father-daughter relationship

is imperative for females to establish other healthy relationships with males. Research on father

attachment by Jain (2015) explained that females who were raised without a father, or father
 31

figure, view the paternal role as insignificant. These females develop dominant personalities and

engage in dysfunctional relationships with men. Often, these females will seek men who fulfill

the traditional male role in the relationship but want to exert their dominance, which causes

tension in the relationship (Jain, 2015).

Further, Jain (2015) explains that these females have difficulty expressing their emotions,

being open and vulnerable, and communicating with their male partner. Thus, failed

relationships can lead to lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and lack of life satisfaction. A

healthy, secure father-daughter connection provides a protective factor against these adverse

outcomes.

Benefits of Fathers

There are many benefits associated with father involvement. When discussing father

involvement, it is essential to note that the quality of father involvement is more important than

the amount of time (Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Meuwissen &

Carlson, 2015; Nielsen, 2012). Fathers can spend hours with their children, but if there is a lack

of emotional investment and active engagement, the time spent together is not practical or

influential. In contrast, Adamsons (2013) found that children are more likely to be influenced by

their father’s enjoyment of being a parent versus their father’s involvement. Father involvement

is still significant but may have less influence than the father’s enjoyment of being a parent.

Trahan and Cheung (2018) discussed that the time spent together must be actively engaging with

an emotional element. The quality of time spent together has shown to be a protective factor

against risky and delinquent behaviors (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Meuwissen &

Carlson, 2015; Goncy & van Dulmen, 2010). In addition, studies on brain development and

executive functioning in children have demonstrated that research on fathers needs to be

 32

explored since cognitive development is not solely shaped by one primary caregiver (Meuwissen

& Carlson, 2015; Nielsen, 2008). One of the most significant ways fathers directly influence

their children is cognitive. Fathers tend to challenge their children intellectually, teach them

critical thinking skills, encourage self-reliance, and encourage children to try complex tasks

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015; Nielsen, 2008).

Roles of Fathers

Fathers comprise a variety of roles that include male role models, offering security and

protection. This is essential for daughters since females are often seen as more vulnerable than

males. However, Jain (2015) explains that during adolescence, fathers tend to decrease their

amount of involvement with their daughters. It is not yet understood why there is a decrease, but

there are several theories, including during adolescence, females tend to seek support and

guidance from their mothers as they go through puberty (Jain, 2015, Nielsen, 2012, 2020).

Daughters may be more comfortable discussing bodily changes and experiences with their

mothers than with their fathers, thus creating a closer emotional bond during this development

period (Jain, 2015, Nielsen, 2012, 2020; Schaick & Stolberg, 2001). However, due to the

benefits of father involvement, it is essential for fathers to continually be involved during all

stages of their daughter’s life.

Father Involvement

There is a paucity of research focused on how fathers contribute to the development of

their children (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). Due to societal and cultural shifts, father involvement is

increasing compared to older generations (Miller, 2010). More mothers are entering the

workforce full-time after the birth of a child, which results in the need for household and child-

rearing responsibilities to be split more equally. When both parents work, fathers are more likely
 33

to be involved in child-rearing (Meteyer & Perry-Jenkins, 2010). Due to this increase in the

amount of time and influence fathers have on children, it is vital to understand the implications.

Father involvement comprises three components: engagement, accessibility, and

responsibility (Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018;

Pudasainee-Kapri & Razza, 2015). Engagement is direct interaction, accessibility is physical or

psychological availability, and responsibility is providing care (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Allgood et al., 2012). According to developmental theory, a father’s engagement with his

child during the early years of life correlates with healthy development (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Pudasainee-Kapri & Razza, 2015). Trahan and Cheung (2018) explain that

when fathers engage with their children, it is an active and emotionally charged experience for

the father and child. Both the father and child are engaging with one another, creating an

emotional bond that is influential on healthy development. Trahan and Cheung (2018) further

explain that involved fathers influence their child’s internal and external behavior.

Mikelson (2008) found that fathers reported they were more involved with their children

in comparison to how mothers rated the father’s involvement with children. Other studies have

examined the expectations of fathers and mothers on how much father involvement is expected

in the caregiving of children. Findings indicate that expectations were predictors of father

involvement in caregiving (Carlson et al., 2016). This suggests that fathers tend to increase

involvement when they are expected to be involved rather than initiating participation.

Fathers are the forgotten and underappreciated factor in child development (Allgood et

al., 2012; Barco, 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Research has

demonstrated the importance of father involvement in a child’s life, especially for daughters, so

programs and policies that strengthen and promote father involvement are imperative (Jain,
 34

2015; Nielsen, 2012). Palkovitz and Palm (2009) discuss the importance of studying the

cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes that men may encounter throughout life that affect

their fatherhood. A father’s role, status, or work in various contexts will affect his ability to

father. Fathers involved in more fathering activities are more likely to embrace the fathering role

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Palkovitz & Palm, 2009).

Fathers and their children benefit from fathering programs (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Holmes et al., 2010; Nielsen, 2020). The more interactions and contexts a father has that

involve fatherhood, the more a father settles into the role of a father (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Palkovitz & Palm, 2009). Fathering programs are not standard, but these

results demonstrate the benefits of fathering programs. One benefit for fathers and their children

is fathers become more sensitive toward their children (Holmes et al., 2010). Mothers are

viewed as comfort and warmth; however, fathers can also be nurturing (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Midha & Geetanjali, 2014). Positive father-child relationships reduce

children’s risk of delinquent behaviors (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Yoder

et al., 2016). Furthermore, programs need to move from the traditional family structure to one

that incorporates new cultural norms in fatherhood that can include an uncle, brother, or

grandfather (Richardson, 2009). This finding supports the importance of programs that

encourage and foster father-child relationships.

Fathers can also improve their involvement with their children by enhancing their

communication with their spouse or partner. Practical communication skills with a spouse can

help increase father involvement (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Rienks et al., 2011). Men

with healthy relationships with their spouse or partner and co-parenting tend to have better

relationships and higher involvement with their children. Studies in Norway have found a
 35

positive association between paternity leave and father involvement (Rege & Soli, 2013). Many

European countries have begun implementing four or more weeks of paternity leave to increase

father involvement and assist mothers.

Non-residing Fathers

As discussed, due to societal shifts, fathers are becoming more involved and engaged in

their children's lives. Since these changes have occurred, research has questioned whether non-

residing fathers have the same levels of engagement and involvement as fathers that live in the

home. The question has been answered by Amato et al. (2009), who found that non-residing

fathers involvement has increased compared to non-residing fathers from three decades before.

Fathers who do not reside in the same physical dwelling as their children still influence their

child’s development (Bastaits et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008,

2012, 2020). This influence can be negative or positive, depending on the type of involvement.

Co-parenting is positively associated with father engagement in families where the mother and

father are not married or do not reside together (Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020; Pudasainee-Kapri &

Razza, 2015). Adolescents with a close relationship with a nonresident father demonstrated

better outcomes than adolescents who resided with a father and had no connection (Lopez &

Corona, 2012). Cabrera and Tamis-LeMonda, (2013) and Pudasainee- Kapri and Razza (2015)

found that fathers involved in supportive co-parenting demonstrated positive father engagement.

There are negative consequences that can occur due to the father’s absence. Non-residing fathers

seem to find it challenging to be consistently involved in their children's lives (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013). For some children, father absence correlates with negative social adjustment,

especially for children in fragile families (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Martinez et al.,

2004; Mott, 1994). Fragile families will be further discussed later in this discussion as it pertains
 36

to minority fathers. The following sections will examine ways a father may be absent and its

effects on his children, especially his daughters.

Divorce

Divorce, as it relates to the father-daughter relationship, has many consequences for both

fathers and daughters. Daughters born today are more likely to live with a divorced mother or a

mother that has never been married (Nielsen, 2012). For daughters, Nielsen (2008) and Nielsen

(2012) found that most daughters do become well-adjusted after their parents’ divorce; however,

the relationship a daughter has with her father tends to become broken. Daughters that have

broken relationships with their fathers are at higher risk for anxiety, depression, low self-esteem,

and teen pregnancy (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2012).

Daughters report feeling unloved or rejected by their fathers after a divorce more than sons

(Nielsen, 2012). In addition, fathers that lose their relationship with their daughters also tend to

have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and emotional instability (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2012; Nielsen, 2020). Both father and daughter suffer when the

relationship becomes damaged after a divorce. Divorce affects the father-daughter relationship

more than the mother-daughter relationship or the father-son relationship (Nielsen, 2008,

Nielsen, 2012; Nielsen, 2020).

The effects are long-term for daughters and last well into adulthood as they long for a

relationship with their father. Fathers, in turn, often feel demeaned and feel like the “bad guy”

since most children reside with their mother after a divorce (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2008; 2020). Children often take their mothers’ side (Fosco & Grych, 2010; Nielsen,

2012). Many fathers struggle to engage with their children after a divorce which places fathers

at a higher risk for depression. These struggles may be attributed to stereotypes that divorced
 37

fathers are often absent, childish, or irresponsible (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen,

2020). Mothers also influence how involved a father will be with his children after a divorce.

Fathers often feel that mothers are the gatekeepers of a relationship with their children (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Decuzzi & Lamb, 2004; Nielsen, 2012, Trinder, 2008). With the

mother as a gatekeeper, fathers may develop feelings of being unwanted or not needed. Again,

this puts the most strain on the father-daughter relationship.

Divorce can be highly stressful for children, especially when one parent leaves home and

engagement decreases. However, co-parenting, especially for fathers, allows both parents to

continue parental engagement in their child's life and provide a positive influence. Research has

also found that fathers can affect their child’s self-esteem even if the father and child do not

reside in the same household (Bastaits et al., 2012). This finding indicates that fathers still

impact their child’s development in divorced families.

Father Figures

In minority families, fathers are more involved when they physically reside in the same

household as their children (Guarnieri et al., 2015). Minority fathers that do not reside in the

same household may spend less time engaged with their children. When a biological father is

less involved in a minority family, a father figure often fulfills the biological father's role.

Minority families tend to have more father figures, such as a grandfather, uncle, or brother, who

provide care (Guarnieri et al., 2015). For females that do not have a relationship with their

biological father, there is often a father figure in their life that plays a pivotal role in their

development (Guarnieri et al., 2015). It is essential to recognize who these men are and the

qualities of a father that they possess to fulfill the void of a biological father.
 38

Absent by Life Circumstance

When fathers remarry, and their children reside with their mother, this new dynamic

often creates tension with their children from their previous marriage. This is most evident in the

relationship between father and daughter. When a father remarries, his relationship with his

daughter becomes more strained and complicated (Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2012). If a daughter

already feels rejected or abandoned, her father’s remarriage will further those feelings.

Not only do daughters from divorced families feel a strain on their relationship with their

father, but also daughters that have a father that is incarcerated. Incarcerated fathers often find it

difficult to sustain a relationship with their daughters (Nielsen, 2012). Furthermore, prisons do

not create environments that support father-daughter relationships, so it is difficult for fathers

and daughters to communicate and connect (Nielsen, 2012). Research is lacking on the effects

on daughters of incarcerated fathers. However, research does demonstrate that children of

incarcerated fathers tend to display more aggression and struggle with attention deficits (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Geller et al., 2009).

Daughters that have absent fathers due to military deployment also face struggles in their

relationship with their fathers. These struggles often present themselves once the father returns

home (Nielsen, 2012). This time tends to be stressful for the entire family since it is a

transitional period of getting used to the father being home after being absent for a substantial

amount of time. Research on daughters with fathers in the military is lacking, but overall, it

seems that sons tend to struggle with fathers on deployment more than daughters (Nielsen,

2012).
 39

Non-Residing Fathers and Policies

As presented, fathers that do not reside in the home with their children can have negative

consequences. When co-parenting is present, fathers and daughters can thrive and continue to

grow their relationship. To assist non-resident fathers that feel disengaged from their children,

communities may want to encourage policies and programs that promote father involvement

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Marsiglio & Roy, 2012). This can help both fathers and

daughters. Non-resident fathers are at higher risk for depression after a divorce, and daughters

often feel excluded from their non-resident fathers. Policies and programs promoting the father-

daughter relationship can help the relationship and overall well-being.

Benefits for Father

Depictions of fathers in society are often demeaning and denigrating (Nielsen, 2008,

2012). Fathers are often depicted as inferior to mothers and absent-minded about the family.

Shifting the perception of fathers through research may help to promote more realistic depictions

of fathers. Fathers are not deficient to mothers but complement motherhood and are essential to

childrearing (Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). Changing the idea that men must solely provide for

their family financially to be a father can help improve a father’s self-confidence and self-esteem

(Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2008). Some women make more money than their husbands, and

this is especially true for Black fathers. Not being able to support their family the way society

deems it acceptable can harm a father’s idea of being able to parent. The father-daughter

relationship affects his well-being and development (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen,

2008, 2012). Fathers actively involved in their children’s lives have better physical and

emotional health (Baum, 2006; Nielsen, 2012; Stone & Dudley, 2006). Daughters significantly

impact their father’s opinions, moods, self-confidence, happiness, and stress levels (Nielsen,
 40

2008, 2012). Supporting the father-daughter relationship is effective for both fathers and

daughters since their overall well-being relies on one another.

Attachment

Attachment theory implies that forming attachment styles during early life affects

relationships throughout life (Keller, 2013). An individual’s type of attachment will influence

how they interact with people, how they form relationships, and their confidence to explore and

take risks. Attachment style can explain why some people have more satisfying relationships and

life satisfaction than others (Guarnieri et al., 2015). Healthy attachment provides a bond between

two people that consists of reliability, comfort, security, and closeness (Brumariu & Kerns,

2010).

Bowlby’s attachment theory explains that children develop an attachment with their

caregiver. Those with a healthy attachment, known as secure attachment, recognize that they can

rely on their caregiver for their needs (Brumariu & Kerns, 2013). Children who do not develop a

secure attachment may form an anxious or avoidant attachment with their caregiver (Brumariu &

Kerns, 2013). Attachments with both parents occur during the first year of life, and mothers are

seen as a source of comfort and security, whereas fathers are viewed as playful partners (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013).

Other theories, such as The PARTheory (Parental Acceptance-Rejection), explain that

children are predisposed to want their parents to care about them (Lopez & Corona, 2012). For

this reason, a child’s attachment style to their parents influences their development. Fathers and

mothers play distinct and vital roles in their child’s development (Rostad et al., 2014). Children

need and look towards their parents for support, guidance, and warmth as they grow, especially

into emerging adulthood or college-age years. Studies and attachment theories have
 41

demonstrated repeatedly that the quality of time spent together is more significant than the

amount of time (Allgood et al., 2012; Brumariu & Kerns, 2013; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Nielsen, 2008)

Guarnieri et al. (2015) found that parental attachment is associated with life satisfaction.

Young adults with secure attachments tend to experience a higher level of life satisfaction

(Guarnieri et al., 2015). Parental involvement is still significant for young adults even though it

is considered a period for them to separate from their parents. Young adults tend to seek parental

support during the early years of adulthood. College students may seek counseling for the

following reasons: relationship problems, life satisfaction, psychological stress, and low self-

esteem (Schwartz & Finley, 2010). Students that sought counseling for these reasons often

reported difficulty with their parents (Schwartz & Finley, 2010). Parental relationships, whether

with a mother or father, can affect one’s quality of life, especially during the early years of

adulthood. Females tend to be more attached to their parents due to the protection parents

provide their daughters compared to sons (Devi et al., 2017). Sons tend to be viewed as less

vulnerable and require less protection than daughters.

Keller (2013) explains that when researching attachment theory, it is crucial to consider

the evolution in society and the differences between cultures. These changes and differences may

contribute to the different assessments of attachment.

Mother Attachment

There is a plethora of research on mother attachment. In general, there is a recognition

that mothers play a vital role in their children’s lives. Often, a mother and child have a greater

emotional bond (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2013). The mother is usually the primary caregiver during

infancy, establishing the mother-child attachment style. Research has demonstrated that their
 42

attachment style impacts a child’s psychological well-being and healthy development with their

mother (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2013). Duchesne and Ratelle (2013) found that adolescents with a

secure attachment with their mothers were less likely to display symptoms of depression during

adolescence and into adulthood. Secure parental attachment, and more specifically mother

attachment, is associated as a protective factor for children. This protective factor mitigates

against numerous factors that could lead to poor life choices and negatively affect life

satisfaction. However, as noted by Keller (2013) and Brumariu and Kerns (2010), it is

advantageous for research to view father and mother attachment separately and the contributions

each has to the development of their child into adulthood.

Father Attachment

Research regarding father-child attachment is imperative to support getting fathers more

involved and fathers creating a secure attachment with their children (Palm, 2014). On average,

father-daughter relationships tend to represent an insecure attachment due to a lack of

communication, making them more fragile (Nielsen, 2012; Jain, 2015). The relationship

between fathers and daughters does not demonstrate the same level of emotional closeness as the

relationship between mothers and daughters (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014). Often, fathers tend to

embody the role of playmate while mothers embody the role of caregiver (Palm, 2014). Children

tend to seek their fathers when they want to play and have fun and their mothers for comfort and

warmth. However, research indicates that those with a secure attachment with their fathers will

often seek guidance from them (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014).

There is limited research on the father-daughter relationship. Some researchers are beginning to

seek answers as to why this relationship is associated with bonding difficulty and understanding

the benefits experienced by daughters who have a healthy and satisfying relationship with their
 43

father (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012). Differentiating the

influences of father-attachment and mother-attachment may help explain how fathers and

mothers influence their children differently and, most importantly, how both are needed for

healthy development. Jain (2015) found that fathers do influence their daughter’s development.

For daughters, a secure father-daughter attachment is crucial for proper development.

Daughters that lack a relationship or emotional connection with their fathers may be at

risk for depression. Demidenko et al. (2015) found that females diagnosed with depression,

compared to females that do not display depressive symptoms, are more likely to report poor to

non-existent communication and attachment with their fathers. It is also important to note that

females who have parents diagnosed with a mental disorder are at a higher risk for depression

(Demidenko et al., 2015). Research conducted on female college students indicated that those

with a fearful or avoidant attachment style with their father were at a higher risk for developing

negative psychological symptoms (Allgood et al., 2012; Demidenko et al., 2015; Pace et al.,

2012).

In addition to psychological well-being, research has demonstrated that an insecure

father-daughter attachment can lead to uncertain adult relationships later in adulthood, including

a relationship with a romantic partner (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015; Nielsen,

2012). Further, a secure attachment between fathers and daughters leads to secure attachment

patterns in adulthood (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012). For

daughters, the relationship with their fathers not only represents the relationship they will have

later in life with the opposite sex but also impacts self-esteem. According to Jain (2015), fathers

provide their daughters with a sense of self, which results in a higher level of self-esteem. The

results of these findings signify that parents significantly influence their children’s well-being
 44

and development. It is also essential to understand how fathers and mothers affect their children

and their roles in their child’s life.

Fathering and Minority Families

In various cultures, secure attachment seems to be the preferred and most beneficial form

of attachment (Dexter et al., 2013). It is evident amongst all cultures that a healthy, secure

attachment has many benefits for development, social abilities, and developing relationships.

Race is not associated with attachment, even though parental behaviors differ between White and

Black parents (Dexter et al., 2013). Father involvement and not attachment differ among various

cultures. There is also an association between parental attachment and college adjustment that

varies across ethnicities (Melendez & Melendez, 2010). Melendez and Melendez (2010) found

that White students who felt supported by their parents were better able to handle the stressors of

college, Latino students who felt supported by their parents formed better attachments with their

college in the form of college pride, and Black students who felt supported by their parents were

able to develop independence.

There has been a substantial increase in racial and ethnic minorities in the United States

over the past few decades (United States Census Bureau, 2022). The increases have been seen in

the Latino, Black, and Asian populations. Latinos represent the most significant growth, with a

population of approximately 16%, followed by Blacks at 13% and Asians at 5% (Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Regarding these minority groups, the Black and Latino

families are considered fragile families. These families are known to have prevalent poverty

rates, out-of-wedlock births, and incarceration, making them fragile and more likely to

experience unsettling life situations (Nielsen, 2012). Poverty is one of the biggest upsets for

families, especially regarding fathering (Nielsen, 2008, 2012). Black and Latino fathers that
 45

cannot provide for their children often avoid the father role due to the inability to fulfill the

financial responsibility set forth for fathers.

For this reason, understanding the role that fathers play in these families becomes vital to

help these families in fragile situations and possibly build resiliency. Even though Asian

families are not considered fragile, they also encounter different family dynamics and issues that

are not present in White families (Cabrera &Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). These dynamics and issues

include immigration and adjusting to a new culture (American) and language (English). Even

though these families face many negatives, there are some positives. Landale et al. (2011) found

that immigrant fathers, compared to White fathers, are more likely to be married or cohabitate

with their child’s mother.

Another family dynamic to consider in these minority families is the distinct roles that

mothers and fathers encompass due to differences in values, traditions, and cultural norms.

Depending on the family’s racial or ethnic background, they may be more or less to break

cultural norms when it comes to the role of mothering and fathering (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). For the focus of this study, the examination will solely focus

on the fathering role in these minority families.

Latino Culture and Fathers

Latinos are the largest growing minority group, and there is a lack of research regarding

the impact and involvement of Latino fathers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013, D’Angelo et

al., 2012, Nielsen, 2012). Latino fathers demonstrate the same involvement in their child’s

school as White fathers (Terriquez, 2013). However, this finding differs when there is a

language barrier. Latino fathers that do not speak English tend to be less involved in their child’s
 46

activities due to language barriers (Terriquez, 2013). This indicates the need for more fathering

programs that consider cultural and language differences.

In addition, Latino fathers tend to be more engaged with their children in primary

caregiving and physical play than White fathers (Guarnieri et al., 2015). Latino fathers also tend

to be equally involved in the lives of their sons and daughters, and father-daughter conflict

during adolescence is more detrimental for Latinas (Lopez & Corona, 2012). This contrasts with

the study by Jain (2015), which noted that father-daughter involvement decreases during

adolescence. In Latino cultures, there is not a noticeable decrease in father involvement during

the child’s development. It is important to note that Lopez and Corona (2012) found that the

father-daughter conflict negatively influences Latinas. One of the negative consequences is low

self-esteem. For Latinos, father attachment is associated with internalizing symptoms related to

body image (Carter et al., 2014).

In the Latino culture, there are two concepts to understand when it comes to family

dynamics. The first is familismo. Familismo is a value shared in the Latino culture that puts

immediate and extended family members as an essential source of identity and support (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). In essence, the benefit and welfare of the family in all

situations are seen as a priority. Family is first in the Latino culture. The second concept is

known as machismo. Machismo in the Latino culture is viewed as the man’s responsibility and

commitment to his family (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Men are to

protect and provide for their families. Machismo is often portrayed in stereotypical ways as a

male being aggressive, harsh, possessive, and insensitive, but in many Latino families, this is not

accurate (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Cervantes, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). For most Latino
 47

families, fathers exhibiting familismo and machismo is a way of showing support and care and

enhancing their lives by taking an active role.

Many Latino families tend to adhere to traditional gender roles when it comes to

parenting compared to White families (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012).

Traditionally, daughters spend most of their time with their mothers rather than their fathers in

Latino families. Unlike White daughters, Latina daughters tend to favor the role of their father

being the protector and provider while they connect on a higher emotional level with their

mothers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). However, some studies have shown that Latina

daughters would like to communicate more with their fathers but indicate that it may feel

awkward or uncomfortable (Nielsen, 2012; Way & Gillman, 2000). In addition, Latino fathers

tend to be more protective and stricter and expect more respect and obedience than White fathers

(Nielsen, 2012). For Latinos, the roles often absorbed are a mix of cultural norms and

acculturation into the American culture (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). The longer the

family has been in the American culture, the more likely that the concepts of familismo and

machismo tend to dissipate.

Understanding the relationship between Latino fathers and daughters is essential because

of the influence fathers can have on the development of their daughters (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2008, 2012). Studies have noted the impact Latino fathers

can have on their daughter’s perception regarding her appearance (Nielsen, 2012). Latino fathers

that discuss their daughter’s appearance and make her feel good about her appearance can help to

boost her self-esteem and build resiliency against discrimination (Nielsen, 2012; Telzer &

Garcia, 2009).
 48

As mentioned, there tend to be many stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding Latino

fathers. The concept of machismo often facilities these stereotypes. However, in the Latino

culture, machismo enhances the father-daughter relationship (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2012). For fathers, displaying machismo encourages them to be involved in their

child’s life and take an active role. Studies have found that Latino fathers tend to be highly

engaged in their children’s lives, beginning with the prenatal period (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013). Latino fathers are often in attendance during routine pregnancy examines and

are incorporated in feeling the baby move and hearing the heartbeat (Cabrera et al., 2009). In

addition, compared to White fathers, Latino fathers tend to be warmer, more nurturing, and

engage in more caregiving activities and physical play (Cabrera et al., 2011). Since many Latino

fathers adhere to the concept of familismo engaging with their children, including caretaking

activities, Latino fathers tend to be highly involved in their child’s life and continue their

involvement well into their child’s adulthood. Familismo encourages elevated levels of

engagement for Latino fathers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Familismo

also helps non-resident Latino fathers remain engaged with their children. Non-resident Latino

fathers are more involved with their children than non-resident White fathers. Not only does

familismo keep non-resident fathers engaged with their children, but it also shows that having a

highly active and engaged father produces better outcomes for children living in poverty.

Black Culture and Fathers

Black parents seem to incorporate a more authoritarian parenting style than White parents

(Dexter et al., 2013). Guarnieri, Smorti, and Tani (2015) note that Black families tend to have

more father figures than biological fathers that provide care and socialization for children. Few

studies have examined the role of men in extended family systems, especially among the Black
 49

population (Richardson, 2009). Black families tend to rely on other males within the family

system besides their biological father. These findings suggest the importance of extending father

involvement research into father figures, especially for the Black community.

Black fathers are often stigmatized as dead-beat dads that run from the responsibilities of

taking care of their children (Nielsen, 2008). The stereotypes of Black fathers are often negative,

and the media enhances these stereotypes by displaying Black fathers as criminals or self-

absorbed athletes with little time for family matters (Nielsen, 2008). In reality, many Black

fathers engage with their children and care for their families. As mentioned earlier, it is essential

to remember that Black families are fragile families. They are more likely to live in poverty, in

communities with high rates of violence, and experience incarceration and divorce (Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). All of these issues will impact the father role of a Black

father.

Regarding the father-daughter relationship, Black daughters are the most likely to live in

poverty and be born out of wedlock (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Studies

show three factors hinder the relationship between Black fathers and their daughters (Hattery &

Smith, 2014; Hummer & Hamilton, 2010). The first factor is that Black fathers are more likely

to be incarcerated, murdered, or unemployed at an early age. Secondly, Black fathers are more

likely to have children out of wedlock since it is more accepted in the Black culture compared to

other racial groups. And lastly, married Black fathers are twice as likely compared to other racial

groups to have their marriages end in divorce. These factors contribute to different father-

daughter relationships in Black families compared to White families. Often in fragile families,

the father-daughter relationship can suffer due to the lack of connection a Black father may have

with the mother of his child. Involvement and engagement may decrease. Black fathers often
 50

feel driven away from their children and in conflict with their mothers (Nielsen, 2012).

However, some studies have found that Black, non-resident fathers tend to see their children

more than White and Latino fathers, but these studies fail to mention the level of engagement or

quality of time spent with the child (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Carlson & McLanahan,

2010). It is important to note that even though a Black father may not have a healthy

relationship with the mother of his child, it does not necessarily make him an unfit father

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013).

Another feature of the Black father-daughter relationship is that when a biological father

is absent or not present regularly, a father figure may assume the father’s role. In the Black

community, the term father is often attributed to a male that has raised a child, whether or not he

is the biological father (Nielsen, 2012). Furthermore, these communities rely heavily on support

from family and non-family members to assist with daily caregiving for the children (Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Black fathers often feel misjudged and invisible by society even when

they make substantial contributions due to the many negative Black father stereotypes (Nielsen,

2012). Black fathers tend to be stricter and more controlling in the Black culture while

displaying less communication and nurturing qualities (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2012). Cabrera and Tamis-LeMonda (2013) discussed that living in a community with

high crime rates may contribute to the high-level strictness seen in Black families. Being parent-

centered and less sensitive to children during parent-child interactions is common among Black

fathers and mothers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Black parents transmit their cultural

values of respect, fear, and strictness to their children (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Even

though Black fathers tend to be stricter and use harsher punishment than White fathers, Black

daughters tend to feel just as close and loved by their fathers (Nielsen, 2012).
 51

For Black daughters, positive interaction with their fathers has demonstrated increased

social and cognitive skills beginning in early childhood (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013).

Studies have shown mixed results regarding whether or not educational attainment and a stable

income affects the amount of caregiving and involvement fathers have with their children

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Black fathers with high and

low educational attainment seem to engage with their children. In terms of finances, Black

fathers with fewer resources tend to favor a more traditional role and often have children with

more than one woman (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Results have not been conclusive

regarding how educational attainment and financial status affect the relationship between Black

fathers and daughters.

Asian Culture and Fathers

Like the Latino population, the Asian population in the United States increased

significantly between 1980 and 2022 (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; United

States Census Bureau, 2022). There has been a 98% increase in Asian families in the United

States. Two aspects make the Asian father-daughter relationship distinct from the other minority

father-daughter relationships (Nielsen, 2012). First, Asian fathers tend to have at least four years

of college experience. Secondly, Asian fathers tend to earn higher incomes when compared to

other minorities. Although Asian fathers tend to have different educational and economic

resources compared to Latino and Black fathers, they also share many similar aspects of the

father-daughter relationship. Asian fathers tend to be less physically affectionate, less

emotionally expressive, and less lenient (Nielsen, 2012). While it appears that Asian fathers are

distant from their daughters, due to cultural norms, daughters expect their fathers to be more

reserved. One study found that Asian fathers tend to be most like Latino fathers but do not
 52

encounter fragile family qualities since they are better off economically and have higher levels of

education.

Traditionally the Asian culture tends to be dominated by patriarchy, and males and

females tend to follow their expected gender norms. Fathers are expected to care for their

household finances and have the highest authority, while mothers care for the children and tend

to household chores (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Even though it is part

of the Asian culture to stick with traditional gender norms, the Asian culture is slightly beginning

to deviate from these norms with mothers taking more responsibility outside of the household

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). In addition, Asian fathers are starting to share household

chores and rearing children. Research has noted that these changes vary depending on the Asian

country of the family (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). East Asian families tend to have

more contemporary views on sharing in the responsibility of caring for their children (Chuang &

Su, 2008; Lin & Fu, 1990). Even though these changes are occurring within Asian families, the

changes are still relatively minor compared to other minority families with more egalitarian

roles. Asian families tend to maintain traditional cultural norms over adopting more

contemporary ones.

Asian fathers that take an active role in the rearing of their children tend to predominantly

assist in matters related to education (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Regarding discipline,

Asian fathers that follow more contemporary cultural norms tend to be outwardly affectionate

and avoid appearing as stern disciplinarians (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). One of the

main factors in determining whether an Asian father will follow more of the traditional cultural

norm versus the contemporary norm is the amount of acculturation that the father has

experienced in the American culture (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Chung & Su, 2008; Lin
 53

& Fu, 1990). Another factor that must be considered is educational attainment. Asian fathers

with higher academic levels tend to be involved with their children (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013). Asian fathers with less educational attainment tend to prefer following traditional gender

norms in which the father’s primary responsibility is to provide for the household financially.

Research Lacking

The increase in the number of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States over the

past few decades raises questions as to how fathers in these families influence their daughters’

development. Research is lacking in minority father-daughter relationships (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Lamb, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). Studies that have been conducted have produced

mixed results (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Lamb, 2010: Nielsen, 2012). Overall, there

seem to be common threads among Black, Latino, and Asian fathers. They seem to fit the

patriarchal role often but are also progressing into more of an egalitarian role. Some research

suggests that minority fathers tend to follow a patriarchal role due to a lack of knowledge,

excluding Asian fathers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). These fathers tend to be unsure of

their role as a father and often assimilate into the standard norm of the financial provider. Even

though many minority fathers obtain the role of financial provider, studies have also

demonstrated that minority fathers also have the same amount of father involvement as White

fathers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012).

Daughter’s Perspective

The daughter’s perspective of her relationship with her father is more influential than the

actual time spent together. A father’s impact on his daughter’s life results from her perceived

attachment to her father (Allgood et al., 2012). If a daughter perceives and believes that her

father is highly involved in her life, she is more likely to perceive a secure attachment. In
 54

addition, it is vital that a daughter’s interaction and involvement with her father is positive and

engaging versus a generous amount of time together where there is no emotional connection or

engagement (Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012,

2020). Allgood et al. (2012) explain that fathers are often accessible but not engaged. Fathers

have a belief that physical presence equates to a satisfactory relationship. For daughters, an

active and emotional connection is needed to build a secure and healthy relationship (Allgood et

al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). The daughter's

perspective on the quality of the relationship with her father is imperative. Allgood et al. (2012)

emphasized that the child's perspective is necessary to comprehend father involvement fully. If a

daughter perceives that her father is highly involved, she is more likely to demonstrate the

positive benefits of father involvement, such as high self-esteem, success, and overall life

satisfaction.

Benefits for Daughters

There are numerous ways that fathers benefit their daughters (Allgood et al., 2012;

Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004).

These benefits occur when fathers are actively involved in their daughters’ lives. Nielsen (2008)

explained that when mothers work full-time outside the home, it allows fathers and daughters to

establish a closer relationship. Benefits that fathers provide to their daughters include the

following but are not limited: not overly dependent on men, low risk for teen pregnancy, low risk

for drug and alcohol abuse, no arrest record, no eating disorders, successful at school and work,

trusting and intimate relationships with men, self-reliant, self-confident, and good mental health

(Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020; Tamis-
 55

LeMonda et al., 2004). The quality of the father’s relationship with his children has the most

significant impact than the amount of time spent together (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Lamb, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). In addition to the benefits discussed, fathers also encourage social

and cognitive development through play (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). This study will examine

the effects of father involvement and nurturing on a daughter’s self-esteem, psychological

distress, and life satisfaction.

Self-esteem

There is a positive association between a daughter’s level of self-esteem and the

relationship with her father. Jain (2015) explains that fathers give their daughters a sense of

identity, which contributes to healthy self-esteem. Research has demonstrated that parental

involvement is a protective factor against low self-esteem (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009).

However, Bulanda and Majundar (2009) also emphasize the importance of recognizing that the

quality of the father and mother relationship independently influences their child’s self-esteem.

Their findings demonstrate that adolescents with parents with high involvement and availability

tend to have higher levels of self-esteem (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009). High levels of self-

esteem help adolescents to make better decisions, have a positive outlook on life, and increase

their self-worth. In return, father involvement is associated with less antisocial behavior and is a

protective factor against juvenile delinquency (Goncy & van Dulmen, 2010).

Psychological Distress

It has been indicated that secure parent-child attachment reduces the risk for anxiety and

depression in adolescence and adulthood (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Jakobsen et al., 2012).

Regarding the effects fathers have on psychological well-being, Jain (2015) explains that

daughters with highly involved fathers were less likely to develop mental health problems during
 56

adulthood, including depression and eating disorders. Adolescent and college-age females who

perceive affection and support from their fathers have fewer experiences with depression and

anxiety (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Jakobsen et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). Father involvement is

also negatively associated with life difficulties and hyperactivity (Flouri, 2008; Nielsen, 2012).

College females with insecure attachments to their fathers are more depressed and anxious than

those with secure attachments (Last, 2009; Nielsen, 2012). College females that feel rejected by

their fathers are more likely to be clinically depressed than daughters that feel loved (Nielsen,

2012; Thompson & Berenbaum, 2009). Adolescent girls tend to have lower levels of

psychological distress when their fathers are involved (Nielsen, 2012; Sarkadi et al., 2008).

Life Satisfaction

Parental attachment is positively associated with life satisfaction (Guarnieri et al., 2015).

Guarnieri et al. (2015) found that the association between parental attachment and life

satisfaction was significant for father attachment. Individuals with a healthy relationship with

their parents, especially with their father, tend to rate their life satisfaction higher than those

lacking in their parental relationship. Females that experience a lack of connection with their

fathers often cite relationship problems later in life, which affect life satisfaction (Lopez &

Corona, 2012). In addition, Jeynes (2015) found a positive outcome between father involvement

and educational outcomes. Father involvement plays a mediating role in academic achievement

for adolescents living in disadvantaged communities (Gordon, 2016). For adolescents that have

fewer resources due to the community in which they reside, father involvement provides a

protective factor and increases academic achievement.

 57

Emerging Adulthood

During adolescence, individuals go through a period of transition and growth. This time

is often with met difficulties which can lead to depression. Duchesne and Ratelle (2014) found

that adolescents often experience an increase in depression symptoms during their transition to

high school, and females are at a greater risk for depression beginning at the age of 12.

However, adolescents that perceived a secure attachment with either their mother or father

experienced fewer depressive symptoms during adolescence (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014;

Nielsen, 2012). Daughters that perceive their fathers as involved and nurturing during

adolescence are more likely to have better self-esteem and life satisfaction, as well as less

psychological distress, compared to daughters that did not perceive their fathers as nurturing and

involved (Allgood et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012; Nielsen, 2020). A secure father-daughter

attachment with positive father involvement is a protective factor against the difficulties often

associated with adolescence. Adolescents who characterize their relationship with their parents

as positive or securely attached are less likely to experience anxiety and depression symptoms

during adulthood (Jakobsen et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012).

Adolescence

Adolescents tend to believe their mothers know them better than their fathers and feel

closer to their mothers even though they care equally for both parents (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013). Daughters tend to rate the closeness to their fathers and mothers differently

from how fathers and mothers would rate their closeness (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013).

Duchesne and Ratelle (2014) explain that fathers provide advice and problem-solving guidance

while mothers provide emotional warmth and affection. Children with a secure attachment to

their parents seek them for guidance, support, and safety. Even though adolescents seek
 58

approval from their peers, they still seek their parents’ advice (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014).

Research has discovered that fathers spend more time with sons during adolescence and are less

emotionally connected with daughters (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Lopez & Corona,

2012; Nielsen, 2012). Fathers tend to spend more time withtheir sons during adolescence than

with their daughters. This is due to fathers providing a same-sex role model for their sons.

Daughters tend to become closer to their mothers during adolescence, especially as they begin to

go through puberty. Depending on the closeness of the relationship, most daughters will feel

more comfortable talking to their mothers about bodily changes during adolescence than talking

with their father. This tends to put a wedge in the father-daughter relationship (Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Lopez & Corona, 2012: Nielsen; 2012). Daughters begin to find

themselves at a loss with emotionally connecting with their fathers when fathers are supposed to

provide advice and guidance. Daughters with fathers who were actively involved during their

adolescent years tend to have fewer psychological problems (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2012; Sarkardi et al., 2008). Adolescence is crucial for daughters to connect with their

fathers as they begin to receive more independence and develop an identity separate from their

parents. Fathers withdrawing from their daughters during adolescence may miscommunicate to

daughters that they are unloved or unimportant to their fathers (Nielsen; 2012). Daughters can

benefit from the support and guidance of their fathers.

Emerging and Young Adults

College is a time for emerging adults to learn independence and develop their own

identity as they still rely on their parents for support and security (Guarnieri et al., 2015; Nielsen,

2012). Daughters can relate to their fathers more maturely and rationally between the ages of 18

and 25 (Nielsen, 2012). Father-daughter interactions during adolescence can influence the social
 59

cognition and stress response carried into adulthood (Byrd-Craven et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2012).

For this reason, it is essential to understand how father involvement influences a daughter’s life

during emerging adulthood. Father involvement impacts how females develop relationships

during their adulthood, especially romantic ones (Jain, 2015).

Academic success is also positively related to a father’s involvement and not solely the

relationship with the mother (Barco, 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012).

Children with a healthy relationship with their fathers tend to do very well during their academic

years. Fathers play a different role than mothers in their college-aged children's social and

emotional development (Nielsen, 2012). Rostad et al. (2014) concluded that students that

experience low acceptance and high rejection by their fathers might be at risk for more negative

psychological consequences. They explain that compared to mothers, children often perceive

their father’s acceptance as challenging to achieve (Rostad et al., 2014). College daughters that

have insecure attachments with their fathers and feel rejected are more likely to show more

symptoms of depression and anxiety compared to daughters that feel loved and supported by

their fathers (Last, 2009; Nielsen, 2012; Thompson & Berenbaum, 2009).

For some adults, making their parents proud is one of their goals in life. They seek

approval from their parents. Those who lack support from their father often cope with

psychological symptoms (Nielsen, 2012; Rostad et al., 2014). Understanding fathers' impact on

college-aged, emerging adults can help prevent or negate negative consequences resulting from a

lack of father involvement. Furthermore, a survey on college-aged daughters found that fathers

who supported their daughters financially during college were seen as more favorable than

fathers who did not provide financially (Nielsen, 2008). The survey also reported that fathers

that contributed financially to their daughters during their adult years were more likely to be
 60

cared for by their daughters during old age (Nielsen, 2008). There seems to be some correlation

between a father’s financial contribution and the closeness of the father-daughter relationship.

For daughters, it appears that providing financially contributes to how he is viewed as a father.

However, adult daughters generally report that they wish they had spent more time with their

fathers during childhood and adolescence (Nielsen, 2008, 2012). If they could make any

changes, it would build a closer relationship with their fathers despite any financial obligation.

Perception of Father-Daughter Relationship

Fathers have a life-long impact on their daughters just as much or more than mothers do

(Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Guarnieri et al., 2015; Nielsen, 2008; Jain, 2015). Fathers

and daughters start at a disadvantage partly because our society idealizes mothers in ways that

undermine the father-daughter relationship (Allgood et al., 2012, Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda,

2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). Fathers being portrayed falsely works against the father-

daughter relationship because she begins to expect the best from her mother and the worst from

her father (Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). Idealizing mothers makes it less likely that daughters

will turn to their fathers for comfort and advice (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015;

Nielsen, 2020). Daughters tend to side with their mothers during disputes, and the imperfections

and mistakes of their fathers tend to be amplified. Though mothers and fathers impact their

children equally, they relate to their children differently and have different opinions regarding

childrearing (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). This does not make one parent

inferior to the other (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009; Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Nielsen, 2008).

Both parents must relate to their children differently as it provides everything a child needs for

successful development. Mothers can help by allowing fathers to be equally involved in child-

rearing and not constantly criticize or supervise their parenting (Nielsen, 2012, 2020). As
 61

discussed, father-daughter relationships are already fragile and tend to be less communitive, less

relaxed, and less emotionally intimate than the mother-daughter relationship (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Lopez & Corona, 2012; Nielsen, 2012). As a daughter ages, fathers continue to

support autonomy, applaud successes, and invite her to participate in activities that further her

knowledge and mastery in her field of work (Nielsen, 2012, 2020).

Development of Romantic Relationships

Daughters who do not grow up with a loving father have more difficulty trusting and

being emotionally intimate with men (Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2008; Schaick & Stolberg, 2001).

Fathers influence the social and sexual aspects of their daughter’s life (Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012;

Schaick & Stolberg, 2001). This includes the ability to make friends, her level of self-

confidence, and not being overly dependent on others for approval and self-worth (Allgood et al.,

2012; Nielsen, 2012). Daughters between the ages of 18 and 34 have more satisfying

relationships with men when they have good relationships with their fathers (Nielsen, 2012;

Schaick & Stolberg, 2001). Daughters often feel that fathers lack communication about sex and

romantic relationships (Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012). Daughters with healthy relationships with

their fathers tend to engage in less risky sexual behaviors, which applies especially to Black

women (Hutchinson, 2002; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012; Schaick & Stolberg, 2001). Healthy

father-daughter relationships help promote more beneficial and secure relationships in their

daughter’s adulthood (Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012).

Research Lacking

As discussed, much remains to study about the father-daughter relationship, especially

what happens to that relationship as the daughter becomes an adult. Most of the research on

father-daughter relationships discusses the relationship and its effects during childhood (Cabrera
 62

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Feinberg et al., 2007). Nielsen (2020) sums up the father-daughter

relationship by explaining that there is no expiration date for issues affecting the father-daughter

relationship throughout a lifetime. Fathers remain a constant contributor in the children’s lives

even once those children become adults. Fathers can contribute positively or negatively. As

people continue to live longer, many children care for their elderly parents, which often becomes

the daughter’s responsibility (Nielsen, 2008, 2020). Daughters that do not have a close

relationship with their parents tend to display more depressive symptoms and become resentful

at caring for their aging parents (Nielsen, 2008, 2020). Understanding how fathers contribute to

their daughters’ lives, especially during adulthood, needs further study. Future research is

encouraged to delve more into the father-daughter relationship during adulthood.

Summary

Literature has started to conclude that there is no maternal instinct that makes women

better parents than men (Allgood et al., 2012; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015;

Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). Due to stereotypes, fathers are often portrayed as lacking in their

children's lives. However, this is unrealistic since fathers wish they could spend more time with

their kids and less at work (Meteyer & Perry-Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2008). Fathers struggle just

as much as mothers that work full-time to balance the demands of work and family (Meteyer &

Perry-Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2008, 2012). In addition, fathers work just as hard as mothers for

their families; however, their work tends to be more invisible than a mother's work (Nielsen,

2008). Fathers are the ones that assist with more of the physically intensive labor in the house,

such as mowing the lawn, painting the house, lifting heavy furniture, and repairing items that

break in the home. Fathers are becoming less invisible, and the importance of fatherhood is

beginning to become amplified. Fatherhood includes father figures such as grandfathers, uncles,
 63

brothers, and minority fathers (Bianchi et al., 2006; Chuang & Su, 2008; Melendez & Melendez,

2010). Understanding minority fathers is essential due to cultural differences and the perception

of fatherhood within the culture.

The father-daughter relationship benefits the daughter’s well-being and development and

the father’s as well (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2008, 2012). Fathers actively

involved and engaged in their children’s lives have better physical and emotional health (Baum,

2006; Nielsen, 2012; Stone & Dudley, 2006). Children, or for this study, daughters that perceive

their fathers to be involved and nurturing, display higher levels of self-esteem, lower levels of

psychological distress, and higher levels of life satisfaction (Allgood et al., 2012).

Fathering is not inferior to mothering since there are benefits for both parents, and they

are needed (Nielsen, 2008; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Pudasainee-Kapri & Razza, 2015). The

father-daughter relationship has far-reaching societal effects but is not fully understood (Allgood

et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). This research examining the impact of father involvement and

nurturing on the daughter’s self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction, as well as

future research, can assist with promoting and supporting healthier father-daughter relationships.

The quality of the parenting, not the gender, benefits the child the most (Cabrera & Tamis-

LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Pudasainee-Kapri & Razza, 2015).

Furthermore, it is imperative to not only understand mothers and fathers and their perspectives

on childrearing but also the perspective of the childrearing from the child (Allgood et al., 2012;

Nielsen, 2012). Research on the father-daughter relationship will not only contribute to

understanding the influence fathers have on their child’s development but also an understanding

of how men view fatherhood.

 64

Chapter Three: Methods

Overview

This study aimed to explore and understand the effects of father involvement based on

the perception of young adult daughters identifying as Latino, Black, or Asian. According to

Heppner et al. (2016), scientific research aims to establish relations among events and develop

theories that help professionals understand current and future events. The following sections will

present the study’s design, research questions, proposed measures, and identify independent and

dependent variables. In addition, statistical procedures and validity will be addressed.

Design

The study utilized a nonexperimental quantitative descriptive design to identify causal

relationships between a daughter’s perception of the quality or nurturance of the father-daughter

relationship (biological or father-figure) and her level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and

life satisfaction, and a daughter’s perception of father involvement (biological or father-figure)

and her level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. Quantitative

descriptive designs can identify possible relationships among variables (Heppner et al., 2016). A

nonexperimental design is considered correlational research since it does not involve a

manipulated treatment variable (Warner, 2013). With this design, variables are measured, and

then analyses are completed to see whether the variables are related in any way that is consistent

with the research hypothesis (Warner, 2013). There are three types of quantitative descriptive

research (Heppner et al., 2016). This study is variable-centered research since the research

examined possible relationships among various variables concerning a daughter’s perception of

her relationship with her father and her level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and life

satisfaction. A father’s impact on his daughter’s life results from her perceived attachment to her
 65

father (Allgood et al., 2012). For this reason, the daughter’s perception of the relationship

quality with her father and father’s involvement was measured to identify potential causal

relationships.

Research Questions

Research has demonstrated that if a daughter perceives that her father is highly involved,

she is more likely to show the positive benefits of father involvement, such as high self-esteem,

lower levels of psychological distress, and higher levels of life satisfaction (Allgood et al., 2012).

Furthermore, research has identified that females with a high-quality relationship with their

fathers have healthier overall well-being (Allgood et al., 2012; Carter et al., 2014; Nielsen,

2012). This study further explored the perception of a daughter’s relationship with her father and

the impact on her life by examining the Latino, Black, and Asian population. The research on

the relationship between fathers and daughters is not heavily unexplored, especially among the

Latina, Black, and Asian population (Allgood et al., 2012; D’Angelo et al., 2012; Richardson,

2009).

RQ1: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of self-esteem and is there a difference in the level of self-

esteem for women of color, and White daughters?

RQ2: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of psychological distress and is there a difference in the level

of psychological distress for women of color, and White daughters?

RQ3: Does father involvement and father nurturance based on the daughter’s perception

influence a daughter’s level of life satisfaction and is there a difference in the level of life

satisfaction for women of color, and White daughters?

 66

Hypotheses

The number of hypotheses is based on the number of variables in this study. The

following hypotheses state the expected relationship between the variables, are testable and are

founded on the problem statement and the research presented.

Ha1: There will be a positive correlation between the perceived father involvement scores

on the Father Involvement Scale (FIS) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

scores and a positive correlation between the perceived father nurturance scores on the

Nurturant Fathering Scale (NFS) and the RSE scores. Women of color will have higher

levels of self-esteem compared to White daughters.

Ha2: There will be a negative correlation between the perceived father involvement

scores on the FIS and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) scores and a

negative correlation between the perceived father nurturance scores on the NFS and the

DASS scores. Women of color will have lower levels of psychological distress compared

to White daughters.

Ha3: There will be a positive correlation between the perceived father involvement scores

on the FIS and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) scores and a positive correlation

between the perceived father nurturance scores on the NFS and the SWLS scores.

Women of color will have higher levels of life satisfaction compared to White daughters.

Participants and Setting

Participants for this study were recruited from a Christian-based faith university.

Participants that qualified for this study identified as the female sex and between the ages of 18-

24. Allgood et al. (2012) explain that emerging adults often use this stage to reflect on parenting

to prepare for adulthood. Participants reflected on their interaction and perception of their
 67

relationship with their father. In addition, qualified participants identified least one of the

following White, Black, Latino, or Asian. Lastly, qualified participants confirmed that have

communication or awareness of a biological or father figure in their life.

In this study, 182 participants completed the survey through Qualtrics. However, only

data from 131 participants met the criteria and were part of the analysis (N = 131). The sample

was composed of 131 females (Table 1). The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 24 years

old, and 19.8% of them were 20 years old. In terms of racial identity, 58% (76) identified as

white, 23.7 (31) Black, (.8%) American Indian or Alaska Native, 3.8% (5) Asian, .8% (1) Native

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 13% (17) Latino. Analysis of participants’ educational levels

shows that 15.3% (2) completed less than 1 year of college, 9.2% (12) 1 year, 14.5% (19) 2

years, 23.7% (31) 3 years, 15.3% (4 years), and 22.1% (more than 4 years). Next, the analysis of

the participants’ demographic information showed that 90.1% (118) responded to the survey

questions in relation to their biological figure, and 9.9% (13) in relation to a father-figure. From

those that responded in relation to their father-figure 6.9% (9) were stepfathers, .8% (1)

grandfather, and 2.3% (3) other. Detailed demographic information appear in Appendix I.

Recruitment

Qualtrics, an online survey, was distributed to students at a Christian-based faith

university. Female students in the psychology, social work, and counseling program at the

university received the survey. In addition, the survey was distributed to the university’s

international office to assist with identifying Latino, Black, and Asian students.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Participants completed a demographic questionnaire that was included in the survey to

ensure that they meet the requirements to participate in the study. Participant information such
 68

as sex, age, ethnicity, and year in college was be included. Since this study is based on father-

daughter nurturance and involvement, inclusion criteria required that the participant have a male

presence in her life as either her biological, adoptive, stepparent, or father figure. In addition,

qualified participants confirmed they were between the ages of 18-24 to be considered a young

adult for this study. Exclusion criteria will consist of female participants over the age of 24, who

do not identify as at least one of the following White, Black, Latino, or Asian or have never had

a father or father figure present in their life.

Table 1

Participants’ Demographics

Demographic N %
Gender
Female 131 100
Racial Identity
White 76 58
Black 31 23.7
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 .8
Asian 5 3.8
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1 .8
Latino or Hispanic 17 13.0
Relation to Father
Biological Father 118 90.1
Father Figure 13 9.9

Instrumentation

This section will identify the instruments used to measure each variable. Participants

were asked to provide their sex, age, ethnicity, year in college, and if they have a relationship

with their father or a father figure. Participants that indicated that they have a father figure in

their life were asked to identify how they are associated with their father figure, such as an uncle,

grandfather, brother, family friend, etc.

 69

Father Involvement Scale

The Father involvement Scale (FIS) measures adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of

their fathers’ involvement (Allgood et al., 2012; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). This scale has been

used in father-daughter studies with adolescents and adult females and provided a contemporary

and expansive view of fathers (Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). The scale includes 20 items on a 5-

point Likert scale. Each of the 20 items asks the participants to indicate the following: (a) how

involved, on a scale of 1 (not at all involved) to 5 (very involved), their fathers or father-figure

have been, and then how involved their fathers or father-figure actually were on a scale of 1

(much less involved) to 5 (much more involved) (Finley & Schwartz, 2004). Possible scores

range from 20 being the minimum and 100 being the maximum. The FIS demonstrated high

Cronbach’s alpha values on all three subscales (expressive, instrumental, and advising) for father

involvement, which ranged from .90 to .93 (Finley & Schwartz, 2004). Thus, demonstrating the

reliability and internal consistency of the FIS (Finley & Schwartz, 2004).

Nurturant Fathering Scale

The Nurturant Fathering Scale (NFS) measures the affective quality of fathering based on

the participant’s perception of their relationship with their father or father figure (Allgood et al.,

2012; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). As with the FIS, this scale has been used in father-daughter

studies with adolescents and adult females and provided a contemporary and expansive view of

fathers (Nielsen, 2008, 2012, 2020). The scale includes nine items on a 5-point Likert scale.

Participants respond to each item using a 5-point rating scale (the anchors vary based on the

item’s function). Possible scores range from 9 being the minimum and 45 being the maximum.

Research by Finley and Schwartz (2004) has demonstrated that Cronbach’s alpha values from
 70

numerous studies have ranged high from .88 to .95, indicating that the NFS is reliable and

consistent.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) is a measure of global self-esteem. It includes

ten items on a 4-point Likert scale and has high reliability within the college student population

(Allgood et al., 2012; Corcoran & Fischer, 2013). The scale includes ten items with a method of

combined ratings. Low self-esteem responses are disagree or strongly disagree on items 1, 3, 4,

7, 10 and strongly agree or agree items on 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013).

Corcoran and Fischer (2013) explain that the RSE demonstrates exceptional internal consistency

and has a reproducibility score of .92 on the Guttman scale. In addition, the RSE demonstrates

reliable construct validity by correlating in the expected direction with other measures such as

depression and anxiety (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013).

Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales

The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) measures depression, anxiety, and

stress (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). It includes 42 items on a 4-

point Likert scale rating from Did not apply at all to me = 0 to Applied to me very much or most

of the time = 3 (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Depression scores are

the sum of 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 24, 26, 31,34, 37, 38, and 42. Anxiety scores are the sum of 2, 4,

7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, 36, 40, and 41. Stress scores are the sum of 1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18,

22, 17, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 39. Corcoran and Fischer (2013) explain that the DASS demonstrated

exceptional internal consistency and was developed through a series of rigorous procedures. The

DASS has an internal consistency of .96, .89, and .93 for depression, anxiety, and stress,

respectively (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

 71

Satisfaction with Life Scale

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) measures subjective life satisfaction. This scale

was developed on a sample that included undergraduate students (Corcoran & Fischer, 2013;

Diener et al., 1985). It consists of five items on a 7-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from

Strongly disagree = 1 to Strongly agree = 7. Scores are summed for a total. The total sum can

range from 5 to 35, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with life (Corcoran &

Fischer, 2013; Diener et al., 1985) SWLS has an excellent internal consistency with an alpha of

.87.

Procedure

Before the survey was distributed, the researcher received approval from Liberty’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix A). The survey was distributed electronically via

Qualtrics. Participants first read the electronic informed consent form (Appendix B) and

consented to participate in the study by clicking on the I consent, begin the study button. Any

identifying information of participants was not collected. Responses are anonymous.

Participants responded to demographic information questions and rated themselves on various

statements concerning self-esteem, psychological distress, life satisfaction, and perceived father

involvement and father nurturing. The study analyzed the scores from each measure to identify

casual relationships related to the daughter’s perception of her relationship with her father or

father figure and her self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. To encourage

participation, eligible participants that completed the survey were entered into a raffle drawing.

After the participants completed the survey, Qualtrics directed the participants to another survey

where they could enter a drawing to win one out of 4 $25 Target gift cards. This ensured
 72

anonymity of the participants. The raffle drawing took place in April, and four participants were

drawn at random to win one of the four gift cards.

Data Analysis

The independent variables in this study are the perception of father involvement and

father nurturance. According to Heppner et al. (2016), it is imperative to note that these

variables are also considered status variables since they cannot be manipulated. A daughter’s

perception of her relationship with her father or father figure was not manipulated in this study.

Independent variables are manipulated to identify a possible effect on the dependent variable

(Heppner et al., 2016). The dependent variable in this study is the daughter’s level of self-

esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. The daughter’s level of self-esteem was

measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). The daughter’s level of psychological

distress was measured using the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). The daughter’s

satisfaction with life was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS).

Statistical Procedures

The data collected from Qualtrics was processed and analyzed through IBM’s Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29. The statistical procedure conducted on the

data collected was a Pearson’s correlation analysis. This procedure was used to determine any

relationship between a daughter’s perception of her father’s involvement and the quality of the

father-daughter relationship on her level of self-esteem and life satisfaction. Warner (2013)

explains that Pearson’s r is implemented to determine the strength of a relationship between two

quantitative variables. A positive correlation is reflected when scores on the X and Y variables

increase. In contrast, a negative correlation is reflected when the scores on the X variable

increase and the scores on the Y variable decrease (Warner, 2013). The range of values for
 73

Pearson’s r is from -1.00 (strong negative relationship) to 1.00 (strong positive relationship),

with a correlation near 0 indicating that there is no linear association (Warner, 2013). The

researcher predicted that the relationship between a daughter’s perception of her father’s

involvement and the father-daughter relationship and the daughter’s level of self-esteem and life

satisfaction will produce a positive linear association. With Pearson’s r, small sample sizes (N is

less than 30) are influenced by outliers affecting the strength of the relationship between the

variables (Warner, 2013). Warner (2013) emphasizes that correlations are not indicative of

causation. This study only assessed correlations between a daughter’s perception of her father’s

involvement and nurturance and the daughter’s self-esteem, psychological distress, and life

satisfaction.

Validity

Heppner et al. (2016) explain that internal validity is the degree of certainty when making

statements about the relationship between two variables. With Pearson’s r, a Type I error may

occur when running a large number of correlations. Warner (2013) explains that it is best to

limit the number of correlations before running the data to reduce the risk of a Type I error. It is

familiar with nonexperimental research to run many tests, increasing the risk of Type I error

(Warner, 2013). A Type I error is determining a relationship between two variables when there

is no relationship (Heppner et al., 2016). Outliers can impact statistical results, which produces

inaccurate effect sizes (Heppner et al., 2016). Therefore, to reduce the impact of outliers and

Type I error, the data was examined for outliers by conducting a bivariate scatter plot. Heppner

et al. (2016) explain that external validity is the degree to which the relationships found in the

study are generalizable. In this study, it is essential to note that the participants were from

Christian-faith-based university. Given that the participants are students at a Christian-faith-

 74

based university it is highly likely that their own personal faith is Christian-based, making the

results less generalizable to daughters that do not identify with a Christian faith or attend a

university. However, this does not mean that every participant that attends the university

identifies with the Christian faith. To increase the degree of external validity, the researcher will

utilize a setting that closely resembles their study (Warner, 2013). This study explicitly

researched the perception of young adult daughters, including undergraduate university students'

age group.

Summary

This study explores the father-daughter relationship from the daughter’s perspective.

There are many discussions regarding the mother-child relationship in the research field, but

there is minimal research regarding fathers and their children (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Palm,

2014; Nielsen, 2012). The limited research on the father-child relationship has noted that there

are many benefits from father involvement and nurturance that extends well into adulthood

(Allgood et al., 2012; Gordon, 2016; Jeynes, 2015; Nielsen, 2012; Palkovitz & Hull, 2018;

Trahan & Cheung, 2018). If father involvement and nurturance benefit children in general, how

can these benefits affect daughters in particular? In addition, the question of how father-

daughter involvement affects women of color, including Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, needs to

be investigated further. With the increase in the minority population, it is imperative to

understand the dynamic of minority families, including minority women and their fathers.

Allgood et al. (2012) encourage research regarding the daughter’s perspective on the father-

daughter relationship, specifically from the perspective of Black, Latino, and Asian daughters,

since their research was conducted on primarily White daughters. Thus, the results of this study

can provide insight into how to develop further and promote the father-daughter relationship in
 75

the Black, Latino, and Asian communities. In addition, the research needs to factor in father

figures and explain how they can build relationships with their “daughters” even though they

may not be biological fathers. Father-daughter relationships are fragile and unstable due to the

lack of understanding that fathers often experience on how to be impactful fathers to their

daughters (Nielsen, 2008; 2012; 2020).

This expands on the research demonstrated by Allgood et al. (2012). The expansion

includes adding women of color to the sample, documenting life satisfaction, and including

father figures. This data can be used to initiate programs encouraging and supporting fathers,

father figures, and the father-daughter relationship.

 76

Chapter Four: Findings

Overview

This chapter provides descriptive statistics of the data which includes frequencies,

correlations, means, and standard deviations for the variables of father involvement, father

nurturance, self-esteem, psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress), and life

satisfaction. In addition, comparisons of women of color and white daughters on the variables of

self-esteem, psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress), and life satisfaction are

presented. The results of the statistical analysis for each hypothesis are also presented. Tables

are shown in this section to facilitate understanding of the statistical results for each hypothesis.

Statistical analyses are part of appendices J, K, and L.

Descriptive Statistics

Pearson’s Correlation Analysis

A Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to understand the relationship between

father involvement and self-esteem, psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress), life

satisfaction, and father nurturance and self-esteem, psychological distress (depression, anxiety,

and stress), life satisfaction. The analysis will be used to determine if the relationship is weak,

strong, positive, or negative. Positive relationships indicate that as one variable increases so

does the other variable (Heppner et al., 2016; Warner, 2013). Whereas, if the one variable

increases and the other variable decreases, a negative relationship is indicated (Heppner et al.,

2016; Warner, 2013). Assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, and normality are also

examined. Homoscedasticity measures the amount of variation in one variable is similar in

difference points in the other variable (Heppner et al., 2016; Warner, 2013). Linearity is the data

provides a somewhat straight line (Heppner et al., 2016; Warner, 2013). Normality shows that
 77

the data is normally distributed (Heppner et al., 2016; Warner, 2013). The analysis included 131

participants (N = 131). The table below shows the means and standard deviations for the data.

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations

Mean Std. Deviation N

Rosenberg Self-Esteem 21.3969 5.34312 131
Life Satisfaction 21.7328 6.12288 131
DASS42- Depression 8.1832 7.68595 131
DASS42- Anxiety 8.0687 8.01651 131
DASS42- Stress 12.5496 9.17456 131
Father Involvement 55.4580 19.41976 131
Father Nurturance 26.1679 8.86666 131

Self-Esteem

For father involvement and self-esteem, an inspection of histograms suggested that the

assumption of normality was not violated (Appendix J). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk tests

suggested that perceived father involvement, W(131) = .98, p = .094, and self-esteem, W(131) =

.99, p = .186, were normally distributed. Additionally, an inspection of a scatterplot suggested

that there was a linear relationship between father involvement and self-esteem, and that the

assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated (Appendix J).

A Pearson’s correlation analysis examined the relationship between perceived father

involvement and self-esteem (Table 3). Scales scores were computed by adding responses to the

20 questions on the FIS scale resulting in a minimum possible score of 20 and maximum of 100,

and by adding responses to 10 questions on the RSE scale with lower scores indicating a higher

level of self-esteem. The mean for perceived father involvement was 55.5 (SD = 19.42) and the

mean for self-esteem was 21.4 (SD = 5.34). The relationship was positive, weak in strength, and

not statistically significant, r = .149, n = 131, p = .089.

 78

For perceived father nurturance and self-esteem, an inspection of histograms suggested

that the assumption of normality was not violated (Appendix B). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk

tests suggested that perceived father nurturance, W(131) = .97, p = .010, and self-esteem, W(131)

= .99, p = .186, were normally distributed. Additionally, an inspection of a scatterplot suggested

that there was a linear relationship between father nurturance and self-esteem, and that the

assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated (Appendix J).

A Pearson’s correlation analysis was also used to examine the relationship between

perceived father nurturance and self-esteem (Table 3). Scales scores were computed by adding

responses to the nine questions on the NFS scale resulting in a minimum possible score of 9 and

maximum of 45, and by adding responses to 10 questions on the RSE scale with lower scores

indicating a higher level of self-esteem. The mean for perceived father nurturance was 26.2 (SD

= 8.87) and the mean for self-esteem was 21.4 (SD = 5.34). The relationship was positive,

moderate in strength, and statistically significant, r = .275, n = 131, p < .001.

Psychological Distress

For father involvement and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) an

inspection of histograms suggested that the assumption of normality was not violated (Appendix

B). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk tests suggested that perceived father involvement, W(131) =

.98, p = .094, and depression, W(131) = .85, p < .001, perceived father involvement, W(131) =

.98, p = .094, and anxiety, W(131) = .85, p < .001, perceived father involvement, W(131) = .98, p

= .094, and stress, W(131) = .94, p < .001, were normally distributed. Additionally, an

inspection of a scatterplot suggested that there was a linear relationship between perceived father

involvement, and depression, anxiety, and stress, and that the assumption of homoscedasticity

was not violated (Appendix J).

 79

A Pearson’s correlation analysis examined the relationship between perceived father

involvement and level of depression, anxiety, and stress (Table 3). Scales scores were computed

by adding responses to the 20 questions on the FIS scale resulting in a minimum possible score

of 20 and maximum of 100, and by adding responses to 42 questions on the DASS scale with

lower scores indicating lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. The mean for perceived

father involvement was 55.5 (SD = 19.42), the mean for depression was 8.1 (SD = 7.69), the

mean for anxiety was 8.1 (SD = 8.02), and the mean for stress was 12.5 (SD = 9.17). The

relationship between perceived father involvement and depression was positive, moderate in

strength, and statistically significant, r = .233, n = 131, p = .007. The relationship between

perceived father involvement and anxiety was positive, weak in strength, and not statistically

significant, r = .141, n = 131, p = .109. The relationship between perceived father involvement

and stress was positive, moderate in strength, and statistically significant, r = .299, n = 131, p <

.001.

For perceived father nurturance and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and

stress), an inspection of histograms suggested that the assumption of normality was not violated

(Appendix J). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk tests suggested that perceived father nurturance,

W(131) = .97, p = .010, and depression, W(131) = .85, p < .001, perceived father nurturance,

W(131) = .97, p = .010, and anxiety, W(131) = .85, p < .001, perceived father nurturance, W(131)

= .97, p = .010, and stress, W(131) = .94, p = < .001, were normally distributed. Additionally, an

inspection of a scatterplot suggested that there was a linear relationship between perceived father

nurturance, and depression, anxiety, and stress, and that the assumption of homoscedasticity was

not violated (Appendix J).

 80

A Pearson’s correlation was also used to examine the relationship between perceived

father nurturance and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) (Table 3). Scales

scores were computed by adding responses to the nine questions on the NFS scale resulting in a

minimum possible score of 9 and maximum of 45, and by adding responses to 42 questions on

the DASS scale with lower scores indicating lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. The

mean for perceived father nurturance was 26.2 (SD = 8.87), the mean for depression was 8.1 (SD

= 7.69), the mean for anxiety was 8.1 (SD = 8.02), and the mean for stress was 12.5 (SD = 9.17).

The relationship between perceived father nurturance and depression was positive, moderate in

strength, and statistically significant r = .239, n = 131, p = .006. The relationship between

perceived father nurturance and anxiety was positive, weak in strength, and not statistically

significant r = .172, n = 131, p = .050. The relationship between perceived father nurturance and

stress was positive, strong in strength, and statistically significant r = .344, n = 131, p < .001.

Table 3

Pearson’s Correlations

Rosenber Life DASS42- DASS42 DASS42 Father Father

g Self- Satisfactio Depressio -Anxiety -Stress Involveme Nurturanc
Esteem n n nt e
Rosenberg Pearson --
Self- Correlatio
Esteem n
Life Pearson -.513** --
Satisfactio Correlatio
n n

DASS42- Pearson .589** -.489** --

Depression Correlatio
n

DASS42- Pearson .566** -.365** .795** --

Anxiety Correlatio
n
 81

DASS42- Pearson .617** -.438** .767** .795** --

Stress Correlatio
n

Father Pearson .149 -.480** .233** .141 .299** --

Involveme Correlatio
nt n

Father Pearson .275** -.533** .239** .172 .344** .886** --

Nurturance Correlatio
n

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Life Satisfaction

For father involvement and life satisfaction, an inspection of histograms suggested that

the assumption of normality was not violated (Appendix J). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk tests

suggested that perceived father involvement, W(131) = .98, p = .094, and life satisfaction,

W(131) = .99, p = .286, were normally distributed. Additionally, an inspection of a scatterplot

suggested that there was a linear relationship between father involvement and self-esteem, and

that the assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated (Appendix J). A Pearson’s correlation

examined the relationship between perceived father involvement and level of satisfaction with

life (Table 3). Scales scores were computed by adding responses to the 20 questions on the FIS

scale resulting in a minimum possible score of 20 and maximum of 100, and by adding responses

to five questions on the SWLS scale with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with life.

The mean for perceived father involvement was 55.5 (SD = 19.42) and the mean for satisfaction

with life was 21.7 (SD = 6.12). The relationship between perceived father involvement and

satisfaction with life was negative, moderate in strength, and statistically significant, r = -.480, n

= 131, p = <.001.

For father nurturance and life satisfaction, an inspection of histograms suggested that the

assumption of normality was not violated (Appendix J). In line with this, Shapiro-Wilk tests
 82

suggested that perceived father nurturance, W(131) = .97, p = .010, and life satisfaction, W(131)

= .99, p = .286, were normally distributed. Additionally, an inspection of a scatterplot suggested

that there was a linear relationship between father nurturance and life satisfaction, and that the

assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated (Appendix B). A Pearson’s correlation was

also used to examine the relationship between perceived father nurturance and level of

satisfaction with life (Table 3). Scales scores were computed by adding responses to the nine

questions on the NFS scale resulting in a minimum possible score of 9 and maximum of 45, and

by adding responses to five questions on the SWLS scale with higher scores representing higher

satisfaction with life. The mean for perceived father nurturance was 26.2 (SD = 8.87) and the

mean for satisfaction with life was 21.7 (SD = 6.12). The relationship was negative, moderate in

strength, and statistically significant r = -.533, n = 131, p < .001.

Independent-samples t-test

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to investigate if there were significant

differences between women of color and white daughters and their level of self-esteem,

psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and stress), and life satisfaction. Effect size is

provided to interpret the difference in terms of practical significance. Cohen’s d effect size

indicates if the difference is large enough to be detectable, too small to detect any difference or

of practical significance (Warner, 2013). The table below shows the means and standard

deviations for the data.

 83

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations

N Mean Std. Deviation

Rosenberg Self- White 76 22.3421 5.27017
Esteem Women of Color 55 20.0909 5.21136
DASS42- White 76 8.7632 7.63478
Depression Women of Color 55 7.3818 7.75431
DASS42- White 76 9.5395 8.31455
Anxiety Women of Color 55 6.0364 7.17238
DASS42- White 76 13.6184 9.01993
Stress Women of Color 55 11.0727 9.26334
Life Satisfaction White 76 22.4737 6.78130
Women of Color 55 20.7091 4.95413

Self-esteem

An independent samples t test was conducted to assess whether mean self-esteem differed

significantly for women of color compared to white daughters (Table 5). The assumption of

homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = .000, p = .998; this indicated that

the homogeneity of variance assumption has been violated. Therefore, the equal variances not

assumed was utilized. The mean self-esteem did not differ significantly, t(117) = 2.43, p = .017,

two-tailed. The mean self-esteem for women of color (M = 20.09, SD = 5.21) was about two

points lower than mean self-esteem for white daughters (M = 22.34, SD = 5.27). A small effect

size was noted, d = .429, indicative of a weak degree of practical significance.

Psychological Distress

An independent samples t test was conducted to assess whether mean depression differed

significantly for women of color compared to white daughters (Table 5). The assumption of

homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = .347, p = .557; this indicated no

significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the equal variances assumed

was utilized. The mean depression did not differ significantly, t(129) = 1.02, p = .312, two-tailed.
 84

The mean depression for women of color (M = 7.38, SD = 7.75) was about one point lower than

mean depression for white daughters (M = 8.76, SD = 7.63). A very small effect size was noted,

d = .180, indicative of a weak degree of practical significance.

In addition, an independent samples t test was conducted to assess whether mean anxiety

differed significantly for women of color compared to white daughters (Table 5). The

assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = .2.78, p = .098; this

indicated no significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the equal

variances assumed was utilized. The mean anxiety did not differ significantly, t(129) = 2.52, p =

.013, two-tailed. The mean anxiety for women of color (M = 6.04, SD = 7.17) was about three

points lower than mean anxiety for white daughters (M = 9.54, SD = 8.31). A small effect size

was noted, d = .446, indicative of a weak degree of practical significance.

To conclude psychological distress, an independent samples t test was also conducted to

assess whether mean stress differed significantly for women of color compared to white

daughters (Table 5). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene

test, F = .148, p = .701; this indicated no significant violation of the equal variance assumption.

Therefore, the equal variances assumed was utilized. The mean stress did not differ significantly,

t(129) = 1.58, p = .117, two-tailed. The mean stress for women of color (M = 11.07, SD = 9.26)

was about two points lower than mean stress for white daughters (M = 13.62, SD = 9.02). A

small effect size was noted, d = .279, indicative of a weak degree of practical significance.

Life Satisfaction

An independent samples t test was conducted to assess whether mean life satisfaction

differed significantly for women of color compared to white daughters (Table 5). The

assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = 7.41, p = .007; this
 85

indicated no significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the equal

variances assumed was utilized. The mean life satisfaction did not differ significantly, t(129) =

1.64, p = .104, two-tailed. The mean life satisfaction for women of color (M = 20.71, SD = 4.95)

was about two points lower than mean life satisfaction for white daughters (M = 22.47, SD =

6.78). A small effect size was noted, d = .290, indicative of a weak degree of practical

significance.

Table 5

Independent-samples t-test

95% Confidence
Levene’s Test for Equality of Interval of the
Variances Significance t-test for Equality of Means Difference
One- Two-
Sided Sided p Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df p Difference Difference Lower Upper
Rosenberg Equal .000 .998 2.424 129 .008 .017 2.25120 .92864 .41387 4.08853
Self-Esteem variances
assumed
Equal 2.429 117.264 .008 .017 2.25120 .92695 .41546 4.08694
variances not
assumed
DASS42- Equal .347 .557 1.015 129 .156 .312 1.38134 1.36048 -1.3104 4.07309
Depression variances
assumed
Equal 1.013 115.347 .157 .313 1.38134 1.36390 -1.3201 4.08286
variances not
assumed
DASS42- Equal 2.777 .098 2.519 129 .007 .013 3.50311 1.39087 .75124 6.25498
Anxiety variances
assumed
Equal 2.579 124.990 .006 .011 3.50311 1.35829 .81488 6.19134
variances not
assumed
DASS42- Equal .148 .701 1.576 129 .059 .117 2.54569 1.61498 -.6495 5.74097
Stress variances
assumed
Equal 1.570 114.660 .060 .119 2.54569 1.62194 -.6671 5.75854
variances not
assumed
Life Equal 7.410 .007 1.638 129 .052 .104 1.76459 1.07698 -3.662 3.89542
Satisfaction variances
assumed
Equal
variances not 1.721 128.982 .044 .088 1.76459 1.02534 -.2640 3.79326
assumed
 86

Results

Hypothesis One

The first hypothesis is that perceived father involvement, as measured by the Father

Involvement Scale (FIS) and perceived father nurturance, as measured by the Nurturant

Fathering Scale (NFS), correlates positively to self-esteem, as measured but the Rosenberg Self-

Esteem Scale (RSE). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father involvement and self-esteem

showed a weak positive correlation that was not statistically significant (r = .149, p = .089).

Contrarily, perceived father nurturance and self-esteem showed a moderate positive correlation

that was statistically significant (r = .275, p < .001).

Results indicate that perceived father involvement does not correlate to self-esteem,

whereas perceived father nurturance does correlate to self-esteem. This means that perceived

father nurturance and self-esteem increase at a similar rate. The first hypothesis that perceived

father involvement and perceived father nurturance correlates to self-esteem was partially

supported.

Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis is that perceived father involvement, as measured by the Father

Involvement Scale (FIS) and perceived father nurturance, as measured by the Nurturant

Fathering Scale (FNS), correlates negatively to psychological distress, as measured by the

Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father

involvement and depression showed a moderate positive correlation that was statistically

significant (r = .233, p < .001). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father involvement and

anxiety showed a weak positive correlation that was not statistically significant (r = .141, p =
 87

.109). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father involvement and stress showed a moderate

positive correlation that was statistically significant (r = .299, p <.001).

Furthermore, Pearson’s correlation of perceived father nurturance and depression showed

a moderate positive correlation that was statistically significant (r = .239, p < .001). Pearson’s

correlation of perceived father nurturance and anxiety showed a weak positive correlation that

was not statistically significant (r = .172, p = .050). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father

nurturance and stress showed a strong positive correlation that was statistically significant (r =

.299, p <.001).

Results indicate that perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance

correlates to some psychological distress, such as depression and stress, whereas perceived father

involvement and perceived father nurturance does correlate to anxiety. This means that

perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance and depression and anxiety

increase at a similar rate. The second hypothesis that perceived father involvement and perceived

father nurturance correlates to psychological distress was not supported.

Hypothesis Three

The third hypothesis is that perceived father involvement, as measured by the Father

Involvement Scale (FIS) and perceived father nurturance, as measured by the Nurturant

Fathering Scale (FNS), correlates positively to life satisfaction, as measured by Satisfaction with

Life Scale (SWLS). Pearson’s correlation of perceived father involvement and life satisfaction

showed a moderate negative correlation that was statistically significant (r = -.480, p < .001).

Similarly, a Pearson’s correlation of perceived father nurturance and life satisfaction showed a

moderate negative correlation that was statistically significant (r = -.533, p < .001).
 88

Results indicate that perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance

negatively correlates to life satisfaction. This means that perceived father involvement and

perceived father nurturance and life satisfaction do not increase at a similar rate. The third

hypothesis that perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance correlates

positively to life satisfaction was not supported.

Hypothesis Four

The fourth hypothesis is that women of color and white daughters will score differently

on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS),

and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The independent-samples t-test showed no

significant difference in level of self-esteem between women of color (M = 20.09, SD = 5.21)

and white daughters (M = 22.34, SD = 5.27), t(129) = 2.42, p = .017, two-tailed. Similarly, the

independent-samples t-test conducted to compare level of depression, anxiety, and stress

between women of color and white daughters demonstrated no significant difference in level of

depression between women of color (M = 7.38, SD = 7.75) and white daughters (M = 8.76, SD =

7.63), t(129) = 1.02, p = .312, two-tailed; no a significant difference in level of anxiety between

women of color (M = 6.04, SD = 7.17) and white daughters (M = 9.54, SD = 8.31), t(129) = 2.52,

p = .013, two-tailed; non-significant difference in level of stress between women of color (M =

11.07, SD = 9.26) and white daughters (M = 13.62, SD = 9.02), t(129) = 1.58, p = .117, two-

tailed. Lastly, the independent samples t test showed no significant difference in level of life

satisfaction between women of color (M = 20.71, SD = 4.95) and white daughters (M = 22.47,

SD = 6.78), , t(129) = 1.64, p = .104, two-tailed. Additionally, the effect size for all the analyses

was too small to detect any difference or practical significance. The fourth hypothesis that

women of color and white daughter would score differently on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
 89

(RSE), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale

(SWLS) was not supported.

 90

Chapter Five: Conclusions

Overview

This concluding chapter analyzes the findings as they relate to the research questions and

the hypotheses. A discussion will be presented regarding the findings as well as the findings that

were discussed in the literature. Results of this research demonstrated that perceived father

involvement, as measured by the Father Involvement Scale (FIS), did not correlate significantly

to self-esteem, as measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). Unlike perceived father

involvement, perceived father nurturance, measured by the Nurturant Fathering Scale (NFS),

significantly correlated with self-esteem. Furthermore, the results indicated that both perceived

father involvement and perceived father nurturance did not significantly correlate with

psychological distress, as measured by the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS). Life

satisfaction, as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), resulted in a negative

correlation with perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance. This resulted in

the opposite direction of the third hypothesis, which hypothesized that life satisfaction would

result in a positive correlation with perceived father involvement and perceived father

nurturance. Results also showed that there was no significant difference in level of self-esteem,

psychological distress, and satisfaction with life between women of color and white daughters.

The conclusion of this chapter will also discuss implications, limitations, and recommendations

for future studies.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of perceived father involvement

and perceived father nurturance on a daughter’s self-esteem, psychological distress, and life

satisfaction. In addition, the study placed a focus on women of color to see if a daughter’s race
 91

and familial upbring played a role in her level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and life

satisfaction. Five instruments were used to measure perceived father involvement, perceived

father nurturance, self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. The literature, as

discussed in Chapter Two, supports the use of these variables as they relate to father-daughter

relationship, as well as a daughter’s emotional and cognitive development (Allgood et al., 2012;

Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012, 2020). Therefore, past, and

current literature findings on the father-daughter relationship, and emotional and cognitive

development in children informed this study.

Research Question One

The first research question addressed the relationship between both perceived father

involvement (FIS) and perceived father nurturance (NFS) and self-esteem. Results indicate that

perceived father involvement did correlate to self-esteem but was not statistically significant.

However, perceived father nurturance did correlate to self-esteem and was statistically

significant. The overall scores for perceived father involvement (M = 55.5, SD = 19.42) and

self-esteem (M = 21.4, SD = 5.34) demonstrated that there may be a positive correlational

relationship between perceived father involvement and level of self-esteem. Additionally, the

scores for perceived father nurturance (M = 26.2, SD = 8.87) and self-esteem (M = 21.4, SD =

5.34) also indicted that there may be a positive correlational relationship between perceived

father nurturance and level of self-esteem. These results indicate that perceived father

involvement and perceived father nurturance have some sort of relationship with the self-esteem

of daughters. Daughters that perceived high involvement and nurturance from their fathers may

develop a healthy self-esteem.

 92

The literature on father-daughter relationships supports the theory that fathers do have an

influence in the level of their daughters’ self-esteem. Studies have demonstrated that fathers

who promote self-confidence and self-reliance tend to have daughters with higher levels of self-

esteem versus daughters that do not have a relationship with their father (Allgood et al., 2012;

Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009; Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Jain,

2015; Nielsen, 2012, 2020). Research has further indicated that daughters that have quality

involvement with their fathers have a healthy sense of identity that contributes to a healthy self-

esteem (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009; Jain, 2015). Within the father-daughter relationship, it is

important to recognize that the quality of the relationship is more valuable versus the amount of

time spent together (Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009; Nielsen, 2012, 2020). The results of this study

for Research Question One aligns itself with previous research on the father-daughter

relationship and self-esteem (Allgood et al., 2012; Bulanda & Majumdar, 2009; Cabrera &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Jain, 2015; Nielsen, 2012, 2020). A

daughter’s healthy self-esteem and self-worth can be fostered by father involvement and

nurturance.

Research Question Two

The second research question investigated the correlation between both perceived father

involvement (FIS) and perceived father nurturance (NFS) and psychological distress (DASS).

Results indicate that perceived father involvement did correlate with psychological distress, but

not in the direction hypothesized. Additionally, perceived father nurturance did correlate to self-

psychological distress, but not the direction hypothesized. The second hypothesis for this study

hypothesized that higher levels of perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance

would contribute to lower levels of psychological distress. However, the scores demonstrated
 93

that the higher levels of perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance resulted in

higher levels of psychological distress. The overall scores for perceived father involvement (M =

55.5, SD = 19.42), perceived father nurturance (M = 26.2, SD = 8.87), depression (M = 8.1, SD =

7.69), anxiety (M = 8.1, SD = 8.02), and stress (M = 12.5, SD = 9.17) demonstrated that there

may be a positive correlational relationship between both perceived father involvement and

perceived father nurturance and psychological distress.

The findings from this study based on perceived father involvement, perceived father

nurturance, and psychological distress differs from the literature. Studies on the parent-child

relationship demonstrated that relationships in which a child feels secure and supported by their

parent reduce the risk for anxiety and depression in adolescence and adulthood (Duchesne &

Ratelle, 2014; Jakobsen et al., 2012). Furthermore, Jain (2015) found that daughters that had

healthy relationships with their fathers were less likely to develop mental health problems in

adulthood. Specifically, daughters were at a reduced risk of developing depression and eating

disorders (Jain, 2015). In terms of adolescent and young adult daughters it has been found that

daughters that perceive affection and support from their fathers experience less symptoms of

depression and anxiety (Duchesne & Ratelle, 2014; Jakobsen et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012). This

is compared to daughters in college that felt they were rejected by their fathers. Daughters that

did feel affection or support from their father in college were more likely to be clinically

depressed (Nielsen, 2012; Thompson & Berenbaum, 2009).

Furthermore, the findings from this present study differed from the literature previously

cited that no matter how involved and nurturing the participants rated their fathers, some still

presented with psychological distress. For this reason, these findings cannot be attributed to

causation. This present study was conducted after the Covid pandemic whereas the literature
 94

cited presented findings before the Covid pandemic. The covid pandemic has been attributed to

mental health crisis across many age groups, especially young adults (Cui & Hong, 2021;

Glowacz & Schmits, 2020; Graupensperger et al., 2022; Koelen et al., 2022; Twenge & Joiner,

2020; Villanti et al., 2022). Since the Covid pandemic young adults have presents that social and

relational stressors which have increased symptoms of depression and anxiety (Graupensperger

et al., 2022; Kujawa et al., 2020; Twenge & Joiner, 2020). Young adults struggled more with

adapting to lockdown and lifestyle changes during the pandemic compared to older populations

(Alzueta et al., 2021; Glowacz & Schmits, 2020; Kujawa et al., 2020). During this unprecedented

time in the world with limited stability and stressors across all age groups it seems that perceived

father involvement and perceived father nurturance did not help to mediate the stressors of the

Covid pandemic.

Research Question Three

The third research question seeks to determine if perceived father involvement and

perceived father nurturance correlate with satisfaction with life. Results indicate that both

perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance correlates with satisfaction with

life, but not in the direction hypothesized. The overall scores for perceived father involvement

(M = 55.5, SD = 19.42), perceived father nurturance (M = 26.2, SD = 8.87), and satisfaction with

life (M = 21.7, SD = 6.12) indicate a negative correlational relationship between both perceived

father involvement and perceived father nurturance and satisfaction with life.

Literature on life satisfaction indicates that secure parental attachment is positively

associated with life satisfaction (Guarnieri et al., 2015). More specifically, this is evident with

the father-daughter relationship (Guarnieri et al., 2015; Jeynes, 2015; Lopez & Corona, 2012).

In addition, fathers tend to function as a mediating role for children that may reside in
 95

disadvantage communities (Gordon, 2016). Children in disadvantaged communities that have a

healthy relationship with their father tend to have more positive outcomes, including academic

achievement in adolescence (Gordon, 2016; Jeynes, 2015). This differs from the results of this

study which found that a majority of participants rated their satisfaction with life as low and

rated their father involvement and father nurturance as high. These results imply that even if a

daughter perceived her father as highly involved and nurturing it did not produce higher levels of

satisfaction with life.

As discussed in Research Question Three, the Covid pandemic has increased levels pf

psychological distress. People are more stressed, anxious, and depressed (Cui & Hong, 2021;

Glowacz & Schmits, 2020; Graupensperger et al., 2022; Koelen et al., 2022; Twenge & Joiner,

2020; Villanti et al., 2022). With the rise in psychological distress there has also been a decrease

in life satisfaction (Glowacz & Schmits, 2020; Graupensperger et al., 2022). Glowacz and

Schmits (2020) and Graupensperger et al. (2022) studied the longitudinal effects of the Covid

pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of young adults and found that along with an

increase in depression and anxiety that financial stressors were strongly associated a decrease in

life satisfaction. As previously discussed, studies have found that young adults struggled the

most with adapting to lockdown and lifestyle changes during the pandemic compared to older

populations (Alzueta et al., 2021; Glowacz & Schmits, 2020; Kujawa et al., 2020). The

experience of insatiability, uncertainty, and hopelessness could possibly lead to the decrease in

life satisfaction. Perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance did not adjust the

levels of life satisfaction for daughters in this study. Even though there is a correlational

relationship, since there is no causation, it cannot be said that high levels of perceived father

involvement and perceived father nurturance cause lower levels of life satisfaction.
 96

Research Question Four

The fourth research question addressed differences in level of self-esteem, psychological

distress, and satisfaction with life between women of color and white daughters. Results

indicated that there was no significant difference between women of color and white daughters

on self-esteem, psychological distress, and satisfaction with life. The overall score of self-

esteem for women of color (M = 20.09, SD = 5.21) was about two points lower for white

daughters (M = 22.34, SD = 5.27). In terms of psychological distress, the overall score of

depression for women of color (M = 7.38, SD = 7.75) was about one point lower than depression

for white daughters (M = 8.76, SD = 7.63). Additionally, the overall score of anxiety for women

of color (M = 6.04, SD = 7.17) was about three points lower than for white daughters (M = 9.54,

SD = 8.31). The last psychological distress symptom, stress, had an overall score for women of

color (M = 11.07, SD = 9.26) that was about two points lower than stress for white daughters.

None of these scores proved statistically significant. The differences were not large enough to

detect any practical differences.

Findings on minority families have indicated that healthy attachment in the parent-child

relationship is beneficial and leads to healthy and successful development. However, even

though there is no difference in attachment pertaining to race, there are different parental

behaviors between white and black parents (Dexter et al., 2013). Furthermore, father

involvement tends to differ among various cultures ((Dexter et al., 2013; Melendez & Melendez,

2010). Due to these culture differences, there may be differences between women of color and

white daughters and how they rate their level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and

satisfaction with life.

 97

In Latino families, daughters tend to favor the role of their father being the protector and

provider while they connect on a higher emotional level with their mothers unlike white

daughters (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Studies have also shown that Latino fathers that

positively acknowledge their daughter’s appearance, boost her self-esteem, and build resiliency

against discrimination (Nielsen, 2012; Telzer & Garcia, 2009). In addition, due to the concept of

familismo in the Latino culture, fathers tend to have elevated levels of engagement with their

family (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Similarly, to the idea of familismo,

black fathers tend to be stricter and use harsher punishment compared to white fathers (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). However, even with stricter fathers, black daughters

tend to experience closeness and love by their black fathers (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013;

Nielsen, 2012).

Implications

The current study contributes to the existing body of research on father-daughter

relationships, particularly from the daughter’s perspective. In addition, it has also contributed by

including the relationships that women of color have with their fathers. This study investigated

the influence that fathers have on the emotional, social, and cognitive development of their

children. Subsequently, this study expanded on the research demonstrated by Allgood et al.

(2012). Allgood et al. (2012) had a very small percentage of women of color included in their

study. Due to a population increase in the Latino, Black, Asian communities research ought to

further explore the father-daughter relationships in these communities (Allgood et al., 2012;

Nielsen, 2012). Future research can assist with generating more awareness regarding the

influence and impact that fathers have on the lives of their daughters.
 98

The limited research on the father-daughter relationship has promoted this study to

explore the father-daughter relationship and investigate the connection from the daughter’s

perspective. The research field is saturated with findings regarding the mother-child

relationship, yet the father-child relationship has yet to be explored to that extent (Palkovitz &

Hull, 2018; Palm, 2014; Nielsen, 2012). With the rise of more women entering the workforce

full-time, more fathers have become involved in childrearing (Bianchi, 2011; Meteyer & Perry-

Jenkins, 2010; Nielsen, 2012). However, much remains to be identified on how fathers impact

the development of their child through adulthood (Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015; Nielsen, 2012;

Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Palm, 2014). Furthermore, studies on the father-daughter relationship

can assist with eliminating stereotypes that fathers are aloof, unbothered, unapproachable, and

solely for the purpose of financial support (Nielsen, 2012, 2020).

Fathers that engage in the lives of their daughters’ development may contribute positively

to her development (Allgood et al., 2012; Gordon, 2016; Jeynes, 2015; Nielsen, 2012).

However, it is imperative to consider the daughter’s perspective of the father-daughter

relationship. The results of this study on perceived father involvement and perceived father

nurturance and level of self-esteem aligns itself with previous studies that quality versus quantity

is significant for fathers and daughters to develop a healthy relationship (Allgood et al., 2012;

Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). The scores for perceived father involvement (M = 55.5, SD =

19.42), self-esteem (M = 21.4, SD = 5.34), perceived father nurturance (M = 26.2, SD = 8.87)

and self-esteem (M = 21.4, SD = 5.34) demonstrate a positive correlational relationship between

perceived father involvement and perceived father nurturance and level of self-esteem. The

daughter’s perception of her father’s involvement and nurturance will have the most significance

in her development, especially for a healthy self-esteem and self-worth.

 99

Limitations

The data collected from this study is not without assumptions and limitations. The

research examined the correlations between a daughter’s perception of her father’s nurturance

and involvement and her level of self-esteem, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. It is

assumed that a daughter’s perception of her father’s involvement and nurturance is most likely to

affect her developmental outcome in adulthood (Allgood et al., 2012; Carlson, 2006; Finley &

Schwartz, 2004). Due to these assumptions, the data presents only a correlational relationship.

Assumptions are not always realistic and may only be met by the methods applied, which mean

the research has limitations and the results must be regarded carefully in how they are applied

(Hayes, 2013; Heppner et al., 2016). Furthermore, since this is a correlational study, the results

of this study cannot be generalized to women outside of the population of this study. The

participants of this study were all women between the ages of 18-24, who are students at a

Christian-faith-based southern university. Christian-faith based schools tend to be family

oriented. The students that go to these schools tend to be in raised in families that focus strongly

on the family values and faith (Alexander, 2022; Yust, 2017). This differs from the general

population that has high rates of cohabitation and divorce (Kumar, 2017; Stevenson & Wolfers,

2007; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Due to the convenience sample (the sample

consisted of participants readily available to the researcher), the results of this study cannot be

applied to women who may fall outside of the age range, may have a different faith, do not

attend university, or are not from the community in which the sample was taken (Warner, 2013).

Convenience samples tend to lead to underrepresentation and limit the generalizability of the

results (Warner, 2013).

 100

Recommendations for Future Studies

Based on the results of this study, the first recommendation for future studies is to include

more women that have a relationship with a father-figure. A father-figure can be any male that is

not the child’s biological father (Nielsen, 2012). The responses from this study that included a

father-figure were not enough to analyze. Future studies may want to explore the field of

daughters and father-figures. Father-figures are especially vital in black families (Guarnieri et

al., 2015; Langley, 2016). These families tend to have grand-fathers, brothers, and uncles that

often have the role as a father-figure. Father-figures fulfill the void when a biological father is

absent. Further research can explore the implications of a father-figure on the development of a

daughter’s life and if it is a mediating factor when a biological father is absent.

Secondly, future research would benefit from including more women of color in their

study. In terms of minority population growth, Latinos represent the most significant growth,

with a population of approximately 16%, followed by blacks at 13% and Asians at 5% (Cabrera

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Nielsen, 2012). Growth in minority populations provides more

opportunity for future studies to include women of color and the effects of both father

involvement and nurturance on their development. Future research can assist in implementing

programs and awareness to foster the father-daughter relationship. Research has demonstrated

that healthy father-daughter relationships not only benefits daughter, but fathers as well (Allgood

et al., 2012; Carlson, 2006; Finley & Schwartz, 2004).

Finally, as mentioned earlier in this research, Nielsen (2012) compared the father-

daughter relationship to the light in a refrigerator. The light bulb in the fridge is always there but

is not recognized until it blows out and the fridge becomes dark. The same illustration applies to

father-daughter relationships. They have always existed, but minimal attention to applied to the
 101

relationship. Fathers are an underappreciated factor in their child’s development (Barco, 2012;

Palkovitz & Hull, 2018). Future research can explore the importance of the father involvement

and nurturance in their child’s development, and more specifically the development of daughters.
 102

References

Adamsons, K. (2013). A longitudinal investigation of mothers' and fathers' initial fathering

identities and later father-child relationship quality. Fathering, 11(2), 118-137. Retrieved

from https://search-proquest-com

Allen, S., & Daly, K. J. (2007). The effects of father involvement: An updated research summary

of the evidence. Centre for Families, Work, & Well-Being, 7, 1-27. doi:

10.1207/s15327922par0701_4

Allgood, S. M., Beckert, T. E., & Peterson, C. (2012). The role of father involvement in the

perceived psychological well-being of young adult daughters: A retrospective study. North

American Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 95-110. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com

Alzueta, E., Perrin, P., Baker, F.C., Caffarra, S., Ramos-Usuga, D., Yuksel, D., & Arango

Lasprilla, J.C. (2021). How the covid-19 Pandemic has changed our lives: A study of

psychological correlates across 59 countries. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77, 556–

570. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23082

Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father-child contact

from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family

Studies, 58(1), 41–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00533.x

Ashbourne, L. M., Daly, K. J., & Brown, J. L. (2011). Responsiveness in father-child

relationships: The experience of fathers. Fathering, 9(1), 69-86. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com

Bacro, F. (2012). Perceived attachment security to father, academic self-concept and school
 103

performance in language mastery. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(6), 992-1002.

doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9561-1

Bastaits, K., Ponnet, K., & Mortelmans, D. (2012). Parenting of divorced fathers and the

association with children's self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(12), 1643-56.

doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9783-6

Baum, N. (2006). Postdivorce paternal disengagement. Journal of Marriage and Family

Therapy, 16, 91-102.

Bianchi, S. M. (2011). Changing families, changing workplaces. The Future of Children, 21(2),

15–36. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J., & Milkie, M. (2006). Changing rhythms of the American family.

New York: Sage

Boswell, D. L., White, J. K., Sims, W. D., Steven Harris, R., & C., J. S. (2013). Reliability and

validity of the outcome questionnaire–45.2. Psychological Reports, 112(3), 689–693. doi:

10.2466/02.08.PR0.112.3.689-693

Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Mother-child attachment patterns and different types of

anxiety symptoms: Is there specificity of relations? Child Psychiatry and Human

Development, 41(6), 663–674. doi:1007/s10578-010-0195-0

Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2013). Pathways to anxiety: Contributions of attachment

history, temperament, peer competence, and ability to manage intense emotions. Child

Psychiatry and Human Development, 44(4), 504–515. doi: 10.1007/s10578-012-0345-7

Bulanda, R. E., & Majumdar, D. (2009). Perceived parent-child relations and adolescent self

esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), 203-212. doi: 10.1007/s10826-008-

9220-3
 104

Byrd-Craven, J., Auer, B. J., Granger, D. A., & Massey, A. R. (2012). The father-daughter

dance: The relationship between father-daughter relationship quality and daughters’

stress response. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 87–94. doi: 10.1037/a0026588

Cabrera, N. J. (2010). Father involvement and public policies. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Role of the

father in child development (pp. 551-578). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cabrera, N. J., Hofferth, S. L., and Schae, S. (2011). Patterns and predictors of father–infant

engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 365–

375.

Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J., Mitchell, S., & West, J. (2009). Mexican american mothers and

fathers’ prenatal attitudes and father prenatal involvement: Links to mother–infant

interaction and father engagement. Sex Roles, 60, 510-526. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-

9576-2.

Cabrera, N. J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2013). Handbook of father involvement:

Multidisciplinary perspectives, (2nd ed.). Routledge: New York, NY.

Carlson, J., Kendall, A., & Edleson, J. L. (2015). Becoming a good father: The developmental

engine of first-time fatherhood. Fathering, 13(3), 182-202. doi: 10.3149/fth.1303.182

Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68(1), 137-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2006.00239

Caron, A., Lafontaine, M., Bureau, J., Levesque, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Comparisons of

close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to

parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science, 44(4), 245-256. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

 105

Carter, J. S., Smith, S., Bostick, S., & Grant, K. E. (2014). Mediating effects of parent-child

relationships and body image in the prediction of internalizing symptoms in urban youth.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(4), 554-67. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9985-6

Cervantes, J. (2010). Mexican American fatherhood. In C. Oren & D. Oren (Eds.), Counseling

fathers (pp. 75-100). New York: Routledge.

Chuang, S. S., & Su, Y. (2008). Transcending confucian teachings on fathering. In S.S. Chuang

and R. P. Moreno (Eds.), On new shores: Understanding immigrant fathers in North

America (pp. 129-150). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Corcoran, K., & Fischer, J. (2013). Measures for clinical practice and research, vol.2:

Adults. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cui, M., & Hong, P. (2021). Covid-19 and mental health of young adult children in China:

Economic impact, family dynamics, and resilience. Family Relations, 70(5), 1358-1368.

doi: 10.1111/fare.12573

D'Angelo, A. V., Palacios, N. A., & Chase-Lansdale, P. (2012). Latino immigrant differences in

father involvement with infants. Fathering, 10(2), 178-212. Retrieved from h-

ttps://search-proquest-com

DeCuzzi, A., & Lamb, M. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Demidenko, N., Manion, I., & Lee, C. M. (2015). Father-daughter attachment and

communication in depressed and nondepressed adolescent girls. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 24(6), 1727-1734. doi: 10.1007/s10826-014-9976-6

Devi, A. N., Baruah, J., Pradhan, N., & Borah, T. (2017). Parent-adolescent attachment as
 106

perceived by adolescents. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(2), 117-119.

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Devlin, R. (2005). Relative intimacy: Fathers, adolescent daughters, and postwar American

culture. University of North Carolina Press: Charlottesville, VA.

Dexter, C., Wong, K., Stacks, A., Beeghly, M., & Barnett, D. (2013). Parenting and attachment

among low-income African American and Caucasian preschoolers. Journal of Family

Psychology, 27(4), 629-638. doi: 10.1037/a0033341

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Duchesne, S., & Ratelle, C. F. (2014). Attachment security to mothers and fathers and the

developmental trajectories of depressive symptoms in adolescence: Which parent for

which trajectory? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(4), 641-54. doi: 10.1007/s10964-

013-0029-z

Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influence of

coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 69, 687–702. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00400.x

Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales:

Retrospective measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 64(1), 143–164. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258453

Flouri, E. (2008). Fathering and adolescents' psychological adjustment: The role of fathers'

involvement, residence and biology status. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34,

152-161. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00752.x

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts:
 107

Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 72(2), 254–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00697.x

Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2009). Parental incarceration and child

wellbeing: Implications for urban families. Social Science Quarterly, 90(5), 1186-1202.

doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00653.x

Glowacz, F. & Schmits, E. (2020). Psychological distress during the covid-19 lockdown: The

young adults most at risk. Psychiatry Research, 293, 1-4. doi:

10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113486

Goncy, E. A., & van Dulmen, M. (2010). Fathers do make a difference: Parental involvement

and adolescent alcohol use. Fathering, 8(1), 93-108. doi: 10.3149/fth.0801.93

Gordon, M. S. (2016). Community disadvantage and adolescent's academic achievement: The

mediating role of father influence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2069-

2078. doi: 1007/s10826-016-0380-2

Graupensperger, S., Calhoun, B. H., Patrick, M. E., & Lee, C. M. (2022). Longitudinal effects of

covid-19-related stressors on young adults' mental health and wellbeing. Applied

Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 14( 3), 734– 756. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12344

Guarnieri, S., Smorti, M., & Tani, F. (2015). Attachment relationships and life satisfaction

during emerging adulthood. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 833-847. doi:

10.1007/s11205-014-0655-1

Hattery, A. J., & Smith, E. (2014). Families of incarcerated African American men: The impact on

mothers and children. Journal of Pan African Studies, 7(6), 128-153.

Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., Owen, J., Wang, K. T., & Thompson, M. N. (2016). Research

design in counseling, (4th ed.). Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

 108

Holmes, E. K., Galovan, A. M., Yoshida, K., & Hawkins, A. J. (2010). Meta-analysis of the

effectiveness of resident fathering programs: Are family life educators interested in

fathers? Family Relations, 59(3), 240-252. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Humberd, B., Ladge, J.J. & Harrington, B. (2015). The “new” dad: Navigating fathering identity

within organizational contexts. Journal of Business Psychology 30, 249–266. doi:

10.1007/s10869-014-9361-x

Hummer, R.A. and Hamilton, E.R. (2010). Race and ethnicity in fragile families. Future of

Children, 20(2), 113-131. doi:10.1353/foc.2010.0003

Hutchinson, M. (2002). Communication between parents and daughters on sexual behaviors.

Family Relations, 51, 238-247.

Jain, N. (2015). Father-daughter attachment pattern and its influence on daughter’s development.

The International Journal of Indian Psychology ISSN, 2(2), 2348–5396. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8fe3/c0dbf1bb7b0bc3a0b9ab5a1f13fa96a6a08c.pdf

Jakobsen, I. S., Horwood, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (2012). Childhood anxiety/withdrawal,

adolescent parent-child attachment and later risk of depression and anxiety disorder.

Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(2), 303-310. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9476-x

Jeynes, W. H. (2015). A meta-analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student

academic achievement. Urban Education, 50(4), 387–423. doi:

10.1177/0042085914525789

Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 175

194. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Koelen, J.A., Mansueto, A.C., Finnemann, A., de Koning, L., van der Heijde, C.M., Vonk, P.,
 109

Wolters, N.E., Klein, A., Epskamp, S., & Wiers, R.W. (2022). COVID-19 and mental

health among at-risk university students: A prospective study into risk and protective

factors. International Journal of Methods inPsychiatry Res. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1901.

Kujawa, A., Green, H., Compas, B. E., Dickey, L., & Pegg, S. (2020). Exposure to covid‐19

pandemic stress: Associations with depression and anxiety in emerging adults in the

united states. Depression and Anxiety, doi: 10.1002/da.23109

Kumar, K. (2017). The blended family life cycle. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 58(2), 110

125. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2016.1268019

Lamb, M. (2010). Role of the father in child development. New York, NY: Wiley

Landale, N. S., Thomas, K. J., & Van Hook J. (2011). The living arrangements of children of

immigrants. Future Child, 21(1), 43-70. doi: 10.1353/foc.2011.0003

Langley, C. (2016). Father knows best: Paternal presence and sexual debut in african‐american

adolescents living in poverty. Journal of Family Process, 55, 155-170.

doi:10.1111/famp.12125

Last, R. (2009). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 47, 316-329.

Leidy, M. S., Schofield, T. J., Miller, M. A., Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Braver, S., . . . Adams,

M. (2011). Fathering and adolescent adjustment: Variations by family structure and

ethnic background. Fathering, 9(1), 44-68. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Lin, C.-Y.C., & Fu, V. R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among chinese,

immigrant chinese, and caucasian-american parents. Child Development, 61: 429-433.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02789.x

Lopez, V., & Corona, R. (2012). Troubled relationships: High-risk Latina adolescents and
 110

nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 33(6), 715–744. doi:

10.1177/0192513X11434915

Lovibond, S. H. & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales.

Sydney, Australia: Psychological Foundation of Australia

Marsiglio, W., & Roy, K. (2012). Nurturing dads: Social initiatives for contemporary

fatherhood. Russell Sage Foundation.

Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success among

Latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 128-151. doi:

10.1177/0739986304264573

Melendez, M. C., & Melendez, N. B. (2010). The influence of parental attachment on the college

adjustment of white, black, and latina/hispanic women: A cross-cultural

investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 51(4), 419-435. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com

Meteyer, K., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2010). Father involvement among working-class, dual-earner

couples. Fathering, 8(3), 379-403. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Meuwissen, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2015). Fathers matter: The role of father parenting in

preschoolers’ executive function development. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 140, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.010

Midha, P., & Geetanjali. (2014). Fathering vs. mothering in fostering psychological strengths

among adolescents. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 5(6), 726-728. Retrieved

from https://search-proquest-com

Mikelson, K. S. (2008). He said, she said: Comparing mother and father reports of father
 111

involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(3), 613-624. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com

Miller, T. (2010). "It's a triangle that’s difficult to square": Men’s intentions and practices around

caring, work and first-time fatherhood. Fathering, 8(3), 362-378. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com

Mott, F. L. (1994). Sons, daughters and fathers’ absence: Differentials in father-leaving

probabilities and in home environments. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 97-128.

Nielsen, L. (2008). Between fathers & daughters: Enriching and rebuilding your adult

relationship, Cumberland House Publishing, Inc: Nashville TN.

Nielsen, L. (2012). Father-daughter relationships: Contemporary research and issues,

Routledge: New York, NY.

Nielsen, L. (2020). Improving father-daughter relationships: A guide for women & their dads,

Routledge: New York, NY.

O’Connor, M., Sanson, A., Hawkins, M. T., Letcher, P., Toumbourou, J. W., Smart, D.,

Vassallo, S., & Olsson, C. A. (2011). Predictors of positive development in emerging

adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 860–874. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-

9593-7

Pace, U., Cacioppo, M., & Schimmenti, A. (2012). The moderating role of father's care on the

onset of binge eating symptoms among female late adolescents with insecure

attachment. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 43(2), 282-92. doi:

10.1007/s10578-011-0269-7

Palkovitz, R., & Hull, J. (2018). Toward a resource theory of fathering. Journal of Family

Theory and Review, 10, 181-198. doi:10.1111/jftr.12239

 112

Palkovitz, R., & Palm, G. (2009). Transitions within fathering. Fathering, 7(1), 3-22. Retrieved

from https://search-proquest-com

Palm, G. (2014). Attachment theory and fathers: Moving from "being there" to "being with."

Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 282-297. doi: 10.1111jftr.12045

Pudasainee-kapri, S., & Razza, R. A. (2015). Associations among supportive coparenting, father

engagement and attachment: The role of race/ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family

Studies, 24(12), 3793-3804. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0187-6

Radcliff Policy Center (2000). Life’s work. Cambridge, MA: Radcliff University.

Rege, M., & Solli, I. (2013). The impact of paternity leave on fathers' future

earnings. Demography, 50(6), 2255-2277. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Richardson, J. B. (2009). Men do matter: Ethnographic insights on the socially supportive role of

the african american uncle in the lives of inner-city african american male youth. Journal

of Family Issues, 30(8), 1041–1069. doi: 10.1177/0192513X08330930

Rienks, S. L., Wadsworth, M. E., Markman, H. J., Einhorn, L., & Etter, E. M. (2011). Father

involvement in urban low-income fathers: Baseline associations and changes resulting

from preventive intervention. Family Relations, 60(2), 191-204. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com

Rostad, W. L., Medina, A. M., & Hurtig-Crosby, P. (2014). Fathers in the dorm room: The

unique influence of fathers and mothers on young adult functioning. Fathering, 12(1), 3-

17. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Sarkadi, A., Kirstiansson, R., Oberklai, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers' involvement and

children's developmental outcomes. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153158 .

Schaick, K., & Stolberg, A. (2001). Parental involvement and young adults’ intimate
 113

relationships. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 36, 99-121.

Schwartz, S., & Finley, G. (2010). Troubled ruminations about parents: Conceptualization and

validation with emerging adults. Journal of Counseling Development, 88(1), 80-91.

Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Sieber, D. (2008). Engaging absent fathers in the treatment of children. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 36, 333-340. doi: 10.1007/s10615-008-0158-0

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces.

The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27-52. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.2.27

Stone, G., & Dudley, J. (2006). Fathering at risk: Helping nonresidential fathers. Harriman, TN:

Men’s Studies Press.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004) Fathers and

mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive

development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2004.00818.x.

Telzer, E. H., & Vazquez Garcia, H. A. (2009). Skin color and self-perceptions of immigrant and

U.S.-born Latinas: The moderating role of racial socialization and ethnic identity.

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(3), 357–374. doi:

10.1177/0739986309336913

Terriquez, V. (2013). Latino fathers' involvement in their children's schools. Family

Relations, 62(4), 662-675. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com

Thompson, R. J., & Berenbaum, H. (2009). The association between rejection and depression in

the context of women’s relationships with their parents. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 26(2-3), 327–339. doi: 10.1177/0265407509106721

 114

Thornton, A. and Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family

issues in the united states: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 63, 1009-1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x

Trahan, M. H., & Cheung, M. (2018). Fathering involvement to engagement: A

phenomenological qualitative roadmap. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal 35, 367-

375. doi: 10.1007/s10560-018-0529-5

Trinder L. (2008). maternal gate closing and gate opening in postdivorce families. Journal of

Family Issues, (10), 1298-1324. doi:10.1177/0192513X08315362

Twenge, J.M., & Joiner, T.E. (2020). Mental distress among U.S. adults during the covid-19

pandemic. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76, 2170-2182. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23064

United States Census Bureau. (2022, July 1). U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: United States.

QuickFacts United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222

Villanti, A.C., LePine, S.E., Peasley-Miklus, C., West, J.C., Roemhildt, M., Williams, R. &

Copeland, W.E. (2022). Covid-related distress, mental health, and substance use in

adolescents and young adults. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 27: 138-145. doi:

10.1111/camh.12550

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Way, N., & Gillman, D. A. (2000). Early adolescent girls' perceptions of their relationships with

their fathers: A qualitative investigation. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(3), 309–

331. doi:1177/0272431600020003003

Yoder, J. R., Brisson, D., & Lopez, A. (2016). Moving beyond fatherhood involvement: The
 115

association between father-child relationship quality and youth delinquency

trajectories. Family Relations, 65(3), 462-476. doi: 10.1111/fare.12197

Yust, K. M. (2017). Cultivating hristians: North american family cultures and religious identity

formation. International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 22, 3-4, 260-273. doi:

10.1080/1364436X.2017.1363721
 116

Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval

March 17, 2023

Diamond Sciequan
Robyn Simmons

Re: IRB Exemption - IRB-FY22-23-773 The Role of Father Involvement in the Perceived
Psychological Well-Being of Young Adult Daughters with a Focus on Women of Color: A
Multiple Regression Study

Dear Diamond Sciequan, Robyn Simmons,

The Liberty University Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed your application in
accordance with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations and finds your study to be exempt from further IRB review.
This means you may begin your research with the data safeguarding methods mentioned in
your approved application, and no further IRB oversight is required.

Your study falls under the following exemption category, which identifies specific situations
in which human participants research is exempt from the policy set forth in 45 CFR 46:104(d):

Category 2.(i). Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive,
diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of
public behavior (including visual or auditory recording).
The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of
the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the
subjects.

Your stamped consent form(s) and final versions of your study documents can be found
under the Attachments tab within the Submission Details section of your study on Cayuse
IRB. Your stamped consent form(s) should be copied and used to gain the consent of your
research participants. If you plan to provide your consent information electronically, the
contents of the attached consent document(s) should be made available without alteration.

Please note that this exemption only applies to your current research application, and any
modifications to your protocol must be reported to the Liberty University IRB for verification
 117

of continued exemption status. You may report these changes by completing a modification
submission through your Cayuse IRB account.

If you have any questions about this exemption or need assistance in determining whether
possible modifications to your protocol would change your exemption status, please email us at
[email protected].

Sincerely,
G. Michele Baker, MA, CIP
Administrative Chair of Institutional Research
Research Ethics Office
 118

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Title of the Project: The Role of Father Involvement in the Perceived Psychological Well-Being
of Young Adult Daughters with a Focus on Women of Color: A Multiple Regression Study

Principal Investigator: Diamond Sciequan, Doctoral Candidate, School of Behavioral Sciences,

Liberty University

Invitation to be Part of a Research Study

You are invited to participate in a research study. To participate, you must be between the ages
of 18-24 and female. In addition, the participant must identify as at least one of the following
White, Black, Latino, or Asian. Participants must have communication or awareness of a
biological or father figure in their life. Taking part in this research project is voluntary.

Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in
this research.

What is the study about and why is it being done?

The purpose of the study is to gather information regarding the father-daughter relationship. For
this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your relationship with your father or
father-figure.

What will happen if you take part in this study?

If you agree to be in this study, I will ask you to do the following:

1. Complete a 30-minute online survey responding to questions about the father-

daughter relationship.

How could you or others benefit from this study?

Participants should not expect to receive a direct benefit from taking part in this study.

Benefits to society include examining the effects father involvement and father nurturance from
the daughter’s perspective.

What risks might you experience from being in this study?

The expected risks from participating in this study are minimal, which means they are equal to
the risks you would encounter in everyday life.

How will personal information be protected?

The records of this study will be kept private. Research records will be stored securely, and only
the researcher will have access to the records.

• Participant responses will be anonymous.

• Data will be stored on a password-locked computer. After three years, all
electronic records will be deleted.
 119

How will you be compensated for being part of the study?

Participants can enter a drawing to be compensated for participating in this study. At the
conclusion of the survey participants will be asked if they would like to provide their email
address to enter a drawing to receive 1 out of 4 $25 Target gift cards. Any participant who
chooses to withdraw from the study after beginning but before completing all study
procedures will not be able to enter the drawing. Email addresses will be requested for
compensation purposes; however, they will be collected through a separate survey from the
study survey to maintain your anonymity.

Is study participation voluntary?

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether to participate will not affect
your current or future relations with Liberty University. If you decide to participate, you
are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time prior to submitting the survey
without affecting those relationships.

What should you do if you decide to withdraw from the study?

If you choose to withdraw from the study, please exit the survey and close your internet
browser. Your responses will not be recorded or included in the study.

Whom do you contact if you have questions or concerns about the study?
The researcher conducting this study is Diamond Sciequan. If you have questions, you are
encouraged to contact her at You may also contact the researcher’s
faculty sponsor, Dr. Robyn Simmons, at .

Whom do you contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone
other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the IRB. Our physical address is
Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd., Green Hall Ste. 2845, Lynchburg, VA,
24515; our phone number is 434-592-5530, and our email address is [email protected].

Disclaimer: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is tasked with ensuring that human subjects
research will be conducted in an ethical manner as defined and required by federal regulations. The
topics covered and viewpoints expressed or alluded to by student and faculty researchers are those
of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of Liberty
University.

Your Consent
Before agreeing to be part of the research, please be sure that you understand what the study
is about. You can print a copy of the document for your records. If you have any questions
about the study later, you can contact the researcher using the information provided above.
 120

Appendix C: Study Invitation

Dear Student:

As a doctoral student in the School of Behavioral Sciences at Liberty University, I am conducting

research as part of the requirements for a doctoral degree. The purpose of my research is to gather
information regarding the father-daughter relationship based on a biological father-daughter
relationship or father figure-daughter relationship, and I am writing to invite eligible participants to
join my study.

Participants must be between the ages of 18-24 and female. In addition, the participant must identify
as at least one of the following White, Black, Latino, or Asian. Participants must have
communication or awareness of a biological or father figure in their life. Participants, if willing, will
be asked to provide demographic information and complete a survey. It should take approximately 30
minutes to complete the procedures listed. Participation will be completely anonymous, and no
personal, identifying information will be collected.

To participate, please click here

https://liberty.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_23NOoNkKW95EOB8

A consent document is provided as the first page of the survey. The consent document contains
additional information about my research. After you have read the consent form, please click the
button to proceed to the survey. Doing so will indicate that you have read the consent information
and would like to take part in the survey.

Participants that provide their email address at the end of the survey will be entered in a raffle to
receive 1 out of 4 $25 Target gift cards.

Sincerely,
Diamond Sciequan
Doctoral Student
 121

Appendix D: Demographic Questionnaire

1. Please indicate your sex.

o Male

o Female

2. Please indicate your age by moving the slider.

3. Which of the following do you identify most as?

o White

o Black

o American Indian or Alaska Native

o Asian

o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

o Latino or Hispanic

4. How many years of college have you completed?

o Less than 1 year

o 1 year

o 2 years

o 3 years

o 4 years

o More than 4 years

 122

5. This survey will ask questions regarding your father or father-figure (E.g. step-father,

grandfather, brother, uncle). Please indicate how you will respond to the questions.

o I will answer the survey questions based on the relationship with my biological

father.

o I will answer the survey questions based on the relationship with my father-figure.

• If I will answer the survey questions based on the relationship with my

father-figure was selected, then the following question was asked:

6. My father-figure is my

o Step-father

o Grandfather

o Brother

o Uncle

o Other
 123

Appendix E: FIS – Father Involvement Scale and Permission to Use

How involved was your father or father figure in the following aspects of your life and

development?

Directions: Indicate involvement by rating each aspect of your life and development on a scale

from 5 to 1, with 5 being always involved, 4- often involved, 3- sometimes involved, 2- rarely

involved, and 1- never involved.

Intellectual development

Emotional development

Social development

Ethical/moral development

Spiritual development

Physical development

Career development

Developing responsibility

Developing independence

Developing competence

Leisure, fun, play

Providing income

Sharing activities/interests

Mentoring/teaching

Caregiving

Being protective

Advising
 124

Discipline

School/homework

Companionship

What did you want your father or father figure's level of involvement to be compared with

what it actually was?

Directions: Indicate involvement by rating each aspect of your life and development on a scale

from 5 to 1, with 5 being much more involved, 4- a little more involved, 3- it was just right, 2- a

little less involved, and 1- much less involved.

Intellectual development

Emotional development

Social development

Ethical/moral development

Spiritual development

Physical development

Career development

Developing responsibility

Developing independence

Developing competence

Leisure, fun, play

Providing income

Sharing activities/interests

Mentoring/teaching

Caregiving
 125

Being protective

Advising

Discipline

School/homework

Companionship
 126

Appendix F: NFS – Nurturant Fathering Scale and Permission to Use

Directions: For the next set of questions, please record the appropriate answer for each item

based on your relationship with your father or father figure.

1. How much do you think your father enjoyed being a father?

o A great deal

o Very much

o Somewhat

o A little

o Not at all

2. When you needed your father’s support, was he there for you?

o Always there for me

o Often there for me

o Sometimes there for me

o Rarely there for me

o Never there for me

3. Did your father have enough energy to meet your needs?

o Always

o Often

o Sometimes

o Rarely

o Never

4. Did you feel that you could confide in (talk about important personal things with) your father?

o Always
 127

o Often

o Sometimes

o Rarely

o Never

5. Was your father available to spend time with you in activities?

o Always

o Often

o Sometimes

o Rarely

o Never

6. How emotionally close were you to your father?

Extremely close

o Very close

o Somewhat close

o A little close

o Not at all close

7. When you were an adolescent (teenager), how well did you get along with your father?

o Very well

o Well

o Ok

o Poorly

o Very poorly

8. Overall, how would you rate your father?

 128

o Outstanding

o Very good

o Good

o Fair

o Poor

9. As you go through your day, how much of a psychological presence does your father have in

your daily thoughts and feelings?

o Always there

o Often there

o Sometimes there

o Rarely there

o Never there
 129

Appendix G: DASS – Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales and Permission to Use

Please read each statement and circle a number 0, 1, 2, or 3 which indicates how much the
statement applied to you over the past week. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend
too much time on any statement.
The rating scale is as follows:
0 = Did not apply to me at all
1 = Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time
2 = Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time
3 = Applied to me very much, or most of the time

1. I found myself getting upset by quite trivial things 0 1 2 3

2. I was aware of dryness of my mouth 0 1 2 3
3. I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all 0 1 2 3
4. I experienced breathing difficulty (eg, excessively rapid breathing,
breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion) 0 1 2 3
5. I just couldn't seem to get going 0 1 2 3
6. I tended to over-react to situations 0 1 2 3
7. I had a feeling of shakiness (eg, legs going to give way) 0 1 2 3
8. I found it difficult to relax 0 1 2 3
9. I found myself in situations that made me so anxious I was most
relieved when they ended 0 1 2 3
10. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to 0 1 2 3
11. I found myself getting upset rather easily 0 1 2 3
12. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy 0 1 2 3
13. I felt sad and depressed 0 1 2 3
14. I found myself getting impatient when I was delayed in any way
(eg, elevators, traffic lights, being kept waiting) 0 1 2 3
15. I had a feeling of faintness 0 1 2 3
16. I felt that I had lost interest in just about everything 0 1 2 3
17. I felt I wasn't worth much as a person 0 1 2 3
18. I felt that I was rather touchy 0 1 2 3
19. I perspired noticeably (eg, hands sweaty) in the absence of high
temperatures or physical exertion 0 1 2 3
20. I felt scared without any good reason 0 1 2 3
21. I felt that life wasn't worthwhile 0 1 2 3
22. I found it hard to wind down 0 1 2 3
23. I had difficulty in swallowing 0 1 2 3
24. I couldn't seem to get any enjoyment out of the things I did 0 1 2 3
25. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical
 130

exertion (eg, sense of heart rate increase, heart missing a beat) 01 2 3

26. I felt down-hearted and blue 01 2 3
27. I found that I was very irritable 01 2 3
28. I felt I was close to panic 01 2 3
29. I found it hard to calm down after something upset me 01 2 3
30. I feared that I would be "thrown" by some trivial but
unfamiliar task 01 2 3
31. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything 01 2 3
32. I found it difficult to tolerate interruptions to what I was doing 01 2 3
33. I was in a state of nervous tension 01 2 3
34. I felt I was pretty worthless 01 2 3
35. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with
what I was doing 01 2 3
36. I felt terrified 01 2 3
37. I could see nothing in the future to be hopeful about 01 2 3
38. I felt that life was meaningless 01 2 3
39. I found myself getting agitated 01 2 3
40. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make
a fool of myself 01 2 3
41. I experienced trembling (eg, in the hands) 01 2 3
42. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things 01 2 3
 131

Appendix H: SWLS – Satisfaction with Life Scale and Permission to Use

Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the scale below indicate

your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that

item. Please be open and honest in your responding.

1 = Strongly disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Slightly disagree

4 = Neither agree nor disagree

5 = Slightly agree

6 = Agree

7 = Strongly agree

____1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.

____2. The conditions of my life are excellent.

____3. I am satisfied with my life.

____4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.

____5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

 132

Appendix I: Statistical Procedures – Frequencies

Frequencies

Statistics
Years of
College Relation to Relation to
Gender Age Racial Identity Completed Father Father Figure
N Valid 131 131 131 131 131 13
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 118

Frequency Table

Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Female 131 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 18 12 9.2 9.2 9.2
19 12 9.2 9.2 18.3
20 26 19.8 19.8 38.2
21 18 13.7 13.7 51.9
22 24 18.3 18.3 70.2
23 21 16.0 16.0 86.3
24 18 13.7 13.7 100.0
Total 131 100.0 100.0

Racial Identity
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid White 76 58.0 58.0 58.0
Black 31 23.7 23.7 81.7
 133

American Indian or 1 .8 .8 82.4

Alaska Native
Asian 5 3.8 3.8 86.3
Native Hawaiian or 1 .8 .8 87.0
Pacific Islander
Latino or Hispanic 17 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 131 100.0 100.0

Years of College Completed

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Less than 1 year 20 15.3 15.3 15.3
1 year 12 9.2 9.2 24.4
2 years 19 14.5 14.5 38.9
3 years 31 23.7 23.7 62.6
4 years 20 15.3 15.3 77.9
More than 4 29 22.1 22.1 100.0
years
Total 131 100.0 100.0

Relation to Father
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Biological 118 90.1 90.1 90.1
Father
Father Figure 13 9.9 9.9 100.0
Total 131 100.0 100.0

Relation to Father Figure

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Step-father 9 6.9 69.2 69.2
Grandfathe 1 .8 7.7 76.9
r
Other 3 2.3 23.1 100.0
Total 13 9.9 100.0
 134

Missing System 118 90.1

Total 131 100.0
 135

Appendix J: Statistical Procedures – Histograms

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father Involvement 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Rosenberg Self- 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Esteem

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father Involvement .054 131 .200 *
.983 131 .094
Rosenberg Self- .058 131 .200* .986 131 .186
Esteem
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 136

Father Involvement

Histogram

15 Mean = 55.46
Std. Dev. = 19.42
N = 131

10
Frequency

0
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Father Involvement

Normal Q-Q Plot of Father Involvement

2
Expected Normal

-1

-2

-3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Observed Value
 137

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Father Involvement

0.3

0.2
Dev from Normal

0.1

0.0000

-0.1

-0.2

20 40 60 80 100

Observed Value

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

Father Involvement
 138

Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Histogram

25 Mean = 21.40
Std. Dev. = 5.343
N = 131

20
Frequency

15

10

0
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Rosenberg Self-Esteem
 139

Normal Q-Q Plot of Rosenberg Self-Esteem

2
Expected Normal

-2

10 20 30 40

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Rosenberg Self-Esteem

1.2

1.0

0.8
Dev from Normal

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Observed Value
 140

112
40.00

75

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Rosenberg Self- 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Esteem
Father Nurturance 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Rosenberg Self- .058 131 .200 *
.986 131 .186
Esteem
Father Nurturance .104 131 .001 .973 131 .010
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 141

Father Nurturance

Histogram

20 Mean = 26.17
Std. Dev. = 8.867
N = 131

15
Frequency

10

0
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Father Nurturance
 142

Normal Q-Q Plot of Father Nurturance

2
Expected Normal

-1

-2

-3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Father Nurturance

0.6

0.4
Dev from Normal

0.2

0.0000

-0.2

-0.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Observed Value
 143

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

.00

Father Nurturance

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father Involvement 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
DASS42- 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Depression

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father Involvement .054 131 .200 *
.983 131 .094
DASS42- .195 131 <.001 .854 131 <.001
Depression
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 144

DASS42-Depression

Histogram

30 Mean = 8.18
Std. Dev. = 7.686
N = 131

20
Frequency

10

0
.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

DASS42-Depression
 145

Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Depression

4
Expected Normal

-2

-10 0 10 20 30 40

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Depression

1.5

1.0
Dev from Normal

0.5

0.0

-0.5

0 10 20 30 40

Observed Value
 146

40.00
75

30.00

20.00

10.00

.00

DASS42-Depression

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father Nurturance 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
DASS42- 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Depression

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father Nurturance .104 131 .001 .973 131 .010
DASS42- .195 131 <.001 .854 131 <.001
Depression
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 147

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Involvement
DASS42-Anxiety 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .054 131 .200* .983 131 .094
Involvement
DASS42-Anxiety .183 131 <.001 .852 131 <.001
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

DASS42-Anxiety

Histogram

25 Mean = 8.07
Std. Dev. = 8.017
N = 131

20
Frequency

15

10

0
.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

DASS42-Anxiety
 148

Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Anxiety

3
Expected Normal

-1

-2

-10 0 10 20 30 40

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Anxiety

1.5

1.0
Dev from Normal

0.5

0.0

-0.5

0 10 20 30 40

Observed Value
 149

40.00
75

103

30.00
120

20.00

10.00

.00

DASS42-Anxiety

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Nurturance
DASS42-Anxiety 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .104 131 .001 .973 131 .010
Nurturance
DASS42-Anxiety .183 131 <.001 .852 131 <.001
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 150

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Involvement
DASS42-Stress 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .054 131 .200* .983 131 .094
Involvement
DASS42-Stress .096 131 .005 .936 131 <.001
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

DASS42-Stress

Histogram

Mean = 12.55
Std. Dev. = 9.175
N = 131
12.5

10.0
Frequency

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0
.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

DASS42-Stress
 151

Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Stress

3
Expected Normal

-1

-2

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of DASS42-Stress

1.0

0.8
Dev from Normal

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Observed Value
 152

50.00

131 75
40.00 102

30.00

20.00

10.00

.00

DASS42-Stress

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Nurturance
DASS42-Stress 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .104 131 .001 .973 131 .010
Nurturance
DASS42-Stress .096 131 .005 .936 131 <.001
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 153

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Involvement
Life Satisfaction 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .054 131 .200* .983 131 .094
Involvement
Life Satisfaction .063 131 .200* .988 131 .286
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Life Satisfaction

Histogram

20 Mean = 21.73
Std. Dev. = 6.123
N = 131

15
Frequency

10

0
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Life Satisfaction
 154

Normal Q-Q Plot of Life Satisfaction

2
Expected Normal

-1

-2

-3

0 10 20 30 40

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Life Satisfaction

0.2

0.1
Dev from Normal

0.0000

-0.1

-0.2

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Observed Value
 155

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

Life Satisfaction

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Father 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%
Nurturance
Life Satisfaction 131 100.0% 0 0.0% 131 100.0%

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Father .104 131 .001 .973 131 .010
Nurturance
Life Satisfaction .063 131 .200* .988 131 .286
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
 156

Appendix K: Statistical Procedures – Correlations

Correlations

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
Rosenberg Self-Esteem 21.3969 5.34312 131
Life Satisfaction 21.7328 6.12288 131
DASS42-Depression 8.1832 7.68595 131
DASS42-Anxiety 8.0687 8.01651 131
DASS42-Stress 12.5496 9.17456 131
Father Involvement 55.4580 19.41976 131
Father Involvement- 42.9008 13.99882 131
Wanted
Father Nurturance 26.1679 8.86666 131
 157

b
Correlations
Father
Rosenberg DASS42- DASS42- Father Involvement- Father
Self-Esteem Life Satisfaction Depression Anxiety DASS42-Stress Involvement Wanted Nurturance
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Pearson Correlation --

Life Satisfaction Pearson Correlation ** --

-.513

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001

DASS42-Depression Pearson Correlation ** ** --

.589 -.489

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001

DASS42-Anxiety Pearson Correlation ** ** ** --

.566 -.365 .795

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001

DASS42-Stress Pearson Correlation ** ** ** ** --

.617 -.438 .767 .795

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

Father Involvement Pearson Correlation .149 ** ** .141 ** --

-.480 .233 .299

Sig. (2-tailed) .089 <.001 .007 .109 <.001

Father Involvement-Wanted Pearson Correlation -.169 ** -.118 ** ** ** --

.249 -.265 -.294 -.427

Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .004 .178 .002 <.001 <.001

Father Nurturance Pearson Correlation ** ** ** .172 ** ** ** --

.275 -.533 .239 .344 .886 -.402
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 <.001 .006 .050 <.001 <.001 <.001

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

b. Listwise N=131
 158

Appendix L: Statistical Procedures – Independent-samples t-test

T-Test

Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
NeweRace N Mean Deviation Mean
Rosenberg Self- White 76 22.3421 5.27017 .60453
Esteem Women of 55 20.0909 5.21136 .70270
Color
DASS42-Depression White 76 8.7632 7.63478 .87577
Women of 55 7.3818 7.75431 1.04559
Color
DASS42-Anxiety White 76 9.5395 8.31455 .95374
Women of 55 6.0364 7.17238 .96712
Color
DASS42-Stress White 76 13.6184 9.01993 1.03466
Women of 55 11.0727 9.26334 1.24907
Color
Life Satisfaction White 76 22.4737 6.78130 .77787
Women of 55 20.7091 4.95413 .66802
Color

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Significance Difference
One- Two- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sided p Sided p Difference Difference Lower Upper
Rosenberg Self- Equal variances .000 .998 2.424 129 .008 .017 2.25120 .92864 .41387 4.08853
Esteem assumed
Equal variances not 2.429 117.264 .008 .017 2.25120 .92695 .41546 4.08694
assumed

DASS42- Equal variances .347 .557 1.015 129 .156 .312 1.38134 1.36048 -1.31041 4.07309
Depression assumed
Equal variances not 1.013 115.437 .157 .313 1.38134 1.36390 -1.32018 4.08286
assumed

DASS42-Anxiety Equal variances 2.777 .098 2.519 129 .007 .013 3.50311 1.39087 .75124 6.25498
assumed
Equal variances not 2.579 124.990 .006 .011 3.50311 1.35829 .81488 6.19134
assumed

DASS42-Stress Equal variances .148 .701 1.576 129 .059 .117 2.54569 1.61498 -.64958 5.74097
assumed
Equal variances not 1.570 114.660 .060 .119 2.54569 1.62194 -.66716 5.75854
assumed

Life Satisfaction Equal variances 7.410 .007 1.638 129 .052 .104 1.76459 1.07698 -.36624 3.89542
assumed
Equal variances not 1.721 128.982 .044 .088 1.76459 1.02534 -.26407 3.79326
assumed
 159

Independent Samples Effect Sizes

95% Confidence
Standardizer Point Interval
a
Estimate Lower Upper
Rosenberg Self- Cohen's d 5.24563 .429 .077 .779
Esteem Hedges' 5.27638 .427 .077 .775
correction
Glass's delta 5.21136 .432 .074 .786
DASS42-Depression Cohen's d 7.68504 .180 -.168 .527
Hedges' 7.73008 .179 -.167 .524
correction
Glass's delta 7.75431 .178 -.171 .526
DASS42-Anxiety Cohen's d 7.85667 .446 .094 .796
Hedges' 7.90272 .443 .093 .792
correction
Glass's delta 7.17238 .488 .127 .845
DASS42-Stress Cohen's d 9.12261 .279 -.070 .627
Hedges' 9.17608 .277 -.070 .623
correction
Glass's delta 9.26334 .275 -.077 .624
Life Satisfaction Cohen's d 6.08359 .290 -.059 .638
Hedges' 6.11924 .288 -.059 .635
correction
Glass's delta 4.95413 .356 .001 .708
a. The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes.
Cohen's d uses the pooled standard deviation.
Hedges' correction uses the pooled standard deviation, plus a correction factor.
Glass's delta uses the sample standard deviation of the control group.