Immigrant Generations and Father Involvement Among U.S. Resident Fathers: The Indirect Role of Cultural and Extra-Family Factors

Abstract

Research on immigrant fathers in the U.S. has primarily focused on first-generation experiences, offering limited insight into how father involvement changes across generations. As first- and second-generation immigrants are expected to drive future growth in the U.S.’ working-age population, understanding how father involvement evolves across generations is critical to capturing the dynamics of fathering and fatherhood in an increasingly diverse society. This study examines how fathers’ immigrant generation relates to their involvement with preschool-aged children. Drawing a sample of 424 resident immigrant fathers from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, we used path analysis to examine both direct effects of immigrant generation on father involvement and indirect effects through contextual cultural (cultural orientation, gender role beliefs) and extra-family (work-family conflict, social support) factors. Results indicate that immigrant generation is positively associated with fathers’ involvement (i.e., fathers from higher immigrant generation tended to be more involved with children), with significant indirect pathways via cultural orientation and work-family conflict. These findings underscore the critical need to consider the roles of immigrant generation and contextual cultural and extra-family factors in research involving immigrant fathers.

Keywords

immigrant father involvement cultural orientation gender roles work-family conflict social support

Introduction

Father involvement has emerged as an important field of research and social discourse in past decades, with growing empirical evidence supporting the positive and critical roles that fathers play in promoting child development and healthy family dynamics (Cabrera et al., 2014; McHale et al., 2008; Wilson & Prior, 2011; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2024). Although research on father involvement has recently begun to extend beyond native-born, White middle-class families to include those from minoritized backgrounds (Glass & Owen, 2010; Lu et al., 2010), the roles and experiences of immigrant fathers remain understudied and underrepresented in the literature (Bond, 2019).

The U.S. hosts more immigrants than any other country in the world. In 2024, although Americans only accounted for about 4% of the global population, the nation was home to 17% of all migrants worldwide (Batalova et al., 2024). Furthermore, the immigrant share of the total U.S. population has been rapidly expanding in recent decades, with a nearly three-fold increase from 4.7% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2024 (Moslimani & Passel, 2024). In addition to foreign-born immigrants, also known as first generation, there is a growing community of U.S.-born adult children of immigrants, or second generation, who are likely to be more socioeconomically advantaged and culturally adapted than their parents (Pew Research Center, 2013). Pew Research Center predicted that first- and second-generation immigrants will drive 93% of the country’s working-age population growth by 2050 and comprise 37% of the total U.S. population.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the immigrant community in the U.S. is not a homogenous group, with individuals originating from nearly every country in the world (Moslimani & Passel, 2024). Moreover, immigrants’ family lives can vary widely by the social, economic, cultural, and political contexts they migrated from and encounter in the new host country (Foss, 1996; Tang, 2014), indicating that no two immigrant families are alike. Nevertheless, such uniqueness does not mean that there are no commonalities among immigrant families of diverse backgrounds. Qualitative research has identified several challenges, though varying in intensity and duration, that are likely faced by immigrant families in North America—including job insecurity, limited social support networks, and cultural and language barriers—all of which can impact and complicate fathers’ involvement with their children and the fulfillment of their fathering roles (Ali, 2008; Shimoni et al., 2003). Yet, less is understood about how these common cultural and social experiences may influence the involvement of fathers of different immigrant generations. In this study, we examined the associations between fathers’ immigrant generational status and their involvement with children. We also tested the indirect roles of cultural (i.e., cultural orientation and gender role beliefs) and extra-family (i.e., work-family conflict and social support) factors.

Theoretical Framework

The ecological systems theory posits that an individual’s development is driven by interactions between the individual and various features and aspects of their environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). It has long and widely been applied to understand father involvement within ethnically minoritized and immigrant families (Cabrera & Coll, 2004; Chae & Chae, 2010; Chuang & Zhu, 2018; Gadsden & Iruka, 2020; Hines & Holcomb-McCoy, 2013; Mogro-Wilson, 2020). A key strength of this theory is that it allows researchers to study fathers in the specific contexts of their environments, rather than comparing them to the White, middle-class standards (McAdoo, 1993).

Guided by this theoretical underpinning, the present study draws on Parke’s (2000) multi-context, multi-factor framework of father involvement, which adapts the ecological systems theory by conceptualizing father involvement as a dynamic process shaped by various interconnected levels of individual and contextual factors. The framework systemically organizes determinants of father involvement into four levels: (1) individual (e.g., fathers’ social backgrounds and personality), (2) family (e.g., relationships with family members), (3) extra-family, which involves two sub-dimensions, informal (e.g., social network with relatives and friends) and institutional/formal (e.g., work-family relationships), and (4) cultural (e.g., gender role beliefs and cultural values).

Building on Parke’s (2000) framework of father involvement, we propose a conceptual model (Figure 1) illustrating how immigrant fathers’ individual, cultural, and extra-family factors may relate to their involvement with their children. Immigrant generation is an important yet often understudied aspect of an individual’s social background that profoundly influences the processes and dynamics within immigrant families (Van Hook & Glick, 2020). We expect that fathers’ immigrant generation (individual factor) will be directly associated with their involvement. Although the framework does not explicitly outline indirect pathways, its interconnected and systematic structure suggests that changes at any level can influence the functioning of other components within the model (Parke, 2000). Prior research suggests that second-generation Americans tend to be more culturally adapted and socioeconomically advantaged than their first-generation counterparts (Farley & Alba, 2002; Pew Research Center, 2013). The empirically supported links between generational status and cultural orientation and socioeconomic status suggests that cultural and extra-family factors may also indirectly explain the association between immigrant generation and father involvement. In addition, we purposefully explore the roles of cultural and extra-family factors in immigrant fathers’ involvement because these factors are relatively understudied compared to those of individual and family levels in the literature of father involvement (Diniz et al., 2021).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model illustrating proposed relations between fathers’ immigrant generation, cultural and extra-family factors, and their involvement with Children Based on Parke (2000)’s Framework of Father Involvement

Immigrant Generation and Father Involvement

Immigrant generation refers to the classification of individuals based on when they or their ancestors migrated to and settled in a new country (Ungvarsky, 2020). Generally, first-generation immigrants are individuals who are born outside the host country and migrated later in life, whereas second-generation immigrants are those born and raised in the host country with at least one foreign-born parent (Jensen & Chitose, 1997). However, in research, there is no one standard approach to define immigrant generations (Oropesa & Landale, 1997). For example, one study defined “first-generation” as foreign-born individuals who immigrated to the host country at age 6 or later (DiPietro & Cwick, 2014), whereas another study included all foreign-born individuals regardless of their age of immigration (Kramer et al., 2020). Furthermore, scholars have advocated that immigrants who are born abroad but mostly raised in the new host country do not belong to either first or second-generation but should be considered as the “1.5 generation” (Rumbaut, 1991; Zhou, 1997).

The variations in defining immigrant generation are mostly related to different understandings of how the age of immigration may shape one’s cultural orientation and socialization in the host country (Zhou, 1997). In the present study, first generation immigrants are defined as those who were born outside of the U.S. and immigrated at or after age 18 because they were primarily socialized in another country (Harker, 2001). Recognizing that children experience immigration and adaptation differently from adults (Beck et al., 2012), we consider minor immigrants who arrived in the U.S. between the age 5 and 17 as the 1.5 generation. Age 5 is set as the starting point of the 1.5 generation, because foreign-born children who migrate to the U.S. between ages 0 and 4 were found to share commonalities in their linguistic and social development as their native-born peers (Zhou & Bankston, 1998). Accordingly, individuals who were either born in the U.S. or immigrated before age 5 make up the second generation.

Current literature on immigrant fathers predominantly focuses on the experiences of the first generation, so there is very limited understanding of father involvement across multiple immigrant generations (Campos, 2008; D'Angelo et al., 2012). D'Angelo et al. (2012) found that first- and 1.5-generation Latino American fathers were less engaged in caring for their infant children than those of second generation and beyond. Similarly, another study reported that first-generation immigrant fathers were significantly less involved in terms of physical care and total time of involvement than their second-generation counterparts (Kramer et al., 2020). In contrast, Planalp et al. (2021) found that higher immigrant generation was negatively correlated with father’s involvement in caregiving with their infant children but not significantly related to cognitive activities. These studies suggest that fathers’ involvement in child-rearing significantly varies across immigrant generations, but there are some mixed findings on the direction of the association.

Because existing studies primarily focused on immigrant father of infants, it is unclear how fathers’ immigrant generation is associated with their involvement across early childhood. We particularly chose to study immigrant fathers’ involvement with their preschool children is that fathers tend to engage more in physically active play than mothers (Dickson et al., 1997). Research found that fathers’ interactions with children may act as an introduction and modeling to children’s play with peers during the preschool period (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Therefore, fathers’ involvement is critical for adjusting to preschool programs and interacting with children outside their families.

Taken collectively, here we assessed the associations between immigrant generation and involvement among fathers of preschool-aged children. Specifically, we hypothesized that fathers’ immigrant generation would be positively associated with their total involvement in childcare. Immigrant fathers with higher immigrant generation are likely to be more involved with their children overall (Hypothesis 1).

The Roles of Cultural and Extra-Family Factors

Both Parke (2000)’s model and literature reviews (Bond, 2019; Lin & Lin, 2021) of father involvement suggest that cultural orientation, gender role beliefs, work-family conflict, and social support may serve as key factors in shaping father involvement broadly, and in particular, immigrant fathers’ involvement with children. Here, we discuss each of these factors and how existing literature has, or has not, addressed their roles in influencing the involvement of immigrant fathers of across generations.

Cultural Orientation

The experience of adjusting to the American culture can vary among immigrants of different generations. First-generation immigrants tend to acculturate (i.e., adapting to the mainstream culture of the new host society), during which they may maintain or lose some values and practices of their heritage cultures. For second-generation immigrants, they may continue to acculturate, or they might enculturate (i.e., adapting to their heritage culture) (Chen et al., 2014; Losoya et al., 2008). The various processes of cultural adaptation can be captured by the concept of cultural orientation, referring to the extent or level to which individuals adopt and participate in the values, norms, and practices of a particular culture, whether that of the new host country or from their country/culture of origin (Chen et al., 2014; Gonzales et al., 2004; Tsai & Chentsova-Dutton, 2002).

Research generally shows that length of stay in the host country and immigrant generation are strongly linked to cultural orientation. Many studies suggest that the longer individuals live in a host country, they tend to become more assimilated while gradually retaining less of their heritage culture (Chen et al., 2014; Gonzales et al., 2004; Perez & Padilla, 2000). In the context of fathering studies, cultural orientation has been widely confirmed as an important determinant of immigrant fathers’ involvement with their children, but the direction of the association is not consistent. On the one hand, Coltrane et al. (2004)’s study found that the higher acculturation among Mexican American fathers was associated with lower involvement with children. On the other hand, Capps et al. (2010) reported that fathers’ English proficiency, a measure of acculturation, was positively related to their involvement in children’s learning for both Mexican and Chinese American fathers.

Although prior research has suggested related findings, no studies have explicitly examined whether cultural orientation plays an indirect role in the association between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement. In the current study, cultural orientation is assessed only through fathers’ orientation towards their heritage culture and does not include language use as an indicator. We hypothesized that fathers with higher generational status would be less oriented toward their heritage culture (potentially including traditional values that may emphasize family commitment) as part of their adaptation process, which may, in turn, be associated with lower involvement with their children (Hypothesis 2a).

Gender Role Belief

Beliefs and attitudes about gender roles vary widely from culture to culture. Individualistic Western cultures are generally more egalitarian, while many collectivistic non-Western cultures follow more traditional, male-dominated roles (Naz et al., 2021). However, it is important to recognize that there are notable variations within cultural regions and even countries. A cross-cultural study of eight Western countries found significant differences in gender role beliefs: participants from the U.K., U.S., and the Netherlands reported the most egalitarian views on gender, whereas those from Austria and Hungary were likely to endorse relatively traditional gender roles (Haller & Hoellinger, 1994). Another study examining regional differences in gender role attitudes in the U.S. found that individuals from the Southern states were generally less egalitarian than their non-Southern counterparts (Powers et al., 2003).

One challenge of examining the relationship between immigrant generation and fathers’ gender role beliefs in a culturally diverse sample is that it is unlikely to be linear, as fathers’ initial beliefs can vary depending on the cultural or regional norms of their origin. Nevertheless, prior research suggests that immigration is significantly related to changes in gender role beliefs, as immigrant parents tend to adjust their gender-based family and social roles during the process of cultural adaptation (Qin & Chang, 2012). First-generation Latino and Asian immigrant fathers are likely to shift away from patricentric to a more egalitarian approach to gender roles, which is found to be associated with more positive parenting and interactions with their children (Chuang & Su, 2009; Mogro-Wilson, 2020). Similar patterns were also observed in immigrant fathers across generations. Planalp et al. (2021) found a direct negative association between generational status and traditional gender role beliefs among Latino fathers. Furthermore, D’Angelo et al. (2012) found that Latino fathers’ gender role beliefs mediated the relationship between immigrant generation and mother-reported father involvement. Specifically, fathers’ attitudes toward traditional gender roles tended to weaken across generations, which was associated with higher engagement with their children. Based on existing findings, we expected that fathers’ gender role beliefs would become increasingly egalitarianism with higher generational status, which may enhance their involvement with children (Hypothesis 2b).

Work-Family Conflict

Many cultures from which U.S. immigrants originate emphasize the father’s primary responsibility of being the bread winner and providing for the family, such as machismo in Mexican culture and yi jia zhi zhu in Chinese culture (Chao & Tseng, 2002; Taylor & Behnke, 2005). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the role of work-family conflict in influencing immigrant fathers’ involvement with children. In comparison to non-immigrant White workers, immigrants tend to face greater challenges with employment, such as language barriers, difficulty in transfer educational and professional credentials, low wage and long work hours, and workplace racism and discrimination (Crouter et al., 2006).

These barriers to employment may also influence and disrupt immigrants’ fulfillment of their caregiving roles at home, making it difficult to balance work and family responsibilities (Lin & Lin, 2021). One study found that fathers who reported higher flexibility in their work schedule to accommodate family needs were able to interact more frequently with their children daily (Kim, 2020). Another study found that long work hours and inflexible schedules can hinder immigrant fathers from Asian and Central and South American backgrounds from participating in caregiving responsibilities at home (Sallee & Hart, 2015). As immigrants spend more time in the U.S., they have more opportunities to advance in education, careers, and economic development (Farley & Alba, 2002). Socioeconomic progress could reduce work-family conflict, making immigrant fathers more available to engage with their children at home (Hypothesis 2c).

Social Support

Many immigrant families left their existing network of social support (e.g., extended family members and friends) when they moved to the U.S., which, in turn, can restructure their caregiving arrangement and involvement (Lin & Lin, 2021). Overall, research finds social support as a beneficial factor to father involvement, as evidenced in studies of Mexican, Chinese (Capps et al., 2010), Asian Indian (Mathew et al., 2017), and Afro-Caribbean (Green & Chuang, 2021) immigrant families in the U.S. However, there are some studies suggesting a more complex association. When there was additional caregiving support (e.g., grandparenting), fathers may become less directly involved at home, possibly because of the perception that father involvement was less necessary given the sufficient childcare support (Chuang & Su, 2009; Kurrien & Vo, 2004).

Again, little is known about the role of social support in influencing the association between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement. The social support scale analyzed in the current study primarily assessed fathers’ access to social support in urgent situations, such as emergency housing, loans, and childcare support, rather than routine support that may compromise their involvement with children. Therefore, here we hypothesized that fathers from higher immigrant generations likely have had more time in the U.S. to develop social support networks, thereby potentially increasing their involvement with children relative to earlier generations (Hypothesis 2d).

Method

Data and Participants

This study uses data from fathers who participated in the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), which is a birth cohort study of approximately 5,000 children born in major U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (Wave 1). The study longitudinally collected data across 6 time points when the children were aged 1 (Wave 2), 3 (Wave 3), 5 (Wave 4), 9 (Wave 5), 15 (Wave 6), and 22 (Wave 7). We used father-reported data from Wave 1 (child’s birth), 2 (child age 1 year), and 3 (child age 3 years) to focus on immigrant fathers’ experiences, beliefs, and behaviors during early childhood. The predictor (immigrant generation) was drawn from Wave 1 and outcome (father involvement) from Wave 3. The cultural factors (cultural orientation and gender role beliefs) were from Wave 1, because these items were only surveyed once over the course of the study. For the extra-family factors, work-family conflict was from Wave 2 and social support from Wave 3. Because fathers’ work-family conflict was assessed in the present tense (i.e., my shift and work schedule cause extra stress for me and my child) but social support in the future tense (i.e., fathers’ anticipated access to support in the next year), we analyzed work-family conflict responses from Wave 3 and social support from Wave 2, as these time points better align with fathers’ experiences and involvement at Wave 3.

The study limited its sample to resident immigrant fathers who reported as either foreign-born or U.S.-born with at least one foreign-born parent, which totaled 424 fathers and their families. We only included resident fathers in the sample because approximately 80% of immigrant fathers in the FFCWS dataset lived with their children during early childhood, and father involvement can differ significantly by residency status (Castillo et al., 2011). Since residency is not a focus of the present study, we decided to focus on the dominant group in the dataset. Demographic characteristics of the immigrant fathers included in analyses are in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean, Median, and Standard Deviations for Demographic and Key Variables (N = 424)

Variables	Mean	Median	SD)
Average F age at focal child’s birth (years)	28.77	-	(6.92)
Median F household income (thousands)	-	40.00	(46.92)

	n	%
F education
Less than high school	126	29.7
High school or equiv.	89	21.0
Some college	93	21.9
College or higher	85	20.1
F ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	58	13.7
Black, non-Hispanic	74	17.5
Hispanic	235	55.4
Asian	34	8.0
Other	23	5.4
F immigration generation
First	162	38.2
1.5	87	20.5
Second	175	41.3
Sex of focal child
Boy	222	52.4
Girl	202	47.6
F employment
Employed	330	77.8
Unemployed	62	14.6

Note. Some columns do not sum to total n = 424 due to missing data.

Measures

Fathers’ Immigrant Generation

Immigrant generational status was calculated using items related to fathers’ nativity and immigration background at Wave 1: “Were you born in the U.S.?”, “In what year did you first come to the US to live?”, “In what country/territory was your father born?”, and “In what country/territory was your mother born?” We adopted a developmentally sensitive approach based on birthplace and age of immigration to measure fathers’ immigrant generation as a categorical variable (Rumbaut, 1991; Zhou & Bankston, 1998). The variable was coded as 1 = first generation, 2 = 1.5 generation, and 3 = second generation. For fathers reported as foreign-born, we calculated their age of immigration by subtracting birth year from year of immigration to the U.S. Fathers who immigrated under age 5 were labeled as “second generation,” between age 5 and 17 were labeled as “1.5 generation,” and at age 18 or beyond were labeled as “first generation.” We also labeled U.S.-born fathers with at least one foreign-born parent as “second generation.” Higher scores indicate that the father has a higher immigrant generational status.

Fathers’ Cultural Orientation

Cultural orientation was assessed by summing the results of two items at Wave 1, each with a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree): (1) “I feel an attachment towards my own racial/ethnic group” and (2) “I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs.” The Spearman rho for the two-item cultural orientation scale was 0.54 (p < .001), indicating a moderate rank-order association (Prion & Haerling, 2014). A higher score signified greater orientation towards practices related to heritage culture and identity.

Fathers’ Traditional Gender Role Beliefs

Fathers’ beliefs about traditional gender roles were measured by computing the sum of two items from Wave 1: “It is better if the husband earns the main living and the woman cares for the family” and “The important decisions in the family should be done by the man.” Fathers reported agreement with each statement using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the more the father agreed with traditional, patriarchal gender roles. The Spearman rho for the two-item gender norms scale was 0.35 (p < .001), indicating a statistically significant rank-order association (Prion & Haerling, 2014). Despite the weak correlation, previous studies using the FFCWS have supported the scale’s ability to conceptually capture distinct aspects of beliefs about gender roles within families specifically (D'Angelo et al., 2012; Planalp et al., 2021).

Fathers’ Work-Family Conflict

Fathers’ experiences of navigating competing demands of their work and family roles were assessed by the sum of three items at Wave 3: “My shift and work schedule cause extra stress for me and my child (reverse coded),” “Where I work, it is difficult to deal with child care problems during working hours (reverse coded)”, and “In my work schedule I have enough flexibility to handle family needs.” The items were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = always, 4 = never). A higher score indicated that the father is experiencing or has experienced greater work-family conflict. Cronbach’s ɑ for the 3-item scale was .55.

Fathers’ Social Support

Fathers’ social support was measured at Wave 2 by summing fathers’ responses to the following items: “If you needed help during the next year, could you count on someone to (1) loan you $200; (2) provide you with a place to live?; (3) help you with emergency child care?; (4) co-sign for a bank loan with you for $1,000?” The items were rated as dichotomous responses (0 = no; 1 = yes). A higher score indicated that the father has greater access to social support and resources. Cronbach’s ɑ for the 4-item scale was .73.

Fathers’ Involvement

Fathers’ involvement with children was measured with fathers’ responses to 13 questions at Wave 3 about their average weekly participation in play, caregiving, and learning activities with their young children. All items were based on a scale with responses ranging from 0 = no days to 7 = 7 days per week. Example items included “Sing songs or nursery rhymes with child,” “Play inside with toys such as blocks or Legos with child,” and “Assist child with eating.” Because some previous studies using FFCWS data analyzed sub-dimensions of father involvement (e.g., Planalp et al., 2021), we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine if the father involvement items should be used individually or grouped into multiple underlying factors. Although the EFA yielded a three-factor structure, the factor loadings (ranging from 0.18−0.75) found in a CFA analysis of those factors were too low, with most results failing to meet the preferred loading of 0.7 or higher for strong validity (Hair et al., 2010). Based on these findings, we decided to simply add the 13 items together to form a single measure of fathers’ involvement with children. Cronbach’s ɑ for the 13-item scale was .75.

Covariates

We included a set of demographic characteristics and family background variables—household income, fathers’ education level, and focal child gender—that have been shown to be related to fathers’ experiences and involvement with children in past studies (e.g., Green et al., 2007; Kramer et al., 2020; Planalp et al., 2021). All were included as independent covariates on the cultural and extra-family factors and the outcome in the model.

Data Analysis

The study used SPSS 29.0 to conduct a descriptive analysis and a correlation analysis. AMOS 30.0 was used to test path analysis.

First, in SPSS, we obtained basic demographic statistics on the immigrant fathers and their family backgrounds involved in the study and conducted Spearman’s Rho (for measures with two items) and Cronbach’s alpha (for measures with more than two items) tests to assess the reliability of each measure. We also performed Pearson correlations to assess the bivariate associations between fathers’ immigrant generation, cultural orientation, gender role beliefs, work-family conflict, social support, and involvement with children.

Second, we transported the data to AMOS to conduct path analysis to test the proposed model. Path analysis is an extension of the regression model that aims to provide estimates of the magnitude and significance of hypothesized associations among variables, as illustrated in the path diagram (Stage et al., 2004). Path analysis is particularly useful for simultaneously testing direct and indirect associations among multiple independent and dependent variables, making it an adequate statistical method for evaluating the proposed model in this study. The goodness-of-fit of the path model was determined using chi-square tests, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI). CFI, TLI, and NFI values of .95 or above are considered an excellent fit, and .06 or below for RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We also performed bootstrapping to estimate the standard errors and confidence intervals of the path coefficients to assess the robustness of the model (Hair et al., 2021).

The percentage of missing data across the study variables ranged from 0% to 13.2%. The variables with a higher percentage of missing data are those drawn from Wave 3, which primarily resulted from sample attrition over time. When performing analyses in AMOS, we used maximum likelihood estimation and regression imputation to handle the missing values in the dataset (Enders, 2010).

Results

Correlations and Model Fit

Pearson correlations between key variables in the study are in Table 2. Fathers’ immigrant generation was significantly and negatively correlated with their cultural orientation (r = −0.17, p < .01) and gender role beliefs (r = −0.26, p < .01) and positively correlated with their social support (r = 0.11, p < .05) and involvement with children (r = 0.16, p < .01).

Table 2.

Correlations for Study Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Immigration generation	1
2. Cultural orientation	−.17^**	1
3. Gender role beliefs	−.26^**	.17^**	1
4. Work-family conflict	−.10	.08	.11^*	1
5. Social support	.11^*	−.01	−.13^**	−.17^**	1
6. Father involvement	.16^**	−.14^**	−.05	−.12^*	−.01	1

^ϯp < .10, ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01.

Overall, the hypothesized model testing the paths from fathers’ immigrant generation to their involvement with children via the cultural and extra-family factors fit the data extremely well: X² (3) = 1.14, p = .33; RMSEA = 0.02; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 0.98. Direct effects and the full model are depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path analysis model of associations between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement with children through cultural and extra-family factors. Note. The path analysis shows associations between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement through cultural (cultural orientation and gender role beliefs) and extra-family (work-family conflict and social support) factors, controlling for family income, father’s education, and focal child’s sex at birth. Coefficients presented are standardized linear regression coefficients. Solid lines represent significant paths, and dotted lines represent insignificant paths

Direct and Indirect Associations

Several covariates were significantly related to the study’s primary variables. The family’s household income was significantly and negatively related to cultural orientation and positively related to social support. Fathers’ education was significantly and negatively related to gender roles.

As Hypothesis 1 predicted, the direct association between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement was statistically significant (β = 0.14, p = .01). Fathers from higher immigrant generation tended to be more involved with their children. Several other significant pathways have also emerged. Fathers’ immigrant generation was significantly associated with all cultural and social variables: cultural orientation (β = −0.17, p < .001), gender role beliefs (β = − 0.27, p < .001), work-family conflict (β = −0.10, p = .04), and social support (β = 0.11, p = .02). Fathers from higher immigrant generation were less likely to be oriented towards their heritage culture, endorse traditional gender role beliefs, and experience work-family conflict, but they were likely to report more social support.

Only fathers’ cultural orientation (β = −0.12, p = .01) and work-family conflict (β = −0.11, p = .02) were associated with their involvement. When fathers were less oriented towards their heritage culture or reported lower levels of work-family conflict, they tended to be more involved with children. Those two indirect paths (from fathers’ immigration generation to fathers’ involvement, via cultural orientation and work-family conflict) also were statistically significant (β = 0.02, p = .01; and β = 0.01, p = .02 respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 2a was partially supported: immigrant fathers from higher immigrant generation were less likely to be oriented toward their heritage culture; however, this was associated with greater involvement with their children rather than the predicted lower involvement. Hypothesis 2c was fully supported: immigrant fathers from higher immigrant generation tended to experience lower levels of work-family conflict, which, in turn, was related to greater involvement with their children. However, no evidence was found for the indirect pathways through fathers’ gender role beliefs and social support (Hypotheses 2b and 2d). See Table 3 for all path results.

Table 3.

Structural Path Estimates for Predictors of Immigrant Fathers’ Involvement

Pathways	B (S.E.)	β
Direct paths
Education → Cultural Orientation	.06 (.07)	.05
Education → Gender Role Beliefs	−.18 (.06)	−.15**
Education → Work-family Conflict	−.02 (.11)	−.01
Education → Social Support	.04 (.06)	.03
Education → Father Involvement	.13 (.65)	.01
Family Income → Cultural Orientation	0 (0)	−.12*
Family Income → Gender Role Beliefs	0 (0)	−.10
Family Income → Work-family Conflict	0 (0)	−.05
Family Income → Social Support	0 (0)	.16**
Family Income → Father Involvement	0 (0)	.01
Focal Child’s Gender → Cultural Orientation	.25 (.14)	.09
Focal Child’s Gender → Gender Role Beliefs	−.03 (.12)	−.01
Focal Child’s Gender → Work-family Conflict	.20 (.21)	.04
Focal Child’s Gender → Social Support	.12 (.12)	.05
Focal Child’s Gender → Father Involvement	−.25 (1.24)	−.01
Immigration Generation → Cultural Orientation	−.26 (.08)	−.17***
Immigration Generation → Gender Role Beliefs	−.40 (.07)	−.27***
Immigration Generation → Work-family Conflict	−.25 (.12)	−.10*
Immigration Generation → Social Support	.16 (.07)	.11*
Immigration Generation → Father Involvement	2.02 (.73)	.14**
Cultural Orientation → Father Involvement	−1.10 (.44)	−.12*
Gender Role Beliefs → Father Involvement	0.09 (0.51)	0.01
Social Work-family Conflict → Father Involvement	−.67 (.28)	−.11*
Support → Father Involvement	−.36 (.51)	−.03
Indirect paths
Immigration Generation → Cultural Orientation → Father Involvement	.29 (.15)	0.02**
Immigration Generation → Gender Role Beliefs → Father Involvement	−.04 (.20)	−0.00
Immigration Generation → Work-family Conflict → Father Involvement	.17 (.11)	0.01*
Immigration Generation → Social Support → Father Involvement	−.06 (.10)	−0.00
Model fit: χ² (3) =1.14, p = .33; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .02; TLI = 0.98

^ϯp < .10, ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01, ^***< p. 0.001.

Discussion

Several studies have demonstrated that fathers’ immigrant generation plays an important role in shaping their fatherhood and the level of involvement with their children (Campos, 2008; D'Angelo et al., 2012; Kramer et al., 2020; Planalp et al., 2021). However, little research has explored how the cultural and extra-family aspects of immigrant fathers’ lives are also linked to their involvement with young children and can act as indirect mechanisms via which immigration generation influences involvement. To address this gap, this study examined how fathers’ immigrant generation, cultural orientation, gender role beliefs, social support, and work-family conflict related to their involvement with their preschool-aged children. Our results showed that fathers’ immigrant generation was significantly and positively directly related to their involvement with preschool-aged children, as well as significantly indirectly associated through fathers’ cultural orientation and work-family conflict. However, the hypothesized indirect associations through fathers’ gender role beliefs and social support were not significant.

Direct Association: Fathers’ Immigrant Generation and Involvement With Children

As hypothesized, the direct association between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement with young children was significant. That is, fathers who had spent more time in the U.S. reported greater involvement with their young children. This finding aligns with Parke (2000) model of father involvement, supporting that fathers’ immigrant generation is an individual factor influencing their fatherhood experiences, and it suggests that fathering practices may gradually change with each successive generation in the U.S. Our findings are also consistent with some prior empirical research that has shown a positive association between fathers’ immigrant generation and the overall level of involvement with their children (D'Angelo et al., 2012; Kramer et al., 2020). Fathers who have lived in the U.S. longer are expected to face less cultural and socioeconomic barriers than their newcomer counterparts, leading them to engage more with parenting their children (Driscoll et al., 2007). Furthermore, as existing studies mostly focused on fathers of infants (Capps et al., 2010; D'Angelo et al., 2012; Planalp et al., 2021), our study extends these findings to preschool-aged children.

However, it is important to interpret our result with caution, as the present study did not account for cultural and ethnic differences among the immigrant fathers and instead analyzed the average association between immigrant generation and father involvement. Different countries and cultures have different gendered norms about parenting and fathers’ roles, and so future research should examine the intersection of immigrant generation and distinct cultural beliefs and roles for fathers. Too, our results cannot capture within-father increases or decreases in involvement. The one-time level of involvement reported in the current study could represent either an increase (for fathers whose cultures of origin did not value engaged fathering but who have now adopted U.S. norms of more engaged fathering) or a decrease (for fathers whose cultures valued and supported higher levels of engagement than are expected or supported in the U.S.) in levels of engagement. Nevertheless, all available empirical studies, including the present study, have found a significant link between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement, indicating that generational differences in fathers’ immigrant background are significantly associated with the level of involvement with their children during early childhood.

Indirect Roles of Cultural and Extra-family Factors

The results partially supported the hypothesized indirect pathways through cultural and extra-family factors, demonstrating a significant indirect association between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement through fathers’ cultural orientation and work-family conflict. Our findings align with Parke (2000)’s heuristic model of father involvement, which emphasizes interconnectedness. In the present study, immigrant generation at the individual level was associated with cultural and extra-family factors, which, in turn, were linked to indirect pathways related to father involvement. One limitation of the FFCWS cultural orientation measure is that it assesses only fathers’ affinity with their heritage culture, not their specific values and beliefs. This limits insight into what fathers actually believe, making it insufficient to fully reflect “ethnicity-related family values and beliefs” as defined for a cultural factor (Parke, 2000, p. 50). It may be more appropriately conceptualized as an individual-level factor. Future research should therefore examine both cultural affinity and fathers’ actual cultural values and beliefs. Overall, our study contributed to the integration of theoretical frameworks and empirical research on father involvement by identifying specific cultural and extra-family factors that play significant indirect roles in the involvement of fathers across immigrant generations.

A key contribution of the present study is discovering that there was a significant indirect association between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement through their perceived work-family conflict. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that has empirically examined and supported the indirect role of work-family conflict in father involvement across immigrant generations in the U.S. We found that fathers with higher immigrant generation tended to report lower work-family conflict, which was then associated with greater involvement with children. This finding provides empirical support for prior suggestions that generational advantages in work-family balance may benefit father involvement. Because of cultural and professional barriers (e.g., language barrier and difficulties in transferring educational credentials and work experience), first-generation immigrant fathers may experience “downward mobility” in the U.S., which often compels them to work labor-intensive jobs to support their families (Guzmán & McConnell, 2002; Qin, 2009). The long hours and inflexible schedule at work can compromise their ability to engage with their children and fulfill their caregiving role as fathers (Choi et al., 2021; Taylor & Behnke, 2005). However, as immigrant fathers progress in socioeconomic well-being and work conditions over generations (Farley & Alba, 2002; Pew Research Center, 2013), they might have more time and resources to devote to being involved in their children’s lives (Kim, 2020; Sallee & Hart, 2015). The findings of this study support the existing research regarding the associations among intergenerational mobility, professional advancement, and child-rearing involvement of immigrant fathers.

We also found an indirect path between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement through their cultural orientation. That is, fathers with higher immigrant generation tended to report being less oriented towards their heritage culture, which was associated with higher levels of father involvement. Consistent with some existing studies involving Latino and Chinese immigrants, our findings suggest that, as fathers’ generation increases, they may be less adhered to their heritage culture and practices comparing to their first-generation parents (e.g., speaking native languages, family cohesion, and sharing weekly dinners with parents) (Coltrane et al., 2004; Harris & Chen, 2023; Lopez et al., 2017). Contrary to the hypothesized direction, however, the decrease in orientation towards heritage culture was related to more involvement with children. Although the present study was unable to measure the immigrant fathers’ level of acculturation, U.S. immigrant fathers over generations are likely to be more oriented towards mainstream American culture, including parenting values and practices that emphasize the caregiving role of fathers (Qin & Chang, 2012). This may explain the results suggesting that fathers’ weakening connection to heritage culture over immigrant generations was associated with higher involvement with children.

However, it is crucial to point out two limitations of the current finding. First, this finding should not be interpreted as indicating that immigrant fathers who are newcomers and strongly oriented toward their heritage cultures care less about their children. Rather, the father involvement measure utilized in the FFCWS dataset embodies a predominantly White American conceptualization of fatherhood emphasizing direct engagement and emotional closeness (Pleck, 2010). In some immigrant communities, including Asian and Latinx Americans, cultural norms surrounding masculinity and fathering highlight the importance of financial provision and patriarchal authority (Ide et al., 2017). Therefore, a measure rooted in White American ideals of fathering likely does not fully capture the forms of involvement exhibited by fathers from diverse cultural backgrounds. Second, as noted earlier, the level of involvement reported by a given father in the current study might represent either an increase or a decrease relative to what that father would have done had they remained in their country of origin (depending on expectations of fathers within their heritage culture).

Moreover, the cultural orientation scale included in the FFCWS only assessed fathers’ orientation towards their heritage cultures in general and did not assess their contact with and involvement in both the heritage and host cultures or across multiple domains. Contemporary research indicates that cultural adjustment is not always a linear process of assimilation, where immigrants gradually move away from their heritage culture to accept the dominant host culture over time. Instead, it is a multidimensional process and individuals’ relationships with their heritage and host cultures are actually independent, leading to diverse cultural adaptation outcomes (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Berry, 1980). Future research should explore how immigrant fathers’ cultural orientations and acculturation patterns across multiple domains are related to their involvement with children.

It was surprising to find that the indirect path through immigrant fathers’ gender role beliefs was insignificant, given prior research consistently highlighting strong links among immigration, gender role beliefs, and father involvement (Chuang & Su, 2009; Mogro-Wilson, 2020; Planalp et al., 2021). Particularly, D'Angelo et al. (2012)’s study also used the FFCWS dataset and found an indirect effect of gender role beliefs in the association between fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement with children. Several factors may explain this difference. First, D’Angelo et al. (2012) focused exclusively on Latino-identified fathers, whereas our study included a racially-ethnically diverse sample of fathers. As mentioned earlier, immigrant fathers’ gender role beliefs can vary substantially across cultures and countries of origin, and notable differences can exist within the same country (Haller & Hoellinger, 1994; Powers et al., 2003). Some fathers’ initial attitudes towards gender roles may be more egalitarian, and some may be more traditional, creating an average lack of an association. Second, we analyzed father-reported levels of involvement, rather than responses from mothers (D’Angelo et al., 2012), suggesting that discrepancies may exist between fathers’ and mothers’ evaluations of father involvement. Moreover, resident fathers are more likely than non-resident fathers to disagree with mothers regarding the perceived frequency of father involvement (Mikelson, 2008). Third, D’Angelo et al. (2012) examined fathers’ involvement with one-year-old infants, whereas our study focused on involvement with preschool-aged children. Because the FFCWS surveyed fathers’ gender role beliefs only at the time of the focal child’s birth, fathers’ beliefs may have evolved over time. Taken together, future studies should clearly report participants’ racial-ethnic backgrounds and data sources to address potential biases and strengthen validity, as well as assess gender role beliefs at multiple time points to capture possible change.

In addition, our study also did not find a significant indirect effect of social support on the association between fathers’ immigrant generation and their involvement. We did find a significant and positive direct association between fathers’ immigrant generation and their social support, endorsing that immigrants from higher generation are likely to have more social resources and networks in the U.S. (Foner & Dreby, 2011; Reynolds & Crea, 2017). However, our findings indicated that the generational advantage in social support did not necessarily translate into meaningful impact on fathers’ involvement with their children. This is likely due to how social support was measured in the FFCWS dataset. Our measure primarily assessed fathers’ perceived access to tangible and material forms of social support in urgent situations (e.g., someone to loan them money, provide emergency childcare) in the future. It did not capture whether fathers have actually encountered any emergencies or received such support, and it did not assess either ongoing, non-emergency forms of support (e.g., regular childcare or financial assistance) or less tangible forms of support such as emotional support or advice, or other forms of social support that existing studies suggest may promote father involvement, such as social interactions with friends (Capps et al., 2010) and engagement in and connection to religious (Choi et al., 2021) and ethnic communities (Qin, 2009).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although our study provides unique and meaningful contributions to the literature on immigrant fathers’ involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged that can help inform and guide future research. First, the relatively small sub-sample sizes for specific ethnic-racial groups prevented us from conducting a multi-group moderation analysis of within immigrant generation variability. In addition, the distribution of participants across ethnic-racial groups was highly uneven (e.g., 235 Hispanic-identified fathers versus only 34 non-Hispanic Asian fathers), further constraining our ability to assess differences across groups. Future research also should examine cultural diversity in father involvement beyond the categorization of race, which originated largely from false and oppressive historical and biological narratives that have long perpetuated racial stigmatization and bias in research and in society (Bryant et al., 2022). Traditionally, race has been constructed primarily and arbitrarily based on physical characteristics such as skin and hair color that have no biological nor sociocultural basis, which ignores the vast differences among people categorized as belonging to the same “race.” Observed racial differences in father involvement are not equivalent to, nor do they accurately explain, genetic or cultural differences in fathers’ approaches to childrearing. Future studies should re-conceptualize the methods to comprehensively measure and analyze fathers’ ethnic-racial differences by focusing more on their cultural, regional, religious, and national backgrounds as well as their specific belief systems (as noted earlier, not all members of the same culture share the same beliefs).

Second, it is important not only to examine the quantity and frequency of immigrant fathers’ involvement with their children, but also to assess the quality of their parenting practices and explore the underlying values and beliefs that shape their fatherhood. Knowing how many times an immigrant father feeds or plays with his child in a week does not fully capture what fathers actually do for and with their children or their understanding of fatherhood. The current literature would benefit from qualitative studies that explore and compare the nuanced experiences, perceptions, and practices of immigrant fathers of first, 1.5, and second generation through their own voices and as situated within their cross-cultural and sociohistorical contexts.

Third, there is a need to conceptualize and measure immigrant fathers’ involvement in ways that reflect the diversity of ideals and norms of fatherhood and masculinity. Existing measures of father involvement often prioritize Western, White, middle-class, heteronormative conceptions of fatherhood, which tend to emphasize the father’s role as a playmate and provider within the context of a relatively independent nuclear family structure (Li et al., 2021). These approaches overlook other culturally relevant practices, such as commitment to children’s education and collective caregiving involving multigenerational support, that are important to fathers in many immigrant communities. Developing inclusive measures will enable scholars to develop a more accurate and culturally responsive understanding of father involvement across diverse populations.

Despite the limitations, our study provides empirical evidence on the importance of fathers’ immigrant generation and involvement during early childhood, as well as the indirect roles of cultural orientation and work-family conflict. It further uncovers the mechanisms through which immigrant fathers of first, 1.5, and second generations engage with their preschool-aged children from an ecological perspective. Existing research on immigrant fathers’ involvement is mostly focused on the experiences of first-generation fathers and the role of cultural factors in shaping their fathering practices. Building on these studies, our findings suggest a critical need to disaggregate immigrant generations in family research, as doing so will better nuancedly understand the fathering experiences among immigrant families.

Our study offers several important implications for research, practice, and policy concerning the immigrant fathers’ involvement with their children. First, the findings challenge the stereotypes that portray immigrant fathers as distant, absent, or under-involved (Chen et al., 2017; Coleman-Minahan & Samari, 2020; Ide et al., 2017), acknowledging the complex individual, cultural, and extra-family factors that shape father involvement among immigrant families. Second, practitioners can support immigrant families by offering father-friendly, strength-based programs that respect diverse parenting norms and provide culturally responsive parenting resources. Third, policymakers should advance work-family supports for immigrant families by expanding access to paid family leave, subsidized childcare support, and flexible hours and scheduling, especially in labor-intensive industries that traditionally have poor work-family balance and high representation of immigrant workers (Devadoss et al., 2020; Fawzi, 2017).

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Suge Zhang

Author Contributions

The first author led the conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing-original draft, and visualization. The second author supervised and offered significant contribution to the methodology, formal analysis, and writing-review and editing.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

IRB Approval

Per University of Connecticut policy, studies involving secondary analysis of existing, publicly available, de-identified data do not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) review.

Data Availability Statement

All data and study materials for the Future of Families and Child Well-Being study are publicly available from . Study analyses were conducted in SPSS and AMOS; study code for analyses are not available but are described in detail in the Methods. This work was not preregistered.

References

Ali

M. A.

(2008). Loss of parenting self-efficacy among immigrant parents. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2008.9.2.148

Batalova

Gelatt

Fix

(2024). How immigrants and their U.S.-born children fit into the future U.S. labor market. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi_immigrant-origin-adults-labor-market-2024_final.pdf

Beck

Corak

Tienda

(2012). Age at immigration and the adult attainments of child migrants to the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 134–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212442665

Benet-Martínez

Haritatos

(2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Berry

J. W.

(1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In Padilla

(Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and findings (pp. 9–25). Westview Press.

Bond

(2019). The essential role of the father: Fostering a father-inclusive practice approach with immigrant and refugee families. Journal of Family Social Work, 22(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1546965

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2007). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658

Bryant

B. E.

Jordan

Clark

U. S.

(2022). Race as a social construct in psychiatry research and practice. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(2), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2877

Cabrera

N. J.

Coll

C. G.

(2004). Latino fathers: Uncharted territory in need of much exploration. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 98–120). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9820-2_7

10.

Cabrera

N. J.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Bradley

R. H.

Roggman

(2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054

11.

Campos

(2008). Considerations for studying father involvement in early childhood among Latino families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(2), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986308316658

12.

Capps

R. C.

Bronte-Tinkew

Horowitz

(2010). Acculturation and father engagement with infants among Chinese- and Mexican-origin immigrant fathers. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men As Fathers, 8(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0801.61

13.

Castillo

Welch

Sarver

(2011). Fathering: The relationship between fathers’ residence, fathers’ sociodemographic characteristics, and father involvement. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1342–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-010-0684-6

14.

Chae

M. H.

Chae

(2010). Asian American men and fatherhood an ecological systems perspective. In Ming Liu

Iwamoto

D. K.

(Eds.), Culturally responsive counseling with Asian American men (pp. 109–126). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879870

15.

Chao

Tseng

(2002). Parenting of Asians. In Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed, Vol. 4, pp. 59–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

16.

Chen

J. J.

Sun

(2017). A comparative study on parenting of preschool children between the Chinese in China and Chinese immigrants in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 38(9), 1262–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15619460

17.

Chen

S. H.

Hua

Zhou

Tao

Lee

E. H.

Main

(2014). Parent-child cultural orientations and child adjustment in Chinese American immigrant families. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032473

18.

Choi

K.-M.

Kim

Jones

(2021). Korean immigrant fathers’ perceptions and attitudes toward their parenting involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 44(5), 1151–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211055512

19.

Chuang

S. S.

(2009). Says who? Decision-making and conflicts among Chinese-Canadian and mainland Chinese parents of young children. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 60(7−8), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9537-9

20.

Chuang

S. S.

Zhu

(2018). Where are you daddy? An exploration of father involvement in Chinese families in Canada and mainland China. In Chuang

S. S.

Costigan

C. L.

(Eds.), Parental roles and relationships in immigrant families (pp. 11–30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71399-1_2

21.

Coleman-Minahan

Samari

(2020). ‘He supported me 100%’: Mexican-immigrant fathers, daughters, and adolescent sexual health. Ethnicity & Health, 25(4), 560–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1439897

22.

Coltrane

Parke

R. D.

Adams

(2004). Complexity of father involvement in low-income Mexican American families. Family Relations, 53(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00008.x

23.

Crouter

A. C.

Davis

K. D.

Updegraff

Delgado

Fortner

(2006). Mexican American fathers' occupational conditions: Links to family members' psychological adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68(4), 843–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00299.x

24.

D’Angelo

A. V.

Palacios

N. A.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

(2012). Latino immigrant differences in father involvement with infants. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men As Fathers, 10(2), 178–212. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.1002.178

25.

Devadoss

Zhao

Luckstead

(2020). Implications of U.S. immigration policies for North American economies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 45(1), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.298440

26.

Dickson

K. L.

Walker

Fogel

(1997). The relationship between smile type and play type during parent-infant play. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 925–933. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.925

27.

Diniz

Brandão

Monteiro

Veríssimo

(2021). Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12410

28.

DiPietro

S. M.

Cwick

(2014). Gender, family functioning, and violence across immigrant generations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 785–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814529976

29.

Driscoll

A. K.

Russell

S. T.

Crockett

L. J.

(2007). Parenting styles and youth well-being across immigrant generations. Journal of Family Issues, 29(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07307843

30.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press.

31.

Farley

Alba

(2002). The new second generation in the United States. International Migration Review, 36(3), 669–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2002.tb00100.x

32.

Fawzi

I. L.

(2017). Work-family balance: A dilemma for women workers in the manufacturing industry (case study at PT. Bintang, Tangerang City, Banten). In Adi

I. R.

Achwan

(Eds.), Competition and cooperation in social and political sciences: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Depok, Indonesia, November 7–9, 2016: Topics in social and political sciences (pp. 101–108). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315213620-13

33.

Foner

Dreby

(2011). Relations between the generations in immigrant families. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150030

34.

Foss

G. F.

(1996). A conceptual model for studying parenting behaviors in immigrant populations. Advances in Nursing Science, 19(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199612000-00009

35.

Gadsden

V. L.

Iruka

I. U.

(2020). African American fathers and their young children: Images from the field. In Fitzgerald

H. E.

von Klitzing

Cabrera

N. J.

Scarano de Mendonça

Skjøthaug

(Eds.), Handbook of fathers and child development: Prenatal to preschool (pp. 487–506). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51027-5_29

36.

Glass

Owen

(2010). Latino fathers: The relationship among machismo, acculturation, ethnic identity, and paternal involvement. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021477

37.

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Birman

Sirolli

A. A.

(2004). Acculturation and enculturation among Latino youth. In Maton

K. I.

Schellenbach

C. J.

Leadbeater

B. J.

Solarz

A. L.

(Eds.), Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy (pp. 285–302). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10660-016

38.

Green

C. L.

Walker

J. M. T.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532

39.

Green

D. S.

Chuang

S. S.

(2021). A critical exploration of biological and social fathering among Afro-Caribbean fathers. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 70(1), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12479

40.

Guzmán

McConnell

E. D.

(2002). The Hispanic population: 1990-2000 growth and change. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(1/2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016541906218

41.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

42.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

Danks

N. P.

Ray

(2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Springer Nature.

43.

Haller

Hoellinger

(1994). Female employment and the change of gender roles: The conflictual relationship between participation and attitudes in international comparison. International Sociology, 9(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858094009001006

44.

Harker

(2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychological well-being. Social Forces, 79(3), 969–1004. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0010

45.

Harris

K. M.

Chen

(2023). The acculturation gap of parent-child relationships in immigrant families: A national study. Family Relations, 72(4), 1748–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12760

46.

Hines

E. M.

Holcomb-McCoy

(2013). Parental characteristics, ecological factors, and the academic achievement of African American males. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00073.x

47.

L.-T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

48.

Ide

M. E.

Harrington

Wiggins

Whitworth

T. R.

Gerstel

(2017). Emerging adult sons and their fathers: Race and the construction of masculinity. Gender & Society, 32(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217743245

49.

Jensen

Chitose

(1997). Immigrant generations. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Landale

N. S.

(Eds.), Immigration and the family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants (pp. 47–62). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053539

50.

Kim

(2020). Workplace flexibility and parent–child interactions among working parents in the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 427–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2032-y

51.

Kramer

K. Z.

Şahin

Gong

(2020). Parental involvement among first- and second-generation Latin Americans in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 42(7), 1466–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20948555

52.

Kurrien

E. D.

(2004). Who’s in charge? Co-parenting in South and Southeast Asian families. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000035628.42529.e5

53.

Huang

C.-Y. S.

Chuang

S. S.

(2021). Beyond W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic)‐centric theories and perspectives: Masculinity and fathering in Chinese societies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12403

54.

Lin

I. H.

Lin

P. S.

(2021). Immigrants’ experiences of work-family conflict in the U.S.: A systematic review. Community, Work & Family, 24(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2020.1722063

55.

Lopez

M. H.

Gonzalez-Barrera

López

(2017, December 20). Hispanic identity fades across generations as immigrant connections fall away. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/

56.

Losoya

S. H.

Knight

G. P.

Chassin

Little

Vargas-Chanes

Mauricio

Piquero

(2008). Trajectories of acculturation and enculturation in relation to heavy episodic drinking and marijuana use in a sample of Mexican American serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(1), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260803800108

57.

M. C.

Jones

Bond

M. J.

Wright

Pumpuang

Maidenberg

Rowley

D. L.

(2010). Where is the F in MCH? Father involvement in African American families. Ethnicity & Disease, 20(1 Suppl 2), 49–61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20629247/.

58.

Mathew

Zhai

Gao

(2017). Social support and parental nurturance among Asian Indian families in the US: Mediating role of parenting self-efficacy. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9530-y

59.

McAdoo

J. L.

(1993). The roles of African American fathers: An ecological perspective. Families in Society, 74(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438949307400103

60.

McHale

Fivaz-Depeursinge

Dickstein

Robertson

Daley

(2008). New evidence for the social embeddedness of infants’ early triangular capacities. Family Process, 47(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00265.x

61.

Mikelson

K. S.

(2008). He said, she said: Comparing mother and father reports of father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(3), 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00509.x

62.

Mogro-Wilson

(2020). Latino fathers and their preschool children. In Fitzgerald

H. E.

von Klitzing

Cabrera

N. J.

Scarano de Mendonça

Skjøthaug

(Eds.), Handbook of fathers and child development: Prenatal to preschool (pp. 507–520). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51027-5_30

63.

Moslimani

Passel

J. S.

(2024, September 27). What the data says about immigrants in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/

64.

Naz

de Visser

R. O.

Mushtaq

(2021). Gender social roles: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 32(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2021.1878971

65.

Oropesa

R. S.

Landale

N. S.

(1997). Immigrant legacies: Ethnicity, generation, and children’s familial and economic lives. Social Science Quarterly, 78(2), 399–416. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864345

66.

Parke

R. D.

(2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2–3), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v29n02_04

67.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Smith

P. K.

(1998). The development of play during childhood: Forms and possible functions. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 3(2), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360641798001476

68.

Perez

Padilla

A. M.

(2000). Cultural orientation across three generations of Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(3), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986300223008

69.

Pew Research Center . (2013, February 7). Second-generation Americans: A portrait of the adult children of immigrants. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/

70.

Planalp

E. M.

Frausto

Braungart-Rieker

J. M.

(2021). Latino resident fathers’ early involvement with infants. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000325

71.

Pleck

J. H.

(2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58–93). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

72.

Powers

R. S.

Suitor

J. J.

Guerra

Shackelford

Mecom

Gusman

(2003). Regional differences in gender—Role attitudes: Variations by gender and race. Gender Issues, 21(2), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-003-0015-y

73.

Prion

Haerling

K. A.

(2014). Making sense of methods and measurement: Spearman-rho ranked-order correlation coefficient. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(10), 535–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2014.07.005

74.

Qin

D. B.

(2009). Gendered processes of adaptation: Understanding parent–child relations in Chinese immigrant families. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 60(7−8), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9485-4

75.

Qin

D. B.

Chang

T.-F.

(2012). Asian American fathers. In Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 261–486). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203101414

76.

Reynolds

A. D.

Crea

T. M.

(2017). The integration of immigrant youth in schools and friendship networks. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(4), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11113-017-9434-4

77.

Rumbaut

R. G.

(1991). Immigrant children and their families: Research directions and policy priorities. In Krasnegor

N. A.

(Ed.), Children of immigrants in America (pp. 71–107). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10061-004

78.

Sallee

Hart

(2015). Cultural navigators: International faculty fathers in the U.S. research university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(3), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039042

79.

Shimoni

Este

Clark

D. E.

(2003). Paternal engagement in immigrant and refugee families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.34.4.555

80.

Stage

F. K.

Carter

H. C.

Nora

(2004). Path analysis: An introduction and analysis of a decade of research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.1.5-13

81.

Tang

(2014). Social capital and determinants of immigrant family educational involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833076

82.

Taylor

B. A.

Behnke

A. O.

(2005). Fathering across the border: Latino fathers in Mexico and the U.S. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men As Fathers, 3(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0302.99

83.

Tsai

J. L.

Chentsova-Dutton

(2002). Models of cultural orientation: Differences between American-born and overseas-born Asians. In Kurasaki

K. S.

Okazaki

Sue

(Eds.), Asian American mental health (pp. 95–106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0735-2_7

84.

Ungvarsky

(2020). Immigrant generations. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/immigrant-generations

85.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services . (2024, November 4). Responsible fatherhood. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage/responsible-fatherhood

86.

Van Hook

Glick

J. E.

(2020). Spanning borders, cultures, and generations: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12621

87.

Wilson

K. R.

Prior

M. R.

(2011). Father involvement and child well-being. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 47(7), 405–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01770.x

88.

Zhou

(1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.63

89.

Zhou

Bankston

(1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese children adapt to life in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation.