The health and behavioral outcomes of out-of-wedlock children from families of social fathers

The health and behavioral outcomes of out-of-wedlockchildren from families of social fathers

Kwok Ho Chan • Ka Wai Terence Fung •

Ender Demir

Received: 18 May 2013 / Accepted: 9 January 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract There is abundant evidence that childhood health status affects socio-

economic status (income, wealth and academic results) in later stages of life. This

study examines the potential impact of social fathers on children’s health and

behavioral outcomes. The current family and health literature mostly focuses on the

impact of social fathers on the well-being of older children or adolescents. Using the

data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, we examine the health

and behavioral outcomes of younger children (3-year olds) whose mothers marry (or

live with) social fathers after the children are born. Moreover, most of the past

studies neglect the self-selection problem; we apply the propensity score matching

method to address the sample bias issue of the child’s mother self-selecting to have

a new partner. We found that children with social fathers did not differ significantly

in terms of the probability of having asthma, measures of depressive, aggressive

behavior and positive attitude, from children living with only biological mothers.

Keywords Child welfare � Family structure � Fragile Families � Non-marital

childbearing

JEL Classification J12 � J13

K. H. Chan � K. W. T. Fung (&)

Division of Business and Management, United International College, Zhuhai, China

e-mail: [email protected]

K. H. Chan


E. Demir

Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey


123

Rev Econ Household

DOI 10.1007/s11150-014-9238-9

1 Introduction

Without a doubt, shifts in family structures are a contributing factor to the level of

well being in children. In the United States, family demography has undergone

drastic changes during recent decades. For example, only 5 % of children were born

to unwed parents in 1960. That share rose to 18 % in 1980 and a stunning 40 % in

2007, which is more than an eightfold increase (Waldfogel et al. 2010). These

changes in family formation in the past several decades have increased children’s

exposure to the partnership instability of mothers (Cooper et al. 2011). Since unwed

mothers tend to be younger than married women, they are likely to get married or

engage in a romantic relationship with a cohabiting partner (Fomby and Osborne

2010; Osborne and McLanahan 2007). If the mother is married to or cohabiting with

a new partner, the latter is defined as a social father.

The current study uses US longitudinal data from a cohort of 3-year-old children,

the majority of which were born to unwed parents, to examine the association

between family instability patterns and physical health. We focus on the impact of

social fathers on the well-being of young children using data from the Fragile

Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS). The four measures are whether the

child has asthma, internalizing and externalizing behavioral scores, and the

Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI, which measures children’s social

competence) by Hogan et al. (1992).

Several important questions will be addressed. Is the existence of social fathers

beneficial because children fare better if a mother and father (even though non-

biological) dwell together? Does the social father increase the economic resources

devoted to the stepchildren? Do children born to unwed parents that later live with a

social father exhibit more behavioral problems at age 3 than children who remain in

a single-mother family? Does moving to a new environment cause more stress or

interruption in the children’s original routines? The answers to these questions have

very different policy implications.

The analysis makes several contributions to the literature. Most early studies

generally showed that older children living with cohabiting parents fared less well than

their counterparts with married parents in various aspects (Brown 2004; Manning

2002). This paper aims to extend previous research by focusing on 3-year-old children

born to unmarried parents and by considering how resident social fathers affect

children’s well-being. One of the advantages is that we can avoid the confounding

effect of family instability with that of family structural change. Children may not have

the capacity to comprehend the difference between a social and biological father at

such a young age; thus there will be less resistance to involvement by a social father

than older children usually exhibit (Bzostek 2008). Most current studies used married

couples as a reference group focusing on divorce and separation. We focus on the

relationship between a child’s health outcomes and a more detailed category of family

structures, namely families with single mother versus families with social fathers.

Actually, some studies that have compared children in different familial structures

failed to distinguish between biological and non-biological cohabiting parents (Adlaf

and Ivis 1997; Guterman et al. 2009). This study examines only the effect of non-

biological fathers on the health and behavioral outcomes of young children. In order to

K. H. Chan et al.

123

identify the effect of social fathers on the children, we compare out-of-wedlock

children in families with a biological mother and a social father to out-of-wedlock

children in families with only a biological mother.

The assignment of children to have social fathers can be endogenous; that is,

potentially related to the characteristics of the mothers, such as education level,

employment status, and income level. The outcome difference between children

with social fathers and children without social fathers may be caused by those

characteristics of the mothers regardless of the presence of social fathers.

Conventional least square estimation may lead to a biased estimate. To address

the selection bias, we adopted a methodology similar to Liu and Heiland (2012),

using the propensity score matching method1 to estimate the effect of social fathers

on the children’s wellbeing. The method estimates the average treatment effect by

constructing a setting similar to an experiment in which the treatment (the presence

of social fathers in this study) is randomly assigned. We are different from Liu and

Heiland (2012) in an important aspect. While Liu and Heiland (2012) examined the

causal effect of unwed mothers getting married with the biological father, this study

analyzes the impact of unwed mothers cohabiting with or marrying a new partner.

We found that the presence of social fathers did not have any significant negative

effect on children’s health and behavior. Children aged three living in families with

social fathers have similar outcomes in health and behavior as those living only with

their biological mothers. Health and behavior of the children are not the only aspects

that can be affected by social fathers, but those will not be addressed in this paper.

The number of social fathers can be expected to rise due to the increase in single

parent births. Any potentially negative effect caused by the social fathers will affect

a large portion of the future population of children.2

2 Background

2.1 Why interest in early childhood health?

According to the Social Stress Theory, partnership transitions lead to changes in

material and social resources which then create stress and diminish the psycholog-

ical functioning of mothers’ positive interactions with the children (George 1989).

This ultimately affects parenting quality. Children’s health and behavioral outcomes

can worsen when the mothers, who are supposed to provide meals and nutrition,

manage child healthcare and provide guidance for exercise and television, are less

nurturing. This is important because the literature has documented a strong

correlation between children’s initial health and socioeconomic status (income,

academic achievement and wealth) in later age (Currie and Madrian 1999). One of

the economic rationales is the life course hypothesis. Poorer childhood health can

1 See Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), Heckman et al. (1998) and Imbens (2004) for details of propensity

score matching method.2 Around 4.2 million children under age 18 in the United States were living with biological mother and a

social father, as shown by Data from the 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation (Sweeney

2010).

The health and behavioral outcomes of out-of-wedlock children

123

translate into chronic health problems throughout adulthood. Moreover, health

problems deprive the child’s opportunity to receive education (for instance,

increasing absence) which leads to poor labor skills and lower wage compensation.

Psychological evidence also indicates that children are very responsive to changes

in their immediate environment during the period from infancy to preschool

(Duncan et al. 1994). Instability and stress in childhood may lead to continued

destabilizing events in the future.

For instance, using a cohort of British-born children in 1958 and keeping their

health records until adulthood, Case et al. (2005) found that people who had a low-

birth weight or chronic health conditions during childhood are more likely to have

persistent health problems when reaching adulthood. Moreover, their academic

performance (by means of public exam results), working hours and occupational status

is inferior. It is also possible that behavioral problems such as childhood aggression at

a young age can translate into anti-social behavior in adolescence and adulthood

(Moffitt et al. 2002). Lundberg (1993), using a representative sample from Sweden,

showed that conflicts in the family during childhood, having a broken family and

economic hardship were associated with illness later in life. Black et al. (2007)

examined the impact of low-birth weight using a sample of sets of twins from Norway.

They found that underweight newborns tended to have a higher mortality rate and

inferior academic and work outcomes later in life. To control for unmeasured family

attributes, Smith (2005) used the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) to

estimate how childhood health can affect levels and trajectories of education, family

income, household wealth, individual earnings, and labor supply. Except education,

Smith (2005) found signficant effects on all measures of socioeconomic status.

2.2 Health outcome: asthma

The first variable of interest is whether the child has asthma (as reported by the

mother) by age three. Asthma is one of the most common chronic illnesses among

young children. It is generally believed that family structure and instability increase

the risk of asthma. A large-scale survey using five data sources from the US

National Health Center of Statistics found that 7.5 % of young children from age

0–17 have reported asthma. There was clear evidence of racial disparity. Young

black children were more likely to have asthma (Akinbami and Schoendorf 2002).

How can family instability be related to the occurrence of asthma in children? It is

well known that asthma triggers include pet dander, cockroaches and dust mites.

Children who have multiple relocation experiences are exposed to more settings

with asthma triggers. Moreover, children born in stable two-parent families may

experience less stress and more stability in their household arrangements. Medical

evidence reveals that psychological stress can weaken the immune processes,

leading to asthma (Chen et al. 2006). Maternal stress during pregnancy and

parenting quality may affect the immune system in ways that can be associated with

a higher risk of asthma (Klinnert et al. 2001). While familial dissolution clearly has

a negative impact on children’s health outcomes, familial union may reduce

children’s asthma risk due to the economic resources gained through a new

partnership. For instance, the children may move to a better housing environment.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

Evidence from prior research using data from the National Health Interview

Survey has suggested a correlation between single-mother families and children’s

chances of getting asthma (Dey et al. 2004; Newacheck and Halfon 2000). Harknett

(2009) found children born to married parents have the lowest likelihood of being

diagnosed with asthma and experiencing asthma-related emergencies, followed by

cohabiting mothers and single mothers. Parental coresidence, demographics and the

mother’s socioeconomic status are the key determinants.

2.3 Behavioral outcomes

How do structural changes in the family affect children’s behavior? The core

concept of union stability is that children and parents form a functioning system.

Interruption in this system, regardless of the union or separation of parents or

partners, may lead to long-term deleterious behaviors in children. A child’s mental

and psychological stability may be disrupted either through the child’s direct

observation of family conflict or through the influence of conflict on parenting style

and parenting stress (Fomby and Osborne 2010). Prior research shows that family

structure instability is correlated to externalizing behavior problems (Fomby and

Cherlin 2007). There is evidence that young children from cohabiting families have

more reported behavioral problems than those growing up in a family where parents

are married. Most of the differences come from household income, parental

background and pre-existing maternal health outcomes (Osborne et al. 2004). Beck

et al. (2010) examined how a mother’s partnership changes and parenting behavior

affects children’s outcomes. Controlling for race, maternal education and initial

family structure, the authors contend that both union and dissolution are associated

with significantly higher rates of maternal parenting stress and harsh discipline.

Waldfogel et al. (2010) contended that young children’s behavioral problems are

a combined result of family structure and stability because prior studies indicate that

behavioral problems are more intense in both stable single-mother and unstable

cohabitating families (Osborne and McLanahan 2007). Cooper et al. (2011) using

the FFCWS data, investigated the relationship between a mothers’ partnership

instability and children’s school readiness and behavioral problems. It was found

that partnership transitions of mothers (both co-residential and dating transitions)

are positively related to behavioral problems and negatively related to verbal ability.

This impact is higher for boys than for girls. Some studies did not find evidence that

family instability affects young children’s behavior. Osborne and Mclanahan (2007)

provided supportive evidence for the positive association between partnership

transitions and aggressive and anxious/depressive behavior of children at age 3. Wu

et al. (2008) supported the strong harmful effect of marital disruption on children’s

psychological functioning in Canada, whereas cohabitation breakdown is found to

be uncorrelated with children’s well-being.

2.4 Social father involvement

This study examines the impact of a more detailed category of family instability–a

transition from single mother to cohabiting family with a non-biological father–on


123

young children’s risk of asthma and behavioral problems. Admittedly, both union

entrances and exits are possible causes of stress and interruption in family routines.

However, it is more likely that the former effect trumps because social fathers

potentially provide more economic and social resources that eventually outweigh

the negative consequences of stress (Bzostek and Beck 2011). Perceived paternal

support (particularly emotional support) has also been linked with more positive

maternal attitudes and practices. Mothers with more partner support tend to be less

power-assertive (Brunelli et al. 1995). The presence of social fathers may enhance

parenting quality and lower children’s behavioral problems.3

There is another possibility that, since unwed mothers are more likely to separate

from partners in the future; the children may go through more family conflicts

before and after their parents’ marriage dissolution. Some studies suggest that social

fathers invest less in their children than biological fathers do (Coleman et al. 2000).

The new romantic relationship with the social father can possibly distract the

mothers’ attention from the children. In fact, research has been mixed regarding the

effect of social fathers’ involvement with the children.

Bzostek (2008) tested whether the cohabiting social fathers have the same

positive effect on children’s well-being as cohabiting biological fathers. Children’s

well-being is evaluated by behavioral outcomes and an overall measure of health.

The involvement of fathers was measured by the number of days in a week the

fathers were involved in some activities with the children. Bzostek (2008) found

that the social fathers were as beneficial for children’s well-being as biological

fathers. Artis (2007) showed that kindergarten children’s well-being measures

(except reading skills) were similar in cohabiting families and married stepfamilies

as compared to married biological parents after controlling other factors. Vogt Yuan

and Hamilton (2006) using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,

found that stepfather involvement is similar to biological parental involvement and

strongly associated with adolescent well-being. More specifically, adolescents’

closeness to a stepfather led to lower depression and less behavioral problems;

whereas conflicts with stepfathers resulted in higher depression and more behavioral

problems. Harknett (2009) found that children whose biological parents were living

apart were at the highest risk of asthma diagnosis; however, the risk of asthma

diagnosis in married and cohabiting parents did not differ significantly when

demographic, socioeconomic, and insurance differences were controlled. Cobb-

Clark and Tekin (2014) found that adolescent boys engaged in less delinquent

behavior with stepfather in the family compared to those with only biological

mother in the family.

Some recent studies found a negative effect of social fathers. Chan and Fung

(2013) found that children living with social fathers scored around three points less

in a cognitive ability test than children living with only biological mothers did.

Berger et al. (2009) examined whether children faced a higher risk of maltreatment

in families with social fathers. The risk of maltreatment was evaluated by whether

the families had been contacted by Child Protective Services (CPS). They found that

3 Guterman et al. (2009) even argue that fathers’ availability and contributions to the family can lower

the risk of child abuse.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

the presence of social fathers increased the probability of being contacted by CPS,

compared to families with a cohabiting or married biological father.

Others do not find evidence that family instability affects young children’s

behavior. Bzostek and Beck (2011) examined the relationship between family

instability and physical health at the age of 5 by using the FFCWS. Children living

with biological parents with a stable marriage have the lowest odds for asthma

diagnosis and obesity. However, the health status of children from a cohabiting

family (stable or unstable) was no different from the reference group–stable single-

mother family. However, an analysis by Liu and Heiland (2012) found no evidence

that family structural change (unwed mothers getting married to the biological or

social father) affected the risk of child asthma once mother’s health, education and

socioeconomic background and self-selection are controlled. Marriage does not

improve behavioral problems either.

3 Method

3.1 Study design and sample

This study examines whether the presence of social fathers has any negative effect

on health and behavioral outcomes for young children born to unwed parents. We

used data from the FFCWS, which tracks a cohort of 4,898 children born between

1998 and 2000 in 20 US cities (for a detailed description of the sample and design,

see Reichman et al. 2001). The FFCWS provides detailed information on the

marriage, fertility, and socioeconomic status of the biological mothers of the

children. It oversamples single mothers and minorities. Before the FFCWS, research

on stepparents mostly focused on children who experienced the divorce (or union)

of biological parents and the remarriage of the parents who lived with them. For

instance, the emotional trauma and stress after and during separation and divorce

adversely affect the children (Dawson 1991). With the FFCWS, the effect of divorce

can be separated from the effect of stepparents’ presence. Researchers can focus

only on the effect of stepparents on out-of-wedlock children. The availability of the

Fragile Families Study also permits an investigation of how various family

structural changes shape children early on.

About 3,700 baseline interviews were conducted at the time of childbirth with

both of the biological, unmarried parents. Second and third interviews were

conducted when the child reached 1 and 3 years old, respectively. Information about

the characteristics of the parents, relationship between the parents, parent–child

relationship, socioeconomic activities, and child development were collected.

The ‘‘36-month In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School-Aged Children’’, a

supplementary survey of FFCWS, was conducted to collect information about the

health and behavioral outcomes of the children at age 3. This supplementary survey

collected information from a random subsample4 of the baseline respondents. The

interviewers recorded details such as the children’s behavior and living environment.

4 2,368 children and their mothers participated in the supplementary survey.


123

The 3,700 household units are divided into two groups: out-of-wedlock children

in families with a biological mother and social father and out-of-wedlock children in

families with only a biological mother. Details of the children’s behavior and living

environment are only available for those who participated in the supplementary

survey. Further screening is processed to reduce sample bias: (1) 2,530 households

did not participate, (2) 51 cases are twin births, and (3) 49 children did not live with

the mothers most of the time. Since our focus is on the well-being of out-of-wedlock

children with social fathers, we excluded 495 cases in which the biological parents

were married at baseline. In order to limit the influence of the biological father on

the children, children whose biological parents were married at year 1 (127 cases);

and biological fathers who were married to the mothers or living with the children at

year 3 (542 cases) were excluded. Due to missing information on the dependent or

independent variables, 242 cases were dropped. Another 29 observations have a

propensity score falling outside the region of common support. A final sample of

833 children was analyzed. Among these, 163 children were living with the

presence of social fathers; 670 children were living with the biological mothers

only.

3.2 Child outcome measures

Health and behavioral outcomes are used as the measures of children’s well-being.

Whether a child has asthma is used to indicate a child’s health condition. A child is

classified as having asthma if the mother was informed by a doctor or health

professional that the child has asthma. Children’s behavioral outcomes are

evaluated by several measures. Items from the Age 2–3 Child Behavior Checklist

(CBCL) by Achenbach (1992) were asked in the FFCWS. Mothers responded to

each item with the following: 0 = not true of my child; 1 = sometimes/somewhat

true; 2 = very/often true. The scores from the items were summed up to calculate

Anxious/Depressed and Withdrawn (internalizing behavior) as well as Aggressive

and Destructive (externalizing behavior) subscales. A measure to assess children’s

positive behavior was also included in the survey. Items from the Express subscale

of the Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) by Hogan et al. (1992) were

asked in the FFCWS. The ASBI subscale can measure children’s social competence

and prosocial skills with peers and adults. The Cronbach’s alphas5 were calculated

for each measure and the numbers showed that the items used in each measure are

reliable in the sample. The detailed list of items for each measure is presented in the

‘‘Appendix’’.

3.3 Control variables

The main independent variable for the analyses is the presence of a social father,

represented by a dummy variable. The mothers were asked to report their

relationship status at the third interview. If they were coresiding with a social father,

then the dummy variable will be one.

5 The Cronbach’s alpha examines the internal consistency of a psychometric test score of a sample.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

We include three variables to control for children’s characteristics. Since

previous research has found a correlation between being born with a low birth

weight and asthma6 (Brooks et al. 2001; Harknett 2009), we added a low-birth-

weight dummy to the model. The child’s gender is included as it was found to have

an effect on the involvement of biological fathers (Lundberg et al. 2007). This may

then affect the presence of social fathers. Having other children before the focal

child may increase the need of having a father; therefore, a first-born dummy is

included. Obviously, the mothers’ characteristics will influence both the well-being

of the child and the decision to have a social father. Most of the unwed parents are

less educated, have lower income and are more likely to be black (McLanahan and

Sandefur 1994). Demographics such as age, race, education, birthplace, religion and

PPTV score (a measure of cognitive ability) are included.

Since child well-being can be adversely affected by mothers’ physical and mental

health problems (Downey and Coyne 1990; Osborne et al. 2004), three mothers’

health measures were added to the model. These are indicator functions of whether

the mother meets depression criteria and had a prenatal smoking or drinking habit.

There is well-documented evidence that prenatal smoking is associated with serious

child behavioral problems, especially aggressive behavior (Wakschlag et al. 2002).

A mother who reports more depression and psychological problems clearly

functions less well as a parent as a result (Waldfogel et al. 2010).

Not only does the availability of economic resources affect the choice of mating

partners, it also directly affects child well-being by enabling mothers to spend more

time with their children and to purchase more resources, including higher quality

childcare (Becker 1991). The amount of economic resources can be proxied by

whether the mother is working or directly measuring household income and the

poverty ratio. We divided the household income and poverty ratio into three and

four categories, respectively. The number of adults and kids are included to account

for the economic burden of the household. Five mediating factors—whether the

biological parents are in a romantic relationship at childbirth, how many days in a

week the mother tells stories, whether the child uses the biological father’s last

name, whether the biological father’s name is on the birth certificate and whether

paternity is officially established–are included in the analysis. These factors account

for how close the relationship is between the biological father and the family, as

well as the closeness of relationship between the biological mother and the child.

3.4 Analytic strategy

A simple linear equation augmented with an indicator function can be used to

estimate the impact of social fathers on the well-being of the child:

Yi ¼ a0 þ a1Gi þ a2Xi þ ei ð1ÞGi ¼ Iðc0 þ c1Xi þ li [ 0Þ ð2Þ

where i denotes the household unit; Yi is the well-being of the child; Gi indicates the

presence of social fathers, who can be a cohabiting partner of the mother or a

6 Low-birth-weight baby is defined as baby weighing less than 5lbs 8 oz at birth.


123

husband of the mother. A value of zero for Gi means that the mother remains single.

This function is usually estimated by a logistic or probit estimation. The covariate

Xi is a controlling factor of the household characteristics. ei and li are two error

terms with zero mean and normal distribution. The variable of interest is a1 cap-

turing the relationship between the presence of social fathers and the well-being of

the child. However, the ordinary least square estimation method may render the

coefficients biased due to the self-selection problem.

In the statistical analysis of randomized experiments, a certain status is viewed as

having a treatment and the rest as the control. Randomization enables an unbiased

estimation of treatment effects; for each covariate, it implies that the treatment

group will be balanced on average due to the law of large numbers. Biostatistics has

plenty of examples.7 Unfortunately, for observational studies, the assignment of

treatments to research subjects is, by definition, not randomized. One may attempt

to compare similar groups before they were exposed to treatments. The assignment

of treatments cannot be controlled, thus randomization cannot be used to ensure

comparability.8 Analytical adjustments are required to account for baseline

(covariate) differences in the groups. Matching is a common practice to mimic

randomization by creating a sample of units that receives the treatment that is

comparable on all observed covariates to a sample of units that does not receive the

treatment.

In the context of this paper, the presence of a social father is not randomly

assigned to the children. Without doubt, the mothers’ socioeconomic factors will

affect the decision to remain single or accept a new partner and the well-being of the

child. The independence assumption of li and ei will be violated, rendering the

ordinary least squares estimate of the coefficient a1 biased; and failing to identify

the pure effect of social fathers on the well-being of the child. The ordinary least

squares estimate will be a combination of the effect of social fathers and factors

affecting the marriage decisions of mothers.

We use the propensity score matching method to identify the pure effect of

having a social father on a child’s well-being. The technique was first published by

Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) and implemented in the Rubin causal model for

observational studies. Propensity score matching is a statistical matching technique

that attempts to estimate the effect of a treatment, policy, or other intervention by

accounting for the covariates that predict receiving the treatment. It employs a

predicted probability of group membership based on some factors usually obtained

from logistic regression to create a counterfactual group.

To be specific, the presence of social fathers (Gi) represents the treatment;

households without social fathers belong to the control group. Yi(1) and Yi(0) denote

the health and behavioral outcomes of the child in household i if the child is under

the treatment and the control group, respectively. Ordinary least squares estimates

7 For instance, Cameron and Pauling (1976) offered vitamin C to patients in final phases of cancer.

Patients’ age, gender, cancer site and tumor type were controlled; these factors were obviously not related

to the assignment of vitamin C.8 For example, one may be interested in evaluating the effectiveness of a job training program. The

treatment effect estimated by simply comparing a particular outcome can be affected by the covariates

that dictate the decision to participate in the program.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

give the simple average outcome difference between the treatment group and the

control group: a1;OLS ¼ E½Yið1ÞjGi ¼ 1� � E½Yið0ÞjGi ¼ 0�, which is the average

treatment effect (ATE). As the treatment status is the result of self-selection rather

than a random assignment, average treatment effect (ATE) is not able to capture the

pure effect of treatment. Additional effort is needed to estimate the average

treatment effect on the treated (ATET), defined as:

a1;ATET ¼ E½Yið1ÞjGi ¼ 1� � E½Yið0ÞjGi ¼ 1� ð3Þ

which is the difference between the expected outcome of the child with the treat-

ment and the expected outcome of the same child if the child receives no treatment.

While the first term on the right side of Eq. (3) is an observable variable; the

expected outcome of a child in the treatment group if the child receives no treatment

is unobservable. This value has to be estimated from the outcome of the control

group. A match from the control group will be found for every observation in the

treatment group by propensity score matching.

A critical assumption underlying propensity score matching is Conditional

Independence, which implies that conditional on the observed covariate X, the

outcomes are not contingent on the treatment status. In another words, the outcome

of the control group is what the outcome of the treatment group would have been if

the treatment group did not receive the treatment. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983)

showed that Conditional Independence Assumption held for a general class of

functions. The propensity score, the probability of selection into treatment, is one of

those. The main advantage of propensity score matching is the limited loss of

observations. By reducing a multi-dimensional matching procedure to a scalar in the

form of probability, researchers can easily balance treatment and control groups on

a large number of covariates without losing a large number of observations. If units

in the treatment and control groups were balanced on a large number of covariates

one at a time, large numbers of observations would be needed to overcome the

‘‘dimensionality problem’’ whereby the introduction of a new balancing covariate

increases the minimum necessary number of observations in the sample

geometrically.

Like other matching algorithms, propensity score matching employs nonpara-

metric kernel matching using a weighted average of almost all observations in the

control group to create the counterfactual outcomes for the observations in the

treatment group. Smith and Todd (2005) contend that the weights depend on

the propensity score distance between the observations in the control group and the

targeted observation in the treatment group for which the counterfactual outcome

was estimated. For instance, a symmetric, nonnegative, unimodal kernel gives

higher weight to individuals with propensity scores closer to that of the targeted

observation in the treatment group, but lower weight to individuals with propensity

scores further away to that of the targeted observation in the treatment group.

To test for robustness, three kernels, namely Gaussian, Epanechnikov and

uniform kernels are used to estimate the propensity score. Two bandwidths (0.1 and

0.001) are used for each kernel. On the other hand, the matching method with

replacement is used because of the small sample size. Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008)

argued that matching with replacement could lead to estimates with lower bias and


123

higher variance. For comparison purpose, we will also estimate Eq. (1) by ordinary

least squares.

3.5 Empirical results

Descriptive statistics of all independent variables are reported in Table 1. Summary

statistics are reported for the whole sample in the first column. Conditional statistics

are also reported separately for children with social fathers and children without

social fathers in the second column and third column, respectively. Certain

characteristics of the sample can be observed. For example, nearly 40 % of the

households in the sample have a household income under ten thousand dollars.

Also, around 35 % of the households in the sample are in poverty, for which they

have a ratio of total household income to the official poverty thresholds9 of under

50 %. Apart from household characteristics, we can also observe that mothers with

a lower education level are over-represented in the sample. The same thing applies

to mothers whose ethnicity is black. In short, the sample is over-represented with

households of inferior socioeconomic status.

We observe systematic differences between children with social fathers and

children without social fathers in some independent variables. For example, mothers

of children without social fathers are significantly older than mothers of the children

with social fathers. Also, the former are more likely to have some college education

than the latter. There are also some differences between the two groups of children

in terms of variables related to the biological father. For example, for children

without social fathers, their biological parent was significantly more likely to be in a

romantic relationship when the child was born, compared to children with social

fathers. It is also more likely for the children without social fathers to have the

biological father’s name on the birth certificate and to have paternity established,

compared to children with social fathers. These variables indicate that the

relationship of the biological father with the biological mother was very close

before and when the child was born. With a closer link with the biological father,

the mother may be more reluctant to start a new relationship.

The measures of health and behavioral outcomes used in this paper include

whether the child has asthma, a scale measure of Anxious/Depressed and

Withdrawn (internalizing behavior), a scale measure of Aggressive and Destructive

(externalizing behavior), as well as a measure of Adaptive Social Behavior

Inventory (ASBI). Table 2 presents the summary statistics of these outcomes.

Summary statistics are reported for the whole sample in the first column, for the

sample with social fathers in the second column and for the sample without social

fathers in the third column. Obviously, the proportion of children having asthma is

relatively high at 24.69 %. The reason may be that children from families with low

socioeconomic status are over-represented in the sample. Simple statistics show that

there is no significant difference for children with and without social fathers for all

four measures of health and behavior outcomes.

9 The official poverty thresholds are established by the U.S. Census Bureau.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

Table 1 Summary statistics of the FFCWS sample

Sample mean With social

father

Without social

father

Presence of social father 0.1957 (0.397) Nil Nil

Child is of low birth weight 0.1092 (0.3121) 0.0982 (0.2984) 0.1119 (0.3155)

Child is a boy 0.533 (0.4992) 0.5521 (0.4988) 0.5284 (0.4996)

Child is mother’s first birth 0.4034 (0.4909) 0.3865 (0.4884) 0.4075 (0.4917)

Mother’s age*** 23 (5.03) 21.93 (4.38) 23.26 (5.15)

Mother is white 0.1056 (0.3076) 0.1411 (0.3492) 0.097 (0.2962)

Mother is Hispanic 0.1657 (0.372) 0.1411 (0.3492) 0.1716 (0.3774)

Mother is black 0.7095 (0.4543) 0.6871 (0.4651) 0.7149 (0.4518)

Mother is of other race 0.0192 (0.1373) 0.0307 (0.173) 0.0164 (0.1272)

Mother’s education: less than HS 0.4406 (0.4968) 0.4847 (0.5013) 0.4299 (0.4954)

Mother’s education: HS 0.3169 (0.4656) 0.3252 (0.4699) 0.3149 (0.4648)

Mother’s education: some college** 0.2185 (0.4135) 0.1534 (0.3615) 0.2343 (0.4239)

Mother’s education: college 0.024 (0.1532) 0.0368 (0.1889) 0.0209 (0.1431)

Mother is foreign born 0.036 (0.1864) 0.0368 (0.1889) 0.0358 (0.186)

Mother is Catholic 0.1753 (0.3804) 0.1595 (0.3673) 0.1791 (0.3837)

Mother is Protestant 0.4358 (0.4962) 0.4049 (0.4924) 0.4433 (0.4971)

Mother is of other religion 0.1801 (0.3845) 0.2025 (0.4031) 0.1746 (0.3799)

Mother has no religion 0.2089 (0.4068) 0.2331 (0.4241) 0.203 (0.4025)

Mother attends religious activity 0.5558 (0.4972) 0.5583 (0.4981) 0.5552 (0.4973)

PPVT score of the mother 87.16 (11.19) 87.5 (10.85) 87.07 (11.27)

Mother meets depression criteria 0.2533 (0.4352) 0.2209 (0.4161) 0.2612 (0.4396)

Prenatal smoking by mother 0.2485 (0.4324) 0.2883 (0.4544) 0.2388 (0.4267)

Prenatal drinking by mother 0.1044 (0.306) 0.1043 (0.3066) 0.1045 (0.3061)

Mother is working 0.5522 (0.4976) 0.5215 (0.5011) 0.5597 (0.4968)

Household income (B$10,000) 0.3914 (0.4883) 0.362 (0.482) 0.3985 (0.49)

HH’s inc. ($10,000–$25,000) 0.3601 (0.4803) 0.3374 (0.4743) 0.3657 (0.482)

HH’s inc. ([$25,000)* 0.2485 (0.4324) 0.3006 (0.4599) 0.2358 (0.4248)

HH’s poverty ratio (0–49 %) 0.3565 (0.4793) 0.362 (0.482) 0.3552 (0.4789)



HH’s poverty ratio (C200 %) 0.1573 (0.3643) 0.1779 (0.3836) 0.1522 (0.3595)

No. of adults in household 1.7899 (0.9696) 2.0859 (0.6885) 1.7179 (1.0139)

No. of kids in household 2.4202 (1.4087) 2.4049 (1.3592) 2.4239 (1.4214)

Parents in romantic relationship at

childbirth***

0.7587 (0.4281) 0.6564 (0.4764) 0.7836 (0.4121)

Days in a week mother tells story 5.2005 (2.1263) 5.3129 (2.1301) 5.1731 (2.126)

Child uses father’s last name 0.7503 (0.4331) 0.7239 (0.4484) 0.7567 (0.4294)

Father’s name on birth cert.* 0.8451 (0.362) 0.7975 (0.4031) 0.8567 (0.3506)

Paternity established** 0.605 (0.4891) 0.5276 (0.5008) 0.6239 (0.4848)


123

Although the unconditional mean shows that the presence of social fathers does

not make any difference in the children in terms of health and behavioral outcomes,

we have to investigate in detail the effect of social fathers on the children’s

condition using a set of variables about the children and the families. Tables 3, 4, 5,

6 shows the OLS results of health and behavior outcomes. Results show that the

presence of social fathers is positively related to children having asthma, though the

estimate is not significant. Similar results have been found on the behavioral

outcomes. The presence of social fathers does not have a significant effect on the

children’s scores of internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior and ASBI. It

means that children in families with social fathers are not significantly different

from children in families with only the biological mother in terms of health and

behavioral outcomes, after controlling for a set of household socioeconomic

variables.

In order to control the self-selection problem, the propensity score matching

method is used in the following analysis. The first step of the propensity score

matching method is to estimate the propensity scores for having a social father in

the household. A probit model is used to estimate the propensity score, defined as

the probability of having a social father in the household. All the variables in

Table 1 are included in the probit estimation.

A condition of common support is needed for using the propensity score

matching. This can guarantee that the observations in the treatment group and those

in the control group are comparable with sufficient overlap in their propensity

scores. Observations having propensity scores outside the common support region

are excluded from the analysis. The common support region has a lower bound and

an upper bound. The upper bound is defined as the highest propensity score obtained

by the observations in the control group. The lower bound is defined as the lowest

propensity score obtained by the observations in the treatment group. Using this

method,10 the common support region is [0.0299251, 0.6773368]. A total of 833

observations have propensity scores falling within this region.

Table 1 continued

Sample mean With social

father

Without social

father

Number of observations 833 163 670

Standard deviations are reported in parentheses

Statistical tests on the equality of proportions/mean between sample with social father and sample without

social father

*** Denotes statistical significance at the 1 % level

** Denotes statistical significance at the 5 % level

* Denotes statistical significance at the 10 % level

10 This method of defining a common support region of propensity score is also used in a study by Liu

and Heiland (2012).

K. H. Chan et al.

123

Table 7 summarizes the results from the probit estimation. The marginal effects

of the variables are reported. The probit estimates show that several factors have

significant effects on the presence of social fathers. For example, a social father is

less likely to be present if the child is his/her mother’s first birth. The reason is that

having other children before the focal child may increase the financial need of

having a new partner in the household. Also, the child is less likely to have a social

father if the biological parents were in a romantic relationship at childbirth. This is

consistent with usual behavior as people need time to accept a new partner after just

ending a romantic relationship. The mothers’ age, religion, income, prenatal

drinking and smoking habits do not seem to matter.

The second step of the propensity score matching method is to find the estimated

effect of having a social father in the household on the well-being of the child.

Table 8 summarizes the results on the estimated effect of social fathers on

children’s health and behavioral outcomes. Column 1 of the table shows the

ordinary least squares estimate for comparison purpose. Columns 2–7 show the

propensity score matching estimates using Gaussian kernel, Epanechnikov kernel

and uniform kernel, each with two different bandwidths.

Using the propensity score matching method, we found that children in families

with social fathers are more likely to have asthma compared to children in

families without social fathers. However, the estimates are not significantly

different from zero. Apart from that, none of the estimates concerning behavioral

outcomes is significant, suggesting that the presence of social fathers does not

have any significant effect on the behavioral outcomes of the children. Results

show that the presence of social fathers does not have any effect on children’s

health and behavioral outcomes. Results from both OLS and the propensity score

matching method failed to find any significant effect of social fathers on health

and behavior outcomes. It showed that the result is robust and not dependent on

the method used.

Table 2 Summary statistics on health outcome and behavioral outcomes

Sample mean With social father Without social father

Asthma 0.2469 (0.4314) 0.2547 (0.4371) 0.2451 (0.4304)

CBCL internalizing

Behaviors 10.66 (6.16) 10.59 (5.66) 10.68 (6.28)

CBCL externalizing

Behaviors 14.97 (8.20) 15.71 (7.93) 14.81 (8.26)

ASBI 15.09 (2.71) 15.11 (2.65) 14.81 (2.72)

Standard deviations are reported in parentheses

Statistical tests on the equality of proportions/mean between sample with social father and sample without

social father





123

Table 3 Ordinary least squares

estimates on asthma

Robust standard errors are

reported in parentheses

*** Denotes statistical

significance at the 1 % level

** Denotes statistical


* Denotes statistical significance

at the 10 % level

Variable Estimate (standard

error)

Social father is present 0.0187 (0.0401)

Child is of low birth weight 0.0689 (0.0533)

Child is a boy 0.1232 (0.0301)***

Child is mother’s first birth -0.0555 (0.0436)

Mother’s age 0.0124 (0.0254)

Mother’s age square -0.0003 (0.0005)

Mother’s race (Ref: Other race)

White 0.049 (0.0806)

Hispanic 0.1772 (0.0768)**

Black 0.1659 (0.0718)**

Mother’s education (Ref: College)

Less than High School -0.0832 (0.104)

High School -0.0397 (0.1009)

Some College -0.0926 (0.0961)

PPVT score of the mother -0.0007 (0.0017)

Mother is working -0.0351 (0.0329)

Prenatal smoking by mother 0.0326 (0.0398)

Prenatal drinking by mother -0.0538 (0.0498)

Mother is foreign born -0.1092 (0.068)

Mother’s religion (Ref: No Religion)

Catholic 0.0142 (0.0548)

Protestant -0.0279 (0.0442)

Other religion -0.0038 (0.0522)

Mother attends religious activity 0.0585 (0.032)*

Child’s Household Income (Ref: [ $25,000)

B$10,000 0.1717 (0.0905)*

$10,000–$25,000 0.0763 (0.0565)

Child’s Household Poverty Ratio (Ref: [=200 %)

0–49 % -0.1284 (0.1004)

50–99 % -0.0664 (0.0756)

100–199 % -0.0287 (0.0534)

Days in a week mother tells story 0.008 (0.0072)

No. of adults in household -0.019 (0.016)

No. of kids in household 0.0098 (0.0132)

Mother meets depression criteria 0.0179 (0.0356)


childbirth

0.0033 (0.0388)

Child uses father’s last name -0.0288 (0.044)

Father’s name on birth cert. 0.0557 (0.0521)

Paternity established 0.0021 (0.0346)

K. H. Chan et al.

123

4 Discussion

The study aims to show how the presence of social fathers affects the health and

behavior outcomes of out-of-wedlock children. Because of the widespread

occurrence of non-marital births, young children living with social fathers are

likely to become more common in the future. Statistics in this paper also showed

that a very large percentage of these children are living in families with a low

socioeconomic status. Possible negative effects caused by the presence of social

fathers would create double disadvantages for these children. It is possible that they

will be more likely to face inferior outcomes in school or the job market in the

future.

Previous studies focused more on the effect of stepparents on older children or

adolescents. This study extends the literature to examine the effect of social fathers

on children born to unmarried parents by using a large representative sample of out-

of-wedlock children. For these children, the occurrence of social fathers happens

early in their lives without going through the divorce or separation of the biological

parents. This can identify the pure effect of a social father’s presence independent of

the change of family structure or the effect of divorce.

One should notice that the presence of social fathers is the result of self-selection.

To address the selection issue, prior studies adopted a different strategy. For

example, some studies estimate the impact of a variable of interest on children’s

well-being by using more detailed subgroups of the sample to separate the effect

from family instability and structure (Fomby and Osborne 2010; Thomson et al.

1994). The most common approach is including as many known and observable

socio-economic variables of the sample as possible to capture the correlation

between household characteristics and the choice of social fathers (Bzostek and

Beck 2011; Guterman et al. 2009; Hofferth 2006). Following Liu and Heiland

(2012), we used propensity score matching—a semi-parametric method—to handle

self-selection. There is one restrictive assumption of the propensity score matching

method namely, self-selection based on observables. An alternative is instrumental

variable estimation based on selection by unobservable. However, this methodology

has bias toward non-rejection of the null hypothesis (Cerulli 2011).

With selection issues being addressed by the propensity score matching method,

we found that children in families with social fathers are more likely to have asthma

than children in families with only the biological mother. Nonetheless, this effect is

not statistically significant. On the other hand, the presence of a social father has no

significant effect on children’s behavioral outcomes.

What are the possible reasons that the presence of social fathers does not affect

children’s health and behavioral outcomes? On one hand, the social father can

provide more financial resources for the new family.11 With more financial

resources, the family can seek for appropriate child care that is beneficial for the

11 Contradictory result has also been found before. For example, Akashi-Ronquest (2009) found that an

increase in the father’s wage rate won’t improve the family’s investment in the child when the child is a

stepchild of the father.


123


estimates on Internalizing

Behaviors








at the 10 % level

Variable Estimate (Standard

Error)

Social father is present -0.5089 (0.566)

Child is of low birth weight 1.1093 (0.7005)

Child is a boy 0.3997 (0.4273)


Mother’s age -0.2705 (0.3567)

Mother’s age square 0.0044 (0.0064)

Mother’s race (Ref: Other race)S

White -1.2235 (1.7008)

Hispanic -1.4204 (1.6675)

Black -2.4779 (1.5862)


Less than High School 3.716 (0.9574)***

High School 2.5347 (0.8535)***

Some College 1.3776 (0.8219)*

PPVT score of the mother -0.1385 (0.0269)***


Prenatal smoking by mother -0.3221 (0.5223)

Prenatal drinking by mother 0.4462 (0.7031)

Mother is foreign born -2.0638 (1.0415)**


Catholic -0.2247 (0.8287)

Protestant 0.1238 (0.6305)


Mother attends religious activity -0.5093 (0.4606)

Child’s Household Income (Ref: [ $25,000)

\= $10,000 -1.7769 (1.2622)

$10,000–$25,000 -1.7389 (0.7943)**

Child’s household poverty ratio (Ref: [=200 %)

0–49 % 1.5867 (1.3826)

50–99 % 0.8516 (1.0586)

100–199 % -0.4525 (0.7897)

Days in a week mother tells story -0.0941 (0.1105)

No. of adults in household 0.0834 (0.237)

No. of kids in household -0.0456 (0.204)

Mother meets depression criteria 1.3807 (0.5297)***


childbirth

-1.0387 (0.5847)*

Child uses father’s last name -1.4896 (0.6396)**

Father’s name on birth cert. 0.5018 (0.8632)


K. H. Chan et al.

123


estimates on Externalizing

Behavior








at the 10 % level


Error)


Child is of low birth weight 1.8349 (1.0099)*

Child is a boy 1.0418 (0.5948)*

Child is mother’s first birth -1.3323 (0.7872)*

Mother’s age -0.0066 (0.5216)

Mother’s age square -0.0029 (0.0096)


White -3.1107 (2.0363)

Hispanic -2.3013 (1.979)

Black -3.2684 (1.8755)*


Less than high school 2.1082 (2.059)

High school 2.246 (1.9809)

Some college 1.152 (1.9382)

PPVT score of the mother -0.0739 (0.0338)**






Catholic 0.0101 (1.1148)

Protestant -0.3208 (0.8396)



Child’s household income (Ref: [ $25,000)

B$10,000 0.6094 (1.7089)

$10,000–$25,000 -0.6725 (1.0935)


0–49 % -1.3617 (1.9528)

50–99 % -0.7485 (1.4991)

100–199 % -1.441 (1.1241)

Days in a week mother tells story -0.4442 (0.1504)***

No. of adults in household 0.5629 (0.3538)


Mother meets depression criteria 1.9663 (0.7219)***


childbirth

-1.4974 (0.7868)*

Child uses father’s last name -2.7939 (0.8796)***

Father’s name on birth cert. 1.9139 (1.1297)*



123


estimates on ASBI








at the 10 % level


error)


Child is of low birth weight -0.1122 (0.2861)

Child is a boy -0.4903 (0.19)***


Mother’s age -0.4119 (0.1545)***

Mother’s age square 0.007 (0.0028)**


White 1.1574 (0.7814)

Hispanic 0.71 (0.7603)

Black 0.6371 (0.7395)


Less than High School -1.1243 (0.6499)*

High School -0.9332 (0.6192)

Some College -0.6539 (0.6096)

PPVT score of the mother 0.0466 (0.0109)***

Mother is working 0.0406 (0.2068)


Prenatal drinking by mother 0.082 (0.3176)



Catholic -0.3083 (0.3581)

Protestant 0.0847 (0.2722)

Other religion 0.6004 (0.2916)**



B$10,000 0.1053 (0.6137)

$10,000–$25,000 0.2376 (0.341)


0–49 % -0.7391 (0.6675)

50–99 % -0.2095 (0.4555)

100–199 % 0.0768 (0.3256)

Days in a week mother tells story -0.0055 (0.0435)

No. of adults in household -0.107 (0.1042)


Mother meets depression criteria -0.3195 (0.2265)


childbirth

0.2227 (0.2705)

Child uses father’s last name 0.3226 (0.2652)

Father’s name on birth cert. -0.3173 (0.3471)


K. H. Chan et al.

123

Table 7 Probit estimates of

propensity score

Marginal effects instead of the

coefficients are reported

Standard errors are reported in

parentheses






at the 10 % level


error)

Child is of low birth weight -0.0202 (0.0424)

Child is a boy -0.0034 (0.0275)

Child is mother’s first birth -0.1013 (0.0345)***

Mother’s age -0.0147 (0.0245)

Mother’s age square 0.0001 (0.0005)


White -0.0449 (0.0886)

Hispanic -0.1232 (0.0658)

Black -0.1216 (0.1114)


Less than High School -0.1019 (0.0883)

High School -0.0918 (0.0781)

Some College -0.1294 (0.0619)*

PPVT score of the mother 0.0004 (0.0014)






Catholic -0.066 (0.0433)

Protestant -0.0344 (0.0375)

Other religion 0.0115 (0.0452)

Mother attends religious activity 0.009 (0.0291)


\= $10,000 0.0851 (0.068)

$10,000–$25,000 0.1168 (0.1034)

Child’s household poverty ratio (Ref: C 200 %)

0–49 % 0.0988 (0.0657)

50–99 % 0.0076 (0.0499)

100–199 % 0.036 (0.0795)

Days in a week mother tells story 0.0061 (0.0066)

No. of adults in household 0.0624 (0.0156)***


Mother meets depression criteria -0.0473 (0.0301)


childbirth

-0.1243 (0.0403)***

Child uses father’s last name 0.0306 (0.0376)

Father’s name on birth cert. -0.0242 (0.049)

Paternity established -0.0444 (0.0316)


123

child.12 At the same time, potential harmful effects from the presence of the social

father are conceivable. For instance, the mothers may spend less time with the child

because of the new romantic relationship, indirectly affecting parenting quality.

Unwed mothers have a higher probability of separation with partners (Manning

et al. 2004). The child may be exposed to frequent conflict between parents as the

Table 8 Estimated effect of social father on child health and behavioral outcomes

OLS Gaussian Epanechnikov Uniform

0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01

Asthma

Estimate 0.0187 0.0119 0.0028 0.0129 0.0026 0.0106 0.0052

Standard error 0.0401 0.0418 0.0448 0.0433 0.0514 0.0439 0.0499

No. of Obs. treated 157 157 157 157 155 157 155

No. of Obs. control 661 661 661 661 656 661 656

% Matched treated Nil 100 100 100 99 100 99

Internalizing

Estimate -0.5089 -0.4097 -0.3778 -0.5269 -0.3122 -0.5013 -0.3944

Standard error 0.5659 0.5532 0.7402 0.5719 0.7446 0.6742 0.6653

No. of Obs. treated 137 137 137 137 133 137 133

No. of Obs. control 598 598 598 598 585 598 585


Externalizing

Estimate 0.2815 0.5007 -0.1063 0.3006 -0.1065 0.3221 -0.2347

Standard Error 0.7633 0.7601 0.9964 0.8599 1.046 0.7516 0.9298

No. of Obs. treated 134 134 134 134 130 134 130

No. of Obs. control 599 599 599 599 587 599 587


ASBI

Estimate 0.053 0.0716 0.0638 0.0859 0.0933 0.0762 0.0485

Standard Error 0.2676 0.2935 0.3262 0.3035 0.2955 0.2848 0.3104

No. of Obs. treated 137 137 137 137 135 137 135

No. of Obs. control 605 605 605 605 593 605 593

% Matched treated 100 100 100 98 100 98

Robust standard error is reported for the OLS estimates

Bootstrap standard errors based on 100 replications are reported for the propensity score matching

estimates




12 For example, Brilli et al. (2014) found that child care availability has a positive and significant effect

on children’s language test scores.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

marriage is dissolving. Sometimes moving to reside with social fathers means that

the mothers’ and children’s ties to family and neighborhood may be disrupted. The

beneficial and harmful effects of social fathers may cancel each other. In fact, some

prior studies indicate that socioeconomic characteristics of family matter more than

family structure to predict children’s health and behavioral outcomes. Once

sufficient economic and financial variables of the household are controlled, family

structure has little impact on children’s well-being (Osborne and McLanahan 2007;

Osborne et al. 2004). Waldfogel et al. (2010) provide another possibility that

instability seems to be more important than family structure to determine health

outcomes.

It was suggested that the relationship between a social father and a child is not as

close as the one between a biological parent and a child (Hofferth and Anderson

2003). The benefit of having a social father in the family would probably not be as

large as having the biological father in the family. The differences in the benefit of

having a biological father versus a social father have been found in many past

studies. In terms of health and behavioral outcomes, Liu and Heiland (2012) found

that the marriage of biological parents after childbirth did not have any significant

benefit on the children. As a biological father can’t benefit the children in terms of

health and behavioral outcomes, the non-existence of benefit by a social father

would not be too surprising.

Both this study and Liu and Heiland (2012) imply that marrying the biological

father or starting a new family with a social father do not improve children’s health

and behavioral outcomes. Policies promoting marriage of single mothers may not be

effective. Reducing the rate of births outside of marriage in the first place, boosting

financial resources for single mothers and high-quality early childhood education

seem to be more desirable policies. Also, the measures of health and behavioral

outcomes we used are not broad enough. A non-existent effect using these measures

does not rule out possible significant effects using other measures. Future research

using a wider range of children’s health and behavioral outcomes would complete a

clearer picture on how social fathers affect the well-being of children.

Acknowledgments We are deeply grateful to Donald Cox, Arthur Lewbel and Zhijie Xiao for their

valuable advice. We would also like to thank Wei Sun, Arlene Anderson and two anonymous referees for

their helpful comments.

Appendix

See Table 9.


123

Table 9 Detailed description for items used in behavior outcomes

Item description

Internalizing behavior (a = 0.822)

Clings to adults or is too dependent

Feelings are easily hurts

Gets too upset when separated from parents

Looks unhappy w out good reason

Nervous, high strung, or tense

Overtired

Self-conscious or easily embarrassed

Too shy or timid

Too fearful or anxious

Unhappy, sad, depressed

Wants a lot of attention

Acts too young for age

Avoids looking others in the eye

Doesn’t answer when people talk to (him/her)

Doesn’t get along with other children

Doesn’t know how to have fun, or acts like little adult

Doesn’t seem to feel guilty after misbehaving

Refuses to play games

Seems unresponsive to affection

Shows little affection toward people

Shows little interest in things around (him/her)

Stubborn, sullen, or irritable

Uncooperative

Under active, slow moving, or lacks energy

Withdrawn—does not get involved with others

Externalizing behavior (a = 0.890)

Defiant

Demands must be met immediately

Disobedient

Easily frustrated

Easily jealous

Gets in many fights

Hits others

Has angry moods

Punishment doesn’t change (his/her) behavior

Screams a lot

Selfish or won’t share

Has sudden changes in mood or feelings

Has temper tantrums or hot temper

K. H. Chan et al.

123

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the child behavior checklist/2–3 and 1992 profile. Burlington:

University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Adlaf, E. M., & Ivis, F. J. (1997). Structure and relations: The influence of familial factors on adolescent

substance use and delinquency. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 5(3), 1–20.

Akashi-Ronquest, N. (2009). The impact of biological preferences on parental investments in children

and step-children. Review of Economics of the Household, 7(1), 59–81.

Akinbami, L. J., & Schoendorf, K. C. (2002). Trends in childhood asthma: Prevalence, health care

utilization, and mortality. Pediatrics, 110(2), 315–322.

Artis, J. E. (2007). Maternal cohabitation and child well-being among kindergarten children. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 69(1), 222–236.

Beck, A. N., Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Relationship transitions and

maternal parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2), 219–233.

Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and child protective services

involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263–276.

Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. (2007). From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of

birth weight on adult outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(1), 409–439.

Brilli, Y., Del Boca, D., & Pronzato, C.D. (2014) Does child care availability play a role in maternal

employment and children’s development? Evidence from Italy. Review of Economics of the

Household, doi: 10.1007/s11150-013-9227-4.

Brooks, A. M., Byrd, R. S., Weitzman, M., Auinger, P., & McBride, J. T. (2001). Impact of low birth

weight on early childhood asthma in the United States. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent

Medicine, 155(3), 401–406.

Table 9 continued

Item description

Unusually loud

Whiny

Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long

Cruel to animals

Destroys his/her own things

Destroys things belonging to his family or other children

Gets into everything

Hurts animals or people without meaning to

Quickly shifts from one activity to another

ASBI (a = 0.726)

Understands others’ feelings

Sympathetic to other children’s distress

Open and direct about what (he/she) wants

Will join a group of children playing

Plays games and talks with other children

Confident with other people

Tends to be proud of things (he/she) does

Interested in many and different things

Enjoys talking with you


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11150-013-9227-4

Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 351–367.

Brunelli, S. A., Wasserman, G. A., Rauh, V. A., Alvarado, L. E., & Caraballo, L. R. (1995). Mothers’

report of paternal support: Associations with maternal child-rearing attitudes. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 41(2), 152–171.

Bzostek, S. H. (2008). Social fathers and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4),

950–961.

Bzostek, S. H., & Beck, A. N. (2011). Familial instability and young children physical health. Social

Science and Medicine, 73(2), 282–292.

Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score

matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72.

Cameron, E., & Pauling, L. (1976). Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer:

Prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 73(10), 3685–3689.

Case, A., Fertig, A., & Paxson, C. (2005). The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance.

Journal of Health Economics, 24(2), 365–389.

Cerulli, G. (2011). ivtreatreg: a new STATA routine for estimating binary treatment models with

heterogeneous response to treatment under observable and unobservable selection, National

Research Council of Italy, 8th Italian Stata Users Group meeting Venice, November 17–18, 2011.

Chan, K. H., & Fung, K.W. T. (2013) The effect of social fathers on the well-being of out-of-wedlock

children. The United International College Working Paper.

Chen, E., Hanson, M. D., Paterson, L. Q., Griffin, M. J., Walker, H. A., & Miller, G. E. (2006).

Socioeconomic status and inflammatory processes in childhood asthma: The role of psychological

stress. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 117(5), 1014–1020.

Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Tekin, E. (2014). Father’s and youths’ delinquent behavior. Review of Economics of

the Household,. doi:10.1007/s11150-013-9194-9.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1288–1307.

Cooper, C. E., Osborne, C. A., Beck, A. N., & McLanahan, S. S. (2011). Partnership instability, school

readiness, and gender disparities. Sociology of Education, 84(3), 246–259.

Currie, J., & Madrian, B. (1999). Health, health insurance and the labor market. In O. Ashenfelter & D.

Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 3309–3407). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988

National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3),

573–584.

Dey, A. N., Schiller, J. S., & Tai, D. A. (2004). Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National

Health Interview Survey, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics.

Series 10, 221 (pp. 1–78). Data from the National Health Survey.

Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological

Bulletin, 108(1), 50–76.

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood

development. Child Development, 65(2), 296–318.

Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological

Review, 72(2), 181–204.

Fomby, P., & Osborne, C. (2010). The influence of union instability and union quality on children’s

aggressive behavior. Social Science Research, 39(6), 912–924.

George, L. K. (1989). Stress, social support, and depression over the life course. In K. S. Markides & C.

L. Cooper (Eds.), Aging, stress and health (pp. 241–267). Oxford: Wiley.

Guterman, N. B., Lee, Y., Lee, S. J., Waldfogel, J., & Rathouz, P. J. (2009). Fathers and maternal risk for

physical child abuse. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 277–290.

Harknett, K. (2009). Why are children with married parents healthier? The case of pediatric asthma.

Population Research and Policy Review, 28(3), 347–365.

Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator.

Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294.

Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection.

Demography, 43(1), 53–77.

Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for

paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65(1), 213–232.

K. H. Chan et al.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11150-013-9194-9

Hogan, A. E., Scott, K. G., & Bauer, C. R. (1992). The adaptive social behavior inventory (ASBI): A new

assessment of social competence in high risk three-year-olds. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 10(3), 230–239.

Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A

review. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 4–29.

Klinnert, M. D., Nelson, H. S., Price, M. R., Adinoff, A. D., Leung, D. Y. M., & Mrazek, D. A. (2001).

Onset and persistence of childhood asthma: Predictors from infancy. Pediatrics, 108(4), 69–76.

Liu, S. H., & Heiland, F. (2012). Should we get married? The effect of parents’ marriage on out-of-

wedlock children. Economic Inquiry, 50(1), 17–38.

Lundberg, O. (1993). The impact of childhood living conditions on illness and mortality in adulthood.

Social Science and Medicine, 36(8), 1047–1052.

Lundberg, S., McLanahan, S. S., & Rose, E. (2007). Child gender and father involvement in Fragile

Families. Demography, 44(1), 79–92.

Manning, W. (2002). The implications of cohabitation for children’s well-being. In A. Booth & A.

Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social

policy (pp. 121–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Manning, W. D., Smock, P. J., & Majumdar, D. (2004). The relative stability of cohabiting and marital

unions for children. Population Research and Policy Review, 23(2), 135–159.

McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and

adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-ups at age 26. Development and Psychopathology,

14(1), 179–207.

Newacheck, P. W., & Halfon, N. (2000). Prevalence, impact, and trends in childhood disability due to

asthma. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154(3), 287–293.

Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 69(4), 1065–1083.

Osborne, C., McLanahan, S.S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004) Young children’s behavioral problems in

married and cohabiting families. Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and

International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Working Papers no. 950.

Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (2001). Fragile Families: Sample and

design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4–5), 303–326.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational

studies for casual effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

Smith, J. A. (2005). The impact of childhood health on adult labor market outcomes. The Review of

Economics and Statistics, 91(13), 478–489.

Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental

estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125(1–2), 305–353.

Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st

century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 667–684.

Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being:

Economic resources vs parental behavior. Social Forces, 73(1), 221–242.

Vogt Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do

mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27(9), 1191–1213.

Wakschlag, L. S., Pickett, K. E., Cook, E, Jr, Benowitz, N. L., & Leventhal, B. L. (2002). Maternal

smoking during pregnancy and severe antisocial behavior in offspring: A review. American Journal

of Public Health, 92(6), 966–974.

Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. Future of

Children, 20(2), 87–112.

Wu, Z., Hou, F., & Schimmele, C. M. (2008). Family structure and children’s psychosocial outcomes.

Journal of Family Issues, 29(12), 1600–1624.


123

The health and behavioral outcomes of out-of-wedlock children from families of social fathers

Documents

Transcript of The health and behavioral outcomes of out-of-wedlock children from families of social fathers