Frank, D. A., and Susan H. Zeisel. ‘‘Failure to Thrive.’’ Pediatric
Clinics of North America 35 (1988):1187–1206.
Gahagan, S., and R. Holmes. ‘‘A Stepwise Approach to Evaluation
of Undernutrition and Failure to Thrive.’’ Pediatric Clinics of
North America 45 (1998):169–187.
Ramsay, M., E. Gisel, and M. Boutry. ‘‘Nonorganic Failure to
Thrive: Growth Failure Secondary to Feeding Skills Disor-
der.’’ Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 35
(1993):285–297.
Schwatrz, I. David. ‘‘Failure to Thrive: An Old Nemesis in the New
Millennium.’’ Pediatrics in Review 21 (2000):257–264.
Skuse, D., A. Pickles, D. Wolke, and S. Reilly. ‘‘Postnatal Growth
and Mental Development: Evidence for a ‘Sensitive Period.’’’
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35 (1994):521–545.
Zenel, Joseph. ‘‘Failure to Thrive: A General Pediatrician’s Per-
spective.’’ Pediatrics in Review 18 (1997):371–378.
Jeffrey W. Hull
FAMILY SIZE
Family size is a variable of great interest to those who
study children. Empirical studies consistently have
found a negative association between family size and
children’s mental ability, intelligence, and education-
al attainment. Two theoretical explanations have
been posited to explain these negative relationships.
Dilution theory suggests that as the number of sib-
lings increases, fewer resources (e.g., parental love
and attention, finances) are available to facilitate the
development of each child. The confluence model of-
fers a more complex explanation that considers the
interrelationships among the number of siblings,
child spacing, birth order, and parent-child interac-
tions. Although larger families include positive char-
acteristics such as increased family socialization and
father involvement, increased family size also is asso-
ciated with more authoritarian parenting, which, in
turn, can negatively impact a child’s self-esteem, self-
differentiation, and ego identity. Empirical studies
have supported certain aspects of these perspectives.
Much of this research, however, has been criticized
for drawing conclusions based on ‘‘between family
comparisons’’ that do not take family-specific vari-
ables (e.g., family resources, parents’ intelligence, sib-
ling interactions) into account.
See also: PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS; SIBLINGS
AND SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS
Bibliography
Blake, Judith. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1989.
Hoffman, L. W. ‘‘The Influence of the Family Environment on Per-
sonality: Accounting for Sibling Differences.’’ Psychological
Bulletin 110 (1991):187–203.
Kuo, H., and R. M. Hauser. ‘‘How Does Size of Sibship Matter?
Family Configuration and Family Effects on Educational At-
tainment.’’ Social Science Research 26 (1997):69–94.
Rodgers, J. L., H. H. Cleveland, E. van den Oord, and D. C. Rowe.
‘‘Resolving the Debate over Birth Order, Family Size, and In-
telligence.’’ American Psychologist 55 (2000):599–612.
Debbie Madden-DerdichFATHERS
In the 1990s, researchers and social commentators
began to document recent social and cultural shifts in
how men see themselves in their role as fathers and
how families, policies, and others conceptualize them
in these roles. For example, increased women’s labor
force participation has reconfigured child-care envi-
ronments for children, giving fathers the opportunity
to play a more active role in the care of their children.
In cases in which the mother and father of a child do
not reside in the same household, men’s groups have
argued that while men accept their responsibilities for
the economic and psychological well-being of their
children, they also demand legal rights and access to
their children. Moreover, according to the U.S. Bu-
reau of the Census, the number of single fathers living
with their children increased by 25 percent during
the late 1990s, reflecting an increased acceptance by
courts and society of paternal custody, an increased
tendency on the part of men to seek custody, and a
greater willingness on the part of mothers and judges
to agree to paternal custody.
These social shifts parallel changes in the cultural
ideals of good fathering and have important implica-
tions for child well-being. In general, children who
grow up with involved, caring, and nurturing fathers
tend to experience academic success and good peer
relationships, and take less risky behaviors. In con-
trast, father absence is consistently associated with
poor school achievement, early childbearing, and
high risk-taking behavior. Although the mechanism
by which positive father involvement affects chil-
dren’s outcomes is unclear, there is enough evidence
to assert that fathers matter to the social, economic,
and psychological development of their children,
themselves, and their families.History and Background of Father
Involvement
Interest in fathers and their role in their chil-
dren’s development have sustained researchers’
attention off and on since the 1970s. Sociodemo-
graphic, cultural, economic, and historical changes—
women’s increasing labor force participation; in-
creased nonparental care for children; increases in
nonmarital childbearing and cohabitation; and father
absence in some families and increased father pres-
ence in others—have greatly affected how families or-148 FAMILY SIZE