rethinking maternal gatekeeping puhlman pasley

DANIEL J. PUHLMAN Florida State University

KAY PASLEY Florida State University

Rethinking Maternal Gatekeeping

This article offers a new definition and anexpanded conceptual model of maternalgatekeeping derived from the extant literatureand critiques offered by scholars and appliedto fathering. Typically, maternal gatekeepingis conceptualized as the mothers ability torestrict fathers involvement with children.We redefine maternal gatekeeping as a setof complex behavioral interactions betweenparents, where mothers influence fatherinvolvement through their use of controlling,facilitative, and restrictive behaviors directedat fathers childrearing and interaction withchildren on a regular and consistent basis. Wepropose a three-dimensional model (control,encouragement, and discouragement) in whicheach dimension operates along continua andintersects to result in 8 types of gatekeeping.We explain these types and describe examplesof behaviors in terms of their influence onfather involvement. We end with suggestions fordeveloping a measure of maternal gatekeepingand for applying the model to better understandhow gatekeeping influences and is influenced byfamily patterns and characteristics.

Research on father involvement has gainedmomentum over the past 30 years, as scholars

Department of Family and Child Sciences, 120Convocation Way, Florida State University, Tallahassee,FL 32306 ([email protected]).Department of Family and Child Sciences, 120Convocation Way, Florida State University, Tallahassee,FL 32306 ([email protected]).

Key Words: Coparenting, father involvement, fathering,maternal gatekeeping, parental relationships.

recognize that increased paternal engagementis associated with better child outcomes andstronger families (Marsiglio Amato, Day, &Lamb, 2000). This is coupled with evidencesuggesting that fathering roles are shiftingtoward greater involvement (Pleck, 2010). Onebarrier to father involvement garnering attentionis maternal gatekeeping, which is our focus here.Early scholars explored reciprocal parental influ-ences (Belsky, 1984; DeLuccie, 1995; Stuckey,McGhee, & Bell, 1982), but Allen and Hawkins(1999) were instrumental in establishing a rela-tionship between specific maternal beliefs andfather participation in family work, constructingthe first conceptualization and model of mater-nal gatekeeping that informed this research.Since then, scholars have moved toward a morethorough definition of maternal gatekeeping(e.g., Fagan & Barnett, 2003; Schoppe-Sullivan,Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, & Sokolowski,2008). However, we believe that these scholarsdefinitions are inadequately comprehensive,because they do not address the range ofbehaviors that constitute maternal gatekeeping.Drawing from the extant literature, we outlinea three-dimensional model that more fullyillustrates this complicated phenomenon. Wethen suggest the need for measurement develop-ment to better inform our understanding of theantecedents and consequences of the construct.

AN OVERVIEW OF MATERNAL GATEKEEPING

Following several lines of research that identi-fied the mothers role in the family as affectingfathering (e.g., DeLuccie, 1995; Hawkins &Dollahite, 1997; Palkovitz, 1984; Whiteside,1998), other scholars built on existing findings to

176 Journal of Family Theory & Review 5 (September 2013): 176193DOI:10.1111/jftr.12016

Rethinking Maternal Gatekeeping 177

develop a targeted conceptualization of maternalgatekeeping. For example, Allen and Hawkins(1999) first defined maternal gatekeeping as acollection of beliefs and behaviors that ulti-mately inhibit a collaborative effort betweenmenand women in family work by limiting mensopportunities for learning and growing throughcaring for home and children (p. 200). Theirdefinition was expanded to clarify how moth-ers influence fathering, shifting from a purelyrestrictive process to one including both restric-tion and facilitation (e.g., Seery & Crowley,2000; Walker & McGraw, 2000).

Assuming that gatekeeping included bothrestrictive and negative as well as facilita-tive and positive dimensions, Van Egeren andHawkins (2004) were the first to examine copar-enting behaviors using support and underminingas indicators of gatekeeping (personal commu-nication, L. Van Egeren, February 5, 2010),although they did not formally label these behav-iors as gatekeeping. Following Van Egerenand Hawkinss lead, scholars used restrictiveand facilitative behaviors to reflect the con-struct, identifying behaviors that both support,encourage, and increase as well as inhibit,limit, and decrease father involvement (Can-non, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Brown,& Sokolowski, 2008; Moore, 2012; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008; Trinder, 2008). Althougha two-dimensional model better addressed thecomplexity of the construct, we believe that athird dimension is neededcontrol. As such, werefined the definition of maternal gatekeeping asa set of complex behavioral interactions betweenparents, where mothers influence father involve-ment through their use of controlling, restrictive,and facilitative behaviors, directed at fatherschildrearing and interaction with children on aregular and consistent basis.

Importantly, scholars had called for a morecomprehensive model of gatekeeping that (a)was not limited to restricting fathers (Adamsons,2010; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008; Trinder,2008), (b) was sensitive to maternal needsand intentions about fathers (Sano, Richards,& Zvonkovic, 2008; Szabo et al., 2011), and(c) allowed for understanding a fathers rolein gatekeeping (Walker & McGraw, 2000).We address the first two points by proposingour three-dimensional model of gatekeepingin which the dimensions operate along uniquebut intersecting continua. We acknowledge theimportance of the third point and recognize that

it is beyond the scope of this article to thor-oughly address the fathers role in this process.Unlike much of the recent literature suggestingthat maternal gatekeeping is unidirectional,with mothers behaviors influencing fathersbehaviors (Gaunt, 2008; Szabo et al., 2011),we concur with others that it is bidirectionalin nature. That is, recent studies suggest thatfathers are influenced by maternal perceptionsof fathering (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2011) and thatboth fathers (Jia & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011) andmarital interactions (McClain, 2011) influencethe parental relationship.

In what follows, we describe our expandedconceptualization of maternal gatekeeping andprovide a rationale for the three dimensions. Fordiscussion purposes only we emphasize the endsof the continua, although we believe that there ismuch variation along the continua. We identifyhow these dimensions intersect and describeeight possible types of maternal gatekeeperswithin the context of father involvement andfathers responses to the gatekeeping process.We believe that it is important to consider thefactors that influencematernal gatekeeping, suchas child characteristics (e.g., gender, disability,temperament), but we limit the scope here,addressing only behaviors that we believe reflectmaternal gatekeeping. We end with suggestionsfor future research.

OUR PROPOSED MODEL OF MATERNALGATEKEEPING

In constructing amodel ofmaternal gatekeeping,our thinking was influenced by family systemstheory and a feminist perspective. Family sys-tems theory is used extensively in the literatureon maternal gatekeeping (Fagan & Barnett,2003; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008) as wellas in the literature on coparental processes (seeMcHale & Lindahl, 2011). This theory offersan explanation of the ways in which parentingstructure and organization influence children,and vice versa (Cox & Paley, 2003; Minuchin,1974). Feminist theory illuminates gender dif-ferences and related cultural expectations ofparents and how families construct their powerstructures (Thorne, 1982). These ideas werereflected in Allen and Hawkins (1999) originalconceptualization of maternal gatekeeping andhave been incorporated into recent studies (e.g.,Kulik & Tsoref, 2010; Moore, 2012). Linkingfamily systems and feminist theory enables us

178 Journal of Family Theory & Review

to articulate the importance of family relation-ships and the influence of gender and power onthose relationships. Because mothers have his-torically assumed the role as primary caretakerin the home, the resulting common family struc-ture meant that fathers were less involved thanmothers, and maternal gatekeeping might be afrequent influence in family relationships. Withrecent shifts in family roles such that fathersare more involved in family life (Pleck, 2010),the mothers role as a primary caretaker is lesscommon, and this cultural change highlightsthe importance of understanding how parentingprocesses such as maternal gatekeeping affectfamilies.

We identify three dimensions in our model ofmaternal gatekeeping: control, encouragement,and discouragement. As noted, we envision thatthese dimensions operate on intersecting con-tinua from low to high in their occurrence, andthese intersections result in eight types of gate-keepers. Previous studies separated behaviors ofencouragement and discouragement (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008), but our model takes aunique approach by linking the dimensions asindicators of the larger maternal gatekeepingconstruct. Earlier research (Fagan & Barnett,2003; McBride et al., 2005) assumed thatthese behaviors represented opposite ends of anencouragement dimension, and thus the behav-iors were measured by a single scale on whichhigh scores represented encouragement and lowscores represented discouragement (or absenceof encouragement). Separating encouragementfrom discouragement allows scholars to exam-ine the different contributions that each makesto understanding the process of gatekeeping.Thereby, we treat these dimensions as indepen-dently functioning systems of behavior, muchlike the rationale offered by Fincham and Beach(2010) in their conceptualization of positivityand negativity as separate dimensions in mari-tal interaction, and like that offered by Niehuis,Lee, Reifman, Swenson, and Hunsaker (2012) intheir conceptualization of idealization and disil-lusionment as separate dimensions in romanticrelationships. The rationale of these scholars isapplicable here, because it is likely that evenmothers who are predominately encouraging offathers also express some degree of discourage-ment toward them, either implicitly or explicitly.For example, some mothers may score highon both dimensions, which accounts for mixedmessages they receive from fathers about father

involvement. Other mothers may be highly dis-couraging during court proceedings or whendealing with custody issues but highly encour-aging when asking fathers to pay child supportor attending to children during scheduled times.We believe that this more intricate way of look-ing at how mothers support or discourage fatherinvolvement may provide additional insight intothe complexity of this phenomenon and assist inteasing out the processes that are most influentialin both coparental relationships and parentchildrelationships.

Fincham and Beach (2010) also suggestedthat using separate measures of positivity andnegativity allows researchers to explicate thereciprocal nature of family interactions. Theyexplained that negative marital interactions mayincrease before positive interactions decrease,and increases in positive interactionmay precededecreases in negative interaction. Their approachaccounts for the changes that occur over time,and we anticipate that this might be similar incoparental interactions. We believe that view-ing maternal gatekeeping as a reciprocal processmore accurately represents how it changes overtime and how the resulting maternal patterns ofbehavior reflect different types of gatekeeping.For example, families dealing with divorce maysee substantial changes in both encouragementand discouragement. Early on, mothers may bemore discouraging of fathers but still maintaina high level of encouragement, hoping to showsupport of the fathers role with the children. Asthe divorce progresses, the mothers encourag-ing behaviors may decrease and her frustrationwith the father orwith his parentingmay increasesimultaneously. In addition, a fathers influenceon the dimensions of encouragement and dis-couragementmay be quite different. Fatherswhofail to increase their involvement in response tothe mothers encouragement may see her dis-couraging behaviors slowly escalate. On thecontrary, fathers who increase involvement inresponse to these attempts may see a reduction inthe mothers discouraging behaviors. Separationof these dimensions illustrates the potential com-plexity of how gatekeeping functions in a recip-rocal way and the role fathers play in the process.

Dimension 1: Control

In the extant literature, maternal gatekeeping istypically defined as a means of regulating fatherinvolvement (DeLuccie, 1995; Fagan & Barnett,


2003; Kulik & Tsoref, 2010). Scholars arguethat maternal gatekeeping is rooted in powerdistribution within families and is based onlong-standing cultural expectations pertainingto gender and family roles assumed by mothers(Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Gaunt, 2005; Moore,2012). We concur and include control as anessential component of maternal gatekeeping.Several studies have identified control as animportant factor in coparental relationships(Nelson, Clampet-Lundquist, & Edin, 2002;Tamis-LeMonda &McFadden, 2010); however,no study has explicated the specific behaviorsthat might constitute control in coparentingrelationships. Thus, we suggest that behaviorreflecting attempts tomanage or regulate the flowof information, energy, resources, and people(boundary management) is the defining elementof control and is essential for understandinggatekeeping behaviors.

Our model recognizes the role of powerin relationships by focusing on how mothersmanage family boundaries as a key behavioralindicator of maternal control. Further, wesuggest that control is yielded through thedegree to which (a) mothers hold a leadershipposition in the family with ultimate decision-making power regarding family functioning and(b) how intensely mothers oversee fatherchildinteractions. Mothers high on control have muchof the parental decision-making authority anddictate childrearing and family management.Mothers who are low on control have littlepower over fathers and, through their behaviortoward fathers and others, indicate that they arenot in charge of the family. Although controlfunctions on a continuum (see Table 1), we donot believe that this dimension indicates whichparent has the most control in the family. Ourintention is to reflect only the degree to whichmothers are controlling over family matters andfathering behaviors. We suggest that control isneither a good nor a bad way of interacting inthe family and, therefore, does not indicate amaternal preference about father involvement.

Mothers characterized by low or no boundarycontrol behave in ways that are not dictatorial orsupervisory and establish themselves as havingan equal or lesser role in leading the parentingrelationship. They are external participants inthe father-child relationship, do not dictate howfathers can be involved, and do not tell fathershow to manage the children. They intentionallyor inadvertently place the responsibility on the Ta

ble1.

TheTh

reeDim

ension

sof

Materna

lGatekeeping

Con

trol

Dim

ension

Low

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High

Nocontrolo

verfather

Coo

perativ

eor

father

directed

parenting

Family

decision

maker

Dictateschild

rearingandfamily

managem

ent

Encou

ragementd

imension

Low

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High

Nopo

sitiv

itytowardfathers

Absence

ofsupp

ortiv

ebehaviors

Neutrality

Welcomingtowardfathers

Highdegree

ofwarmth

Supp

ortiv

eof

fathering

Discouragem

entd

imension

Low

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High

Nonegativ

itytowardfathers

Absence

ofdiscou

raging

behaviors

Overtcriticism

Negativelydirected

towardfathers

Und

erminingandsarcastic

attitud

es


father to initiate involvement and construct hisrelationship with his children. Mothers whohave low control may share family managementstrategies with fathers by offering feedback orsuggestions regarding parenting decisions andbehaviors, much like a consultant rather thanan expert. In some families, these mothers maytrust the fathers ability to parent and dedicatetheir time and efforts to understanding thefathers beliefs and actions regarding parenting.In contrast, theymay relinquish control to fathersaltogether and remove themselves from decisionmaking and family management. We envisionthat somemothersmay also focus on their career,have mental or physical health problems, or bein an abusive relationship with the father. Weacknowledge that even in situations where amother consciously and voluntarily chooses tofollow the lead of the father, she is behaving ina way that reflects low control.

When mothers exert high levels of control inthe family around parenting and behave in waysthat manage the coparental relationship, they setthe bar for how fathers engage with their chil-dren. Mothers who maintain high boundary con-trol would be evident in examples of gatekeepingas traditionally defined in the literature (seeMoore, 2012; Sano et al., 2008). For example,this high level of control emerges when moth-ers make fathers interact with children, set therules for him with the children, and supervise hisinteractions with them. Other behaviors such asmaking the family schedule, managing finances,and coordinating leisure activities on the basis oftheir own preferences and desires also would beindicative of highly controlling mothers (Allen& Hawkins, 1999). Fathers may need to prove tocontrolling mothers that their presence in theirchildrens life is both beneficial and helpful. Inturn, mothers can grant fathers access to chil-dren and accept their approved involvement withparenting responsibilities. One such example ofhighmaternal control is evident in divorced fam-ilies in which mothers have primary custody andhold decision-making responsibilities that affectthe fathers ability to engage with their children(Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000). On thisside of the continuum mothers hold responsibil-ity for initiating father involvement regardlessof the fathers investment in being involved.

Incorporating control into ourmodel ofmater-nal gatekeeping underscores an essential butnot solitary component for studying gatekeep-ing. Although researchers initially focused on

gatekeeping as restricting fathers,we believe thatcontrol allows mothers to both limit and enhancefather involvement. The idea of boundary con-trol reflects some of the gatekeeping strategiesmothers use in managing paternal access to chil-dren. However, other aspects of gatekeepingare left unexplained in this single dimension,so we also have included encouragement anddiscouragement.

Dimension 2: Encouragement

We borrow from scholars who have suggestedthat maternal gatekeeping is both restrictive andfacilitative (see Cannon et al., 2008; Trinder,2008; Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). Weoperationalized facilitation through indicators ofsupport and encouragement. In prior literature,encouragement was defined as maternal behav-iors intended to increase the level of paternalparticipation with children (Schoppe-Sullivanet al., 2008). Because evidence suggests thatmothers engage in a variety of behaviorsthat are more or less supportive of fathering(Pleck & Hofferth, 2008), mothers role infather involvement includes the degree towhich they act to support fathers. Evidencelinks mothers encouragement and fatherparticipation in American families (Cannonet al., 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008) andBotswana families (Dyer, Roby, Mupedziswa,& Day, 2011). Evidence also links mothersbeliefs about the importance of fathers in childdevelopment and the fathers involvement(Fagan & Barnett, 2003; McBride et al., 2005).

We suggest that a high level of encouragementindicates thatmothers provide positive feedback,invite cooperative parenting interactions, andbehave in ways that suggest that fathers areimportant. These mothers may be generallywelcoming toward fathers, be kind toward them,and take a genuine interest in their adoptingan influential role with children. Some mothersmay be openly supportive of coparenting withfathers and overtly express their satisfactionwith the fathers involvement. In contrast,they may also treat the father as the superiorparent, in which case the mother may thenshy away from parenting because she viewsherself as inadequate or harmful to the child.Either way, the mothers encouraging behaviorsare intended to lead fathers to increase ormaintain high levels of involvement. Researchsupports this definition (Schoppe-Sullivan et al.,


2008) and shows that other encouragingbehaviors are important, such as mothersgiving compliments and invitations to fathers,soliciting parenting perspectives from fathers,and encouraging fathers to spend individualtime with children (Dyer et al., 2011). Othersadd that mothers provide fathers with helpfulfeedback during interactions with children, askfor the fathers help in parental or householdtasks (Allen & Hawkins, 1999), use supportiveor appreciative language with fathers, andcelebrate father-oriented rituals (e.g., FathersDay, birthdays, religious holidays). In addition toovert behavioral encouragement, mothers mightengage in supportive body language with fathers(e.g., using touch, facial gestures, and othernonverbal communication) and speak favorablyabout fathers to others, including the children.Overall, the occurrence of such behaviors or thedegree of intensity with which mothers promotefather involvement is instrumental in definingthe mothers position along this continuum (seeTable 1). Mothers who frequently encouragefathers and engage in supportive behaviorswould measure high on encouragement, whereasmothers who have fewer such behaviorsand are less supportive would be low onencouragement.

Dimension 3: Discouragement

We propose that discouragement is a thirddimension of maternal gatekeeping. Early defi-nitions viewed gatekeeping as purely restrictive,implicitly identified maternal gatekeeping as adiscouraging process (Allen & Hawkins, 1999;Barry, Smith, Deutsch, & Perry-Jenkins, 2011;Fagan & Barnett, 2003); therefore, discour-agement was conceptualized as the oppositeend of the encouragement continuum. Recentscholars, though, have distinguished encourage-ment and discouragement. In fact, Van Egerenand Hawkins (2004) used different subscalesto differentiate criticism (a form of discour-agement) and encouragement in coparenting.Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2008) used this samemeasure as their indicator of discouragement.Their results indicated that maternal encour-agement influences paternal behavior, whereasmaternal criticism does not. We argue that theunderstanding ofmaternal gatekeeping would beenhanced by a more comprehensive definitionof maternal discouragement. Because mater-nal behaviors can communicate to fathers their

importance or utility, mothers may discouragefather involvement through a variety of behav-iors with fathers, children, extended familymembers, and the community at large (Sanoet al., 2008; Trinder, 2008).

We define discouragement as the degree towhich mothers are discouraging and critical offathers and their involvement with children (seeTable 1). Schoppe-Sullivan et al. (2008) referredspecifically to maternal criticism, which webelieve is a single, albeit substantial, aspectof discouragement. We used their work aswell as items from Van Egeren and Hawkinss(2004) Parental Regulation Inventory (PRI) toprovide examples of discouraging behaviors.Such behaviors include overt criticism anda mother telling the father what she thinkshe did wrong. We include additional overtdiscouraging behaviors, such as interrupting thefathers time with the child, dissuading himfrom interacting with the child, and avoidingdiscussions about parenting the child. Wesuggest that some discouraging behaviors aremore subtle or covert. Schoppe-Sullivan et al.suggested a number of covert discouragingbehaviors that fit ourmodel, such as complainingabout fathers behaviors to others, redoingtasks completed by fathers, and some formsof nonverbal communication (e.g., eye rolling,scornful looks). We offer additional subtlebehaviors that include attempts at underminingthe fathers parenting choices, pretending tosupport his decisions, and making sarcasticcomments to him.

As discussed here, the encouragement anddiscouragement dimensions specify behaviorsthat further clarify the ways in which mothersinfluence father involvement. These dimensionsare essential to illustrating the importanceof gatekeeping as including both restrictiveand facilitative processes. Adding control asa third dimension provides a more inclusivemodel of maternal gatekeeping than do theencouragement and discouragement dimensionsalone. The consideration of each dimensionas an interdependent yet unique contributor inour conceptualization of maternal gatekeepingis a strength that sets this model apart fromcurrent models of maternal gatekeeping.Finally, our three-dimensional model allows forincreased precision in understanding the specificmechanisms by which mothers influence fatherinvolvement. We believe that examining theintersection of these three dimensions provides


greater understanding of the processes by whichmothers influence fathers.

RESULTING GENERAL TYPES OF MATERNALGATEKEEPING

We look to the intersection of control, encour-agement, and discouragement and propose twobroad types of gatekeeping: polarized andambivalent mothers. Polarized mothers clearlyindicate their preference for father involvementand behave in ways that support this preferenceby being predominantly encouraging or discour-aging, whereas ambivalent mothers are ambigu-ous in their preferences. Ambivalent mothersengage in equivalent levels of encouragementand discouragement, leaving fathers, children,and possibly even themselves confused as totheir preference for father involvement. Undereach of these two broad types we further iden-tify eight subcategories (polarized: traditionalgate blockers, passive gate snubbers, facilita-tive gate openers, and passive gate welcomers;

ambivalent: confused gate managers, apatheticgate managers, opinionated gate watchers, invis-ible gate ignorers; see Table 2 for a generaloverview of these subcategories). We believethat the degree to which mothers control familyfunctioning is a necessary element in under-standing maternal gatekeeping; however, it isthe differences and incongruence along theencouragement and discouragement continuathat establish and define the specific variationin the gatekeeping behaviors exhibited.

Polarized Mothers

Polarized mothers are those who clearly indicatea preference for or against father involvementthrough their use of either discouraging orencouraging behaviors. These mothers are wellrepresented in the literature. Most studies ofmaternal gatekeeping define the concept in termsof only restrictive behaviors (Allen & Hawkins,1999; Fagan & Barnett, 2003) or consistingof both restrictive and facilitative methods of

Table 2. Types of Maternal Gatekeepers

Types of Gatekeeping Behavioral Indicators

Polarized gatekeepersTraditional gate blockers: high control, low

encouragement, high discouragementActively dictate terms of father involvementCommunicate directly or indirectly that paternal presence is unwelcomeSpeak negatively about the father to the children

Passive gate snubbers: low control, lowencouragement, high discouragement

Talk negatively about father to childAccidentally miss father-child timeRedo tasks and/or parenting completed by fathers

Facilitative gate openers: high control, highencouragement, low discouragement

Schedules father-child timeCelebrates events with or about fathersDirects fathers how to play with children

Passive gate welcomer: low control, highencouragement, low discouragement

Share in family management decisions equallyActively engaged in a coparenting relationshipORStays disengaged from the familyAvoids family interactions

Ambivalent gatekeepersConfused gate manager: high control, high

encouragement, high discouragementShows inconsistent behavioral patternsBehaviors change across situations or timesManages family interactions and boundaries

Apathetic gate managers: high control, lowencouragement, low discouragement

Assume leadership in the familyBehave in ways that suggest fathers are nonentitiesTake a neutral stance, dont try to shift fathers current level of involvement

Opinionated gate watchers: low control, highencouragement, high discouragement

Compliments and criticizes fathersPassive encouragement and discouragement

Invisible gate ignorers: low control, lowencouragement, low discouragement

Share in coparental interactions or follow the lead of fathersInvolved with children but uninvolved in facilitating or restricting fathers


managing father involvement (Roy & Dyson,2005; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008), therebydescribing mothers as primarily encouraging ordiscouraging. Thus, our defining characteristicof polarized mothers is their clear use ofencouraging or discouraging behaviors thatcommunicate what they want from the fatherof their children. In addition, mothers, children,fathers, and the community are likely to be clearabout how mothers behave toward fathers.

Traditional gate blockers (high control, lowencouragement, and high discouragement).Maternal gatekeeping has been traditionallyidentified as highly controlling and discourag-ing, with little or no encouraging behavior (seeAllen & Hawkins, 1999; DeLuccie, 1995). Thiscombination of behaviors creates a challeng-ing environment for fathers who are able tobe, and interested in being, active participantswith their children. However, fathers who areuninterested in being involved may be welcom-ing of this form of gatekeeping. These mothersdo not support paternal involvement, have theresources (e.g., custody, presence in the home, astronger relationship with children) to constructbarriers between fathers and children, and theygive little, if any, positive feedback about thefathers involvement. They exert influence overfathers by actively dictating the terms of fatherinvolvement, and they communicate directly andindirectly that paternal presence is unwelcome.Behaviors that are restrictive in nature, such aspreventing access or visitation, engaging in hurt-ful communication (e.g., sarcasm, being mean,or being aggressive), avoiding paternal con-tact, managing financial matters (Moore, 2012),and speaking negatively about the father to thechildren, are characteristics of this type of gate-keeping.

We recognize that traditional gate blockersdo not always unnecessarily limit fatherinvolvement. In situations where concerns overchild abuse exist, these gatekeeping strategiesmay be essential for creating a safe and secureenvironment. Also, fathers who are involved incrime or who abuse drugs or alcohol may havelimited access to children for safety reasons. Instudies using data from the Fragile FamiliesChild Wellbeing study, scholars found thatmothers in high-risk groups tend to protectchildren from unhealthy fathers (Carlson &Hognas, 2011), and these mothers might haveused traditional gate-blocking strategies. Finally,

children whose fathers are not interested inbeing involved could benefit from the mothersdiscouragement and lack of desire for fatherinvolvement. These mothers also might servea protective function so that children areless affected by uninvolved or uninterestedfathers. Although this form of gatekeepinghas been characterized as detrimental to fatherinvolvement (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Fagan& Barnett, 2003; McBride et al., 2005), wesuggest that this form of gatekeeping may leadto positive outcomes for children and families insome circumstances.

Passive gate snubbers (low control, lowencouragement, and high discouragement).Trinder (2008) identified a group ofmotherswhomaintain little control over family boundariesand who are highly discouraging of fatherinvolvement. These gatekeepers have littleability or influence to limit father involvement;however, they clearly indicate to the father,children, and others that paternal involvementis either unwanted or unneeded. They mighttalk negatively about fathers to children,accidentally miss or avoid father-child time,or redo tasks completed by fathers when bothparents live together. A critical distinctionbetween traditional gate blockers and passivegate snubbers is that the limitations posedby mothers absence of control may restricttheir ability to directly constrain fathers. Thus,some mothers resort to using high levels ofdiscouragement, in perhaps subtle ways, as theironly recourse to influence father involvement.We speculate that mothers in this category ofgatekeeping lack shared control of the family andare more likely to have limited power altogether.

We also suggest that passive gate snubbersmay have relationships with their coparentsimilar to what Markman and Coleman (2012)call continuously contentious. They foundthat some mothers were forced into sharedcoparenting through court decisions that reducedher control. Those mothers are likely notsupportive of fathers and engage in highlevels of discouragement with them. Becauseof the control imposed by the legal system,the influence of these women in the familysystem is also limited, and they are unableto directly manage father involvement. Thestrategies employed by these gatekeepers maynot be ones that are chosen; rather, other morepowerful influences forcemothers into situations


of low control. We also suggest that this typeof gatekeeping may be particularly salient inminority families where extended kin networksare important and potentially more powerful(Jones & Lindahl, 2011). Such mothers mayhave little control with the father; however, theextended family may be the source of power andcontrol for some passive gate snubbers.

Although passive gate snubbing may appearto be underhanded ormanipulative,we recognizethat these strategies can serve a protectivefunction. It is possible that mothers feelpowerless in the home, and their low control isthe only way to keep themselves or their childrensafe. Again, in abusive homes, mothers who usehigh-control strategies or overt discouragementmight agitate the abusing father and create apotentially more violent situation.

Facilitative gate openers (high control, highencouragement, and low discouragement). Thecategory of facilitative gate openers includesmothers who manage the children and familyinteractions, maintaining a high level ofauthority over the amount and type of fatherinvolvement. Although they have decision-making power, these mothers also stronglyencourage fathers to be engaged and involvedthrough spending time with the childrenand participating in parenting decisions andchoices. These mothers likely want fatherinvolvement and tend to indicate that fathersare important (Moore, 2012; Schoppe-Sullivanet al., 2008) through their limited use ofdiscouragement or negative feedback regardingpaternal interactions. They may even make greatefforts to assist fathers in getting or stayinginvolved with children by scheduling time forfather-child activities, celebrating special events,or directing fathers on methods of playing andengaging with children. Finally, they may beforceful parents and create situations in whichfathers have little or no choice but to engagewith the children. Although we acknowledgethat fathers may not provide the best-qualitychildrearing in this situation, we believe that thisconstitutes gate opening, because mothers areleading fathers toward increased involvement.

Teaching and mentoring are also importantmaternal behaviors inwhichmothers have strongexpectations of how to best parent children andinstruct or model for fathers the correct,better, or appropriate ways of interacting.A unique characteristic of facilitative gate

openers is that they instruct or train fathersby refraining from giving negative feedback andindicating that fathers are incompetent. Trinder(2008) found that divorced mothers oftenencourage father involvement while maintaininga position of control. In such cases, fathers wereinvolved with children under the supervision ofthe expert parent-mother. In essence, thesemothers are invested in father involvement, andthey behave in ways that encourage rather thandiscourage such involvement. Importantly, thisform of maternal gatekeeping may be quitebeneficial in healthy family systems. Fatherswho have high-stress careers or work longhours may see this type of gatekeeping ashelpful to them, because it provides a moreefficient way for them to be positively involved.Therefore, the mothers highly controlling andhighly encouraging ways serve as a positivecoparenting strategy.

Passive gate welcomers (low control, highencouragement, and low discouragement).Mothers who are passive gate welcomers havelittle control in the family system, are highlyencouraging of paternal participation with chil-dren, and refrain from discouraging fathers. Likefacilitative gate openers, they are typically pos-itive toward paternal involvement and behavein ways that indicate that fathers are importantto children. However, passive gate welcomershave little or no direct influence on whetherthe father is involved, perhaps because theyassume that family leadership is the fathersdomain. Some mothers in this group mightbe disengaged from the family, avoid familyinteractions, or pursue a lifestyle outside of thefamily, not wanting to engage in parenting butalso sending messages that father involvementis wanted or expected. This arrangement mayoccur when mothers have highly demandingcareers and fathers choose to stay at home andprovide primary care for children. Further, pas-sive gate welcomers could be similar to motherswho attempt to engage fathers from a distanceand encourage them to be involved (Roy &Dyson, 2005); however, these same mothershave little or no decision-making control thatwould serve to increase father involvement. Inother families, mothers and fathers may sharein family management decisions and be activelyengaged in a coparenting relationship based onequality and cooperation. We speculate that theintention of these mothers is not to increase


father involvement but to maintain a high levelof father involvement in already active fathers.We speculate that passive gate welcoming mayoccur in divorced families where custody isevenly shared and that are identified as hav-ing always amicable coparental relationships(Markman&Coleman, 2012). Further, this formof gatekeeping may occur in high-risk familieswhere positive coparental relationships lead toincreased father involvement (Carlson,McLana-han, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008).

Families in this group place much ofthe responsibility for father involvement onfathers, as mothers influence them primarily ascoparental bystanders. In families where fatherinvolvement is high, and these strategies areoriented toward maintaining father involvement,this may be a desirable pattern of gatekeeping.For other families, fathers take the initiativeto define their involvement, and althoughmothers support their efforts, some fathersmight be highly uncomfortable and limit theirinvolvement because of personal fears orincompetence (Cannon et al., 2008; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008, Walker &McGraw, 2000).Such situations can set the tone and define thestructure and hierarchy regarding how families,specifically fathers, participate in the executivecontrol of the family. In families in whichneither parent functions as an executive in familyfunctioning, parental support can be lacking,thus leaving children without adequate guidanceand leadership.

Ambivalent Mothers

Ambivalent mothers generally reflect a degreeof confusion about their preferences regard-ing father involvement. They might contradictthemselves and give fathers and children mixedmessages about what is valuable and what isnot. Such contradictions contribute to a sense ofambivalence and confusion. Maternal ambiva-lence might be based on deeper-rooted internalconfusion about or struggle over father involve-ment (Wong, McElwain, & Halberstadt 2009).In addition, maternal ambivalence is just asconfusing for fathers, some of whom mightreport challenges in dealing with mixed mes-sages pertaining to how to engage with children(Roy & Dyson, 2005). This may be particularlysalient in Mexican American families, whereparental incongruence resulting from ambivalentgatekeeping strategies has been associated with

marital and adolescent adjustment problems(Solmeyer, Killoren, McHale, & Updegraff,2011). Solmeyer et al. (2011) identified acultural theme in which these patterns werestrongest when families were oriented towardMexican culture rather than toward Angloculture.

We also believe that the ambivalence ofmothers may arise from any number ofconditions that challenge them to restrict orfacilitate father involvement. As examples,mothersmay behave in ambivalentways becauseof general indecisiveness, internal conflictsbetween career aspirations and maternal values,or mixed feelings about the characteristics of anindividual father. Further, ambivalent behaviormay result from the mothers own internalconflicts between the importance of fathers andtheir perceptions of individual characteristics ofthose fathers.

Confused gate managers (high control, highencouragement, and high discouragement).Mothers in the category of confused gate man-agers have high levels of all three dimensionsof gatekeeping. They manage family bound-aries and direct family interactions, specificallywhen and how fathers are involved. They arethe ultimate decision makers and, in this case,might resemble traditional gatekeepers (Allen& Hawkins, 1999). However, they also arehighly encouraging toward fathers, so theirbehavior reflects confusion about their prefer-ences and desires for paternal involvement (Sanoet al., 2008). Confused gate managers may bethe most frustrating for fathers. Mothers mayencourage father-child relationships and supportthe fathers influence on child development incertain domains. At other times or in other cir-cumstances, these mothers may support fathersto partake only in specified roles (e.g., bread-winner, caretaker, husband) that take precedenceover comprehensive involvement. Any deviationfrom this expectation results in mothers discour-aging fathers from engaging in those domains(Fagan & Barnett, 2003; McBride et al., 2005).

The combination of being highly encour-aging and highly discouraging sends conflict-ing messages that fathers are both importantand unimportant, thus fostering unclear mater-nal expectations of paternal behavior. Becausethese mothers are highly controlling, the result-ing ambivalence from unclear expectations hasdirect implications for how fathers engage with


children (Wong, Mangelsdorf, Brown, Neff, &Schoppe-Sullivan, 2009). Their behaviors maybe difficult to assess because of the inconsistencyand variability from situation to situation. Forexample, some mothers are consistently encour-aging when fathers are engaged in activitiesoutside of the home, such as coaching sportsteams, playing at the park, or attending com-munity activities. These same mothers may behighly discouraging only when fathers attemptto limit childrens behavior with consequences,modify routines, or teach household chores. Forother mothers, high discouragement and highencouragement vary by daily mood states orexternal stressor events and thus causes confu-sion. An example is a mother who is highlyencouraging one day when the father gives thechild a bath (because she is in a positive mood),whereas the next day the same mother is highlydiscouraging of such involvement (because hermood has taken a downturn). Any number ofindividual conditions (e.g., postpartum depres-sion, general depression, bipolar disorder, pre-menstrual syndrome) may affect the occurrenceof such fluctuations between encouraging anddiscouraging behaviors. Relational conditions,such as marital satisfaction and coparental sat-isfaction, may also affect fluctuations betweenthese same behaviors.

Regardless of the way in which mothersexpress high encouragement and discourage-ment, confusion is created and presents asubstantial challenge for fathers engagementwith children (Roy & Dyson, 2005). In addi-tion to confusion in these families, it is likelythat there may be a high degree of conflictbetween parents. Conflicting messages and ahigh level of maternal control ripen the situ-ation for maternal gatekeeping (Cowan et al.,2007). Involved fathers may be more inclinedto voice their confusion about different mes-sages and exert themselves within the mothersambiguous preferences. This conflict would cer-tainly have implications for father involvement(Bronte-Tinkew, Horowitz, & Carrano, 2010)and for child outcomes (Teubert & Pinquat,2010).

Apathetic gate managers (high control, lowencouragement, and low discouragement). Weenvision these mothers as predominantly havinghigh levels of control and apathetic attitudestoward father involvement. Although they havea stronghold over the family boundaries and

are the executive decision makers regardingfamily functioning, they show no preferencefor or against the fathers involvement. Thesemothers are identified through the absenceof behaviors that are either encouraging ordiscouraging. Being encouraging of fathersmight indicate that involvement is wanted whenit is not, and being discouraging might violatesocial discourse emphasizing the importanceof father involvement (Lamb, 2010). Weanticipate that apathetic gate managers appear toapproach father involvement with irrelevance orindifference. Also, fathers, who themselves takean apathetic stance regarding their involvement,in turn, may facilitate this form of gatekeeping.We speculate that mothers in this group maybehave hopelessly in response to fathers, simplycompleting child-care tasks alone rather thantrying to engage more distant fathers.

Although these mothers all behave in similarways toward fathers, we speculate that theirbehavior may serve several functions in thefamily. Some mothers might behave in waysthat suggest that fathers are nonentities. Theymight be single parents with uninvolved fathers,and therefore they parent independently of thefathers influence. Othersmight not care whetherfathers are involved and take a neutral stance asto the fathers role with children, not tryingto increase, decrease, or maintain his level ofinvolvement. We envision that this occurs infamilies where fathers work long hours, travelfrequently, live apart from the family, ormake noeffort to change their level of involvement. Thiscategory could be salient for mothers who havechildren with multiple birth partners. Apatheticgate managing may be associated with reducedcoparental quality, which is common for familiesin which multipartnered fertility is present(Carlson & Hognas, 2011). We do not suggestthat these fathers are uninvolved with childrenbut rather that mothers act without concern orinvestment in the fathers involvement. Anotherexample of apathetic gate managers includesmotherswho are resigned to accepting the futilityof their attempts at shifting father involvement.Theymaywant the father to be involved but havestopped attempts to engage him. This strategymay be employed bymothers as a last resort afterbeing unable to shift the fathers involvementusing other strategies.

We believe that apathetic gate managersare not confused about their views on fatherinvolvement but that their behavior is likely


more confusing or challenging for fathers whowant to be involved. In families where fathersare involved or want involvement, the behaviorof these mothers likely maintains a familydynamic that supports themothers control in thefamily (Cox & Paley, 2003). Thus, they resortto gatekeeping strategies to maintain controlthrough avoidance of either encouraging ordiscouraging his involvement. Being high incontrol establishes the mothers executive role,and ambivalence about father involvement leadsto immobility in paternal behavior. Motherscan hold onto their role in the family andleave little space for fathers to contributeto family functioning. Fathers resistance todiscouragement and activation in response toencouragement is impossible in a family whereneither dimension is represented. When facedwith challenges to maternal control, thesefamilies likely experience changes in maternalencouragement or discouragement. Therefore,in some families this may be a transitory status.

Opinionated gate watchers (low control, highencouragement, and high discouragement).Mothers who are opinionated gate watchers aremost strongly identified by their lack of controlbehavior coupled with frequent contradictorymessages to fathers about their involvement.They have little family control and are limitedin their ability to direct father involvementwith children; however, they send mixedsignals using high levels of encouragementand discouragement to indicate a preference ofwhether and how fathers should be engaged.The behaviors of opinionated gate watchersmay be similar to those of confused gatemanagers, with differences associated with thelevel of control. Opinionated gate-watchingmothers may be more prone to passive behaviorsin their encouragement (e.g., smiling whenfathers engage with children, making positivecomments about the father to the children) anddiscouragement (e.g., making snide commentsto the father, redoing tasks that he completes).It is this quiet ambiguity that is their definingcharacteristic.

These mothers function in several ways tomanage father involvement. We speculate thatlow control may be a strategy for dealing withfathers who have ultimate control in the family.Having little control in family interactionsfosters increased confusion, through whichmothers feel conflicted about father involvement

but have no power to direct the family system.For example, families with fathers who stay athome to care for children may be associated withmothers who use opinionated gate-watchingstrategies. These fathers may make a majority ofdecisions. In response, the mother may behaveboth encouraging toward the father, becauseshe appreciates his role with the children, anddiscouraging, because of her own frustrationsabout societal expectations of her as a mother.We also speculate that when this strategy isused to establish shared parental control, theambivalence of encouraging and discouragingbehaviors may be frustrating for both parents.Consider the case of divorced mothers whoshare custody with fathers. They share controlof the children, and these mothers may behaveencouragingly (e.g., taking the children to thefathers home, informing him of extracurricularactivities) and discouragingly (e.g., talkingnegatively about him to the children, criticizinghis choices).

For fathers, this form of gatekeeping islikely to be the least clear of all our categories.There are confusing messages about maternalpreferences or status in the family that leavemembers wondering what is expected fromthem. This could serve several purposes forlimiting or influencing father involvement.Some mothers attempt to get fathers involvedby releasing control and increasingly encouragehis involvement; however, his resistance toher behaviors may be frustrating for her, thusleading to increased maternal discouragement(Thompson & Walker, 1989). Other mothersmight be in a state of flux while determining howto manage a highly controlling father. Thesemothers could decide to take a low-controlapproach as a result of paternal interactions andencourage the fathers involvement when he iswith the children but discourage his involvementwhen he is away from the children. Thus, theseopinionated gate watchers might prove equallyconfusing to children and fathers in determiningthe optimal level of father involvement.

Invisible gate ignorers (low control, low encour-agement, and low discouragement). Gatekeep-ers who are invisible gate ignorers are character-ized by low levels on all three dimensions. Theyhave little control in the family and refrain fromencouraging or discouraging father involvement.Their role with fathers may not be well defined,and they either share in coparental interactions


or follow the fathers lead. These mothers reflectambivalence through their seemingly carelessapproach to fathers, and possibly hopelessnessabout their own or the fathers degree of involve-ment. Their behavior indicates that they havelittle or no influence over fathers, and they maynot be invested in their role or may have becomecomplacent with their role.Mothers in this groupmay have different interests or may have givenup fighting fathers to limit their involvement.These mothers have little ability to influencefather involvement; however, we believe thatthat their behavior reflects gatekeeping, becauseit influences the fathers choices in engagingwithchildren. We believe that invisible gate ignoringmay be an uncommon gatekeeping strategy.

Similar to all other patterns of gatekeepingdiscussed here, we identify several ways thatthese mothers likely behave. Some invisiblegate ignorers may appear disengaged from thefamily and in pursuit of other areas, such ascareer, extended family connections, or evenaddictive behaviors. They may need to care fora sick family member or may be preoccupiedwith other commitments that leave them ina position of little influence on the childrenand the father. Others are engaged in thefamily, but their influence on fathers remainsminimal and passive. For example, mothersusing invisible gate-ignoring strategies might befound in divorced families where fathers haveprimary custody. In these situations, mothers areinvolved with the children and share decision-making authority; however, they are uninvolvedin facilitating or restricting fathers. Althoughmothers give some mixed messages aboutfather involvement, their avoidance or limitedengagement reduces the degree to which theirambivalence is relevant to fathers. In this sameexample, a mother who remains involved in thefamily at a distance might voice her opinionsabout parenting the children, and the father, inturn, might engage in paternal gatekeeping anddisregard her opinion because of her lack ofengagement, thus rendering her ineffective andirrelevant.

Fathers who interact with invisible gate-ignoring mothers could take a leadership role inthe family or refrain from involvement. In fact,this may be a protective form of gatekeepingin which fathers who are highly supportivestep up and protect children from unsupportivemothers (Martin, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010).Logically, these mothers are prime candidates

for paternal gatekeeping, as fathers becomehighly involved and present in the lives ofthe children. In addition to mothers remainingdistant and removed from family interactions,these women might also suffer from severedistress (e.g., depression, anxiety, addictions)that prevents them from interacting morefrequently with their children. This complicatedgroup of mothers is likely to have little, if any,evidence of effective gatekeeping behaviors intheir interactions with the father.

ADDITIONAL MODEL CONSIDERATIONS

Shifts in Gatekeeping Over Time

We recognize that gatekeeping is a dynamicrather than a static process, so we expectthe model to change as families change inresponse to internal and external influences.Some of these changes might be quite dramatic,as evidenced by shifting on two or threedimensions. For example, increasing spousaldisaffection that results in divorce is likely toaffect how gatekeeping behaviors are enacted infamilies. Before divorce, the mother may engagein passive gate-welcoming behaviors, thusproviding open access for father involvement.Afterward, she may become a traditional gateblocker, in which she limits and restricts him.On the contrary, Markman and Coleman (2012)found that after divorce some mothers fell into abad to better category, in which coparentingrelationships went from high conflict to morecooperative. In this situation, opinionated gatewatching may be an important transitorycondition for mothers moving from traditionalgatekeeping to passive gate welcoming. Suchmovement along the proposed dimensions canhave a substantial effect on children, more sothan situations in which less dramatic structuralshifts occur or consistency reigns.

For some, shifts in gatekeeping are lessdramatic, in that mothers move along onlyone of the continua on different occasions orcircumstances or they move in small increments.Consider a passive gate snubber who resideswith the father and engages in behaviors that arehighly discouraging, with little encouragement.She then shifts to higher boundary controlwhen they physically separate, and she takeson behavior more representative of a traditionalgate blocker. Although this may representa one-dimensional change in the amount of


control, the movement into traditional gateblocking (where she exerts high levels ofdiscouragement of father involvement in adifferent context) takes on a different meaning.Therefore, the shift in control means that shemanages father involvement more overtly andpossibly more effectively. Another examplecould occur when a mother moves from beinga confused gate manager to a facilitative gateopener. Perhaps this would occur when a highlycontrolling mother limits father involvementwhile simultaneously attempts to get him tobe more involved. When the father increaseshis involvement and spends more time withthe family, the mothers discouraging behaviorsdecrease, thereby moving her toward facilitativebehaviors. Our point here is that such changesin circumstances are not static and can occur atany time during childrearing affecting mothers,fathers, and children alike.

We also acknowledge that typical develop-mental changes in children and families influ-ence maternal gatekeeping behaviors. Parentinginfants requires a different set of skills than doesparenting adolescents, and as children movethrough the developmental stages, the strategiesof coparenting are expected to shift. However,it is difficult to predict how coparenting behav-iors influence older children and adolescents,as little research exists (Feinberg, Kan, & Het-herington, 2007). Research does suggest that aschildren age, father involvement changes (Wood& Repetti, 2004), and fathers are more engagedin school-related and social activities with olderchildren rather than the caretaking and play-ful activities common with younger children(Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth,2001). It would be reasonable to expect thatmaternal gatekeeping would look different aschildren age. For example, an opinionated gatewatcher may be more likely to tell the father of ayoung child that he is playing well with the childbut that he is also not helping the child to cleanhis room properly. In contrast, with adolescentchildren, these mothers may tell an adolescentthat she believed the father made a good choicein helping a daughter with homework but wasremiss in his suggestions to her about her datingchoices. We anticipate that such developmentalchanges in children, sans parent development,will affect the specific behaviors addressed inthe model.

Recognition of the Reciprocal Nature ofGatekeeping

We see maternal gatekeeping not as a deficiencyon the part of a mother but as a set of interactionsreflecting the coparental relationship and thewillingness and ability of both mothers andfathers to collaborate in parenting. We suggestthat our gatekeeping model applies to any familysituation in which responsibility for childrenis shared (e.g., grandparent and mother, auntand father, mother and foster parent, father andstepfather). In the typical family structure whereparents share parenting tasks, mothers wouldstill fit our proposed model of gatekeeping,and their behavior would predominantly reflecthigh encouragement, with variation on thecontrol dimension. Discouragement would below, as mothers who are willing to shareparenting tasks are likely more willing to acceptand appreciate father involvement (Allen &Hawkins, 1999; Kulik & Tsoref, 2010; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008). Therefore, we speculatethat these mothers would likely be facilitativegate openers or passive gate welcomers.

Importantly, we would be remiss to suggestthat our gatekeeping model applies only tomothers. Although paternal gatekeeping maynot include the same behaviors as outlinedhere in reference to maternal gatekeeping, wesuggest that either parent can influence theother. Specifically with fathers, there may besome distinctively different strategies used togatekeep mothers. For example, fathers highon the control dimension may use more aggres-sive tactics to manage maternal involvement,exerting their power physically or emphaticallyinsisting on his having the leadership role.

Despite the unidirectional path identified inresearch regarding maternal gatekeeping, wesuggest that this relationship is neither linearnor simple. We agree with Thompson andWalkers (1989) criticism of early maternalgatekeeping models that fail to address thereciprocal nature of the process because moth-ers restrictive behaviors (a) can be in responseto fathers behavior (Walker & McGraw, 2000)or (b) preventative in nature and designed tolimit father involvement (Sano et al., 2008).Specifically, Sano et al. (2008) suggested thatmothers may want fathers involvement andthat certain father behaviors (e.g., abuse ofchildren, negative parental beliefs, engagementin dangerous behavior) trigger restrictions thatmothers impose. On the contrary, Sano et al.


also suggested that mothers may invite fathersto be involved but that fathers unwillingness todo so results in less involvement.

Our attempt here is to illuminate maternalgatekeeping while recognizing that bothfathers and mothers influence the process andoutcomes. We offer two general examples ofsuch reciprocity. The first includes situationsin which mothers open the gates for fatherinvolvement and fathers choose not to getinvolved, thereby illustrating the importanceof father responsiveness to maternal behavior.Thus, a positive maternal behavior combinedwith a negative paternal response might appearto be maternal gatekeeping, when the father isprimarily responsible for gatekeeping himself.Regardless of how open and inviting mothersare, if fathers do not step up, their own choiceswill limit their involvement.

The second example includes situations inwhich mothers close the gate on fatherinvolvement but fathers exert themselves any-way. Fathers may be highly discouraged orcontrolled by mothers to remain at a distance;however, the fathers personal desire to beinvolved may be stronger than the mothersability to keep him out. High-conflict custodialbattles may reflect these types of situations, asfathers resort to legal action to overcome mater-nal gatekeeping. We suspect that this wouldlikely occur when paternal identity is strong andwhen fathers desire to care for children is afocus in their lives (Adamsons, 2010).

A Comment on Fathers Resistance

In looking at fathers participation in families,we believe that it is important to challenge theassumption that fathers want to be involvedwith their children. Walker and McGraw(2000) suggested that fathers are responsiblefor their involvement and play an importantrole in maternal gatekeeping behavior. Weagree that some fathers have no interestin being involved for various reasons (e.g.,circumstances in which the child was born, fearof being a parent, coparental conflict). Thesefathers may intentionally leave the parentingrelationship through both their physical andpsychological absence. In other cases, they mayinadvertently find themselves out of parenting,similar to passive gate snubbing (low control,low encouragement, high discouragement),where fathers organize their lives around other

activities that take precedence over childrearing,such as work or recreation. Still other fathersmay actively resist or behave in ways thatsuggest resistance toward active engagement,such as avoiding child support or refusing to seethe children. These fathers set themselves up forgatekeeping behaviors by making it easier formothers to exert gatekeeping behaviors with avariety of potential outcomes depending on thestrength of the resistance.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In presenting an expanded model of maternalgatekeeping, we hope that scholars will adopt itin future research to explicate the effects of gate-keeping. We believe that our conceptualizationgives scholars more precision and specificityabout the complexity inherent in maternal gate-keeping and provides a framework for futurestudies. The next step is to construct a measurethat adequately captures the dimensions outlinedhere and to determine whether such complexityoccurs in family life. Existing national data sets,such as the Fragile Families Child WellbeingStudy and the Early Childhood LongitudinalProgramBirth Cohort do not provide ade-quate indicators of these dimensions (Puhlman&Pasley, 2011). In making suggestions about pos-sible items that reflect the three dimensions, weborrow from prior research (Schoppe-Sullivanet al., 2008) and offer our own suggestions.Sample items that might assess these dimensionsprompt fathers with How often does she . . .Items reflecting control include Stops you frominteracting with the child, Sets the rules forhow often you can interact with the child, andAllows you to take care of the child your ownway. Sample items that reflect encouragementinclude Asks you to help when she has diffi-culty with the child, Asks your opinion aboutparenting, and Tells the child positive thingsabout you. Items that reflect discouragementinclude Interrupts your time with the child,Disagrees with you in front of the child,and Attempts to undermine your parentingdecisions.

Once a measure is available, we recommendseveral lines of research. One line addresseswhether and how maternal gatekeeping influ-ences father involvement. Some speculate thatmaternal gatekeepingmaynot be related to fatherinvolvement (Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004) orthat father involvement is the influential force


on maternal gatekeeping (Walker & McGraw,2000; Sano et al., 2008). Research using cur-rent models of maternal gatekeeping suggeststhat there is a modest relationship with fatherinvolvement (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2008);however, we must determine directionalityand the strength of this relationship, and ourexpanded model allows for this by capturingthe complexity of the process. Another line ofresearch should explore the degree to whichmaternal gatekeeping is similar to or differ-ent from other coparenting processes (Holmes,Fagan, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Day, 2011). It isunclear the degree to which this process is asso-ciated with coparenting practices or representsa unique phenomenon that is related to othercoparenting processes. Finally, we recommendthat research on maternal gatekeeping address(a) how fathers respond to maternal gatekeep-ing behaviors to glean insight into the reciprocalnature of the process and (b) how fathers behav-iors might initiate gatekeeping. Only in this waymight research better inform policy and inter-vention strategies.

An additional line of research should addresshow numerous family processes and individualcharacteristics influence maternal gatekeeping,and we offer some suggestions here. Futureresearch should look at how child character-istics, such as gender, temperament, and age,affect maternal gatekeeping behaviors. In addi-tion to child characteristics, the influence ofcertain mother and father traits may be impor-tant, as some scholars have identified personalitycharacteristics (Cannon et al., 2008), religios-ity (Gaunt, 2008), and maternal beliefs (Fagan& Barnett, 2003; McBride et al., 2005) asinfluential to gatekeeping behaviors. We alsosuggest that research address how gatekeepingbehaviors change over time and as a func-tion of individual and family development.Last, research should consider how maternalgatekeeping is represented in different culturalcontexts and whether and how such differ-ences affect fathering specifically and familyinteractions in general. Evidence shows that par-enting and coparenting behaviors vary accordingto cultural expectations (McHale & Lindahl,2011; Tamis-LeMonda, Wang, Koutsouvanou,&Albright, 2002), so this deserves our attention.

Here we present maternal gatekeeping as acomplex construct that accounts for a varietyof ways of limiting and facilitating fatherinvolvement with children. We also provide

some explanation of the dynamic nature ofinteraction between parents as they attempt toraise children to the best of their ability. Weintend that our expanded model of maternalgatekeeping and the examples provided hereserve as the foundation for providing moreclarity of the construct and the diversity ofbehaviors it represents. Our goal is to encourageother scholars to investigate the possiblevariations outlined here and their influence onfather involvement while recognizing the rolethat both mothers and fathers play in the process.

NOTEWe express our gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Jay Fagan,Dr. Erin Holmes, and the anonymous JFTR reviewers fortheir helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

REFERENCES

Adamsons, K. (2010). Using identity theory todevelop a midrange model of parental gatekeepingand parenting behavior. Journal of Family Theoryand Review, 2, 105156.

Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternalgatekeeping: Mothers beliefs and behaviors thatinhibit greater father involvement in family work.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199212.

Barry, A. A., Smith, J. Z., Deutsch, F. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2011). Fathers involvement in childcare and perceptions of parenting skill over thetransition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues,32, 15001521.

Belsky, J. (1984). Determinants of parenting: Aprocess model. Child Development, 55, 8396.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Carrano, J.(2010). Aggravation and stress in parenting: Asso-ciations with coparenting and father engagementamong resident fathers. Journal of Family Issues,31, 525555.

Cannon, E. A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf,S., Brown, G. L., & Sokolowski, M. S.(2008). Parent characteristics as antecedents ofmaternal gatekeeping and fathering behavior.Family Process, 47, 501519.

Carlson, M. J., & Hognas, R. S. (2011). Coparentingin fragile families: Understanding how parentswork together after a nonmarital birth. In J. P.McHale and K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting:A conceptual and clinical examination of familysystems (pp. 81104). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J.(2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathersinvolvementwith young children after a nonmaritalbirth. Demography, 45, 461488.


Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Pruett, M. K., &Pruett, K. (2007). An approach to preventingcoparenting conflict and divorce in low-incomefamilies: Strengthening couple relationships andfostering fathers involvement. Family Process,46, 109121.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understandingfamilies as systems. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 12, 193196.

DeLuccie, M. F. (1995). Mothers as gatekeep-ers: A model of maternal mediators of fatherinvolvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156,115131.

Dyer, K., Roby, J. L., Mupedziswa, R., & Day, R.(2011). Father involvement in Botswana: Howadolescents perceive father presence and support.Families in Society: The Journal of ContemporarySocial Services, 92, 426431.

Fagan, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The relationshipbetween maternal gatekeeping, paternal compe-tence, mothers attitudes about the father role, andfather involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24,10201043.

Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2011). Coparenting andrelationship quality effects on father engagement:Variations by residence, romance. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 73, 637653.

Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M.(2007). The longitudinal influence of coparentingconflict on parental negativity and adolescentmaladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family,69, 687702.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memesand marriage: Toward a positive relationshipscience. Journal of Family Theory and Review,2, 424.

Gaunt, R. (2005). The role of value priorities inpaternal and maternal involvement in child care.Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 643655.

Gaunt, R. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedentsand consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29,373395.

Hawkins, A. J., & Dollahite, D. C. (1997). Beyondthe role-inadequacy perspective. In A. J. Hawkinsand D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering:Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 316). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Holmes, E. K., Fagan, J. S., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., & Day, R. D. (2011, November). Locating thenexus between inhibitory maternal gatekeepingand coparenting processes. Paper presented at thePre-ConferenceTheoryConstruction andResearchMethodology Workshop at the annual meetingof the National Council on Family Relations,Orlando, FL.

Jia, R., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2011). Relationsbetween coparenting and father involvement infamilies with preschool-age children. Develop-mental Psychology, 47, 106118.

Jones, D. J., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Coparentingin extended kinship systems: African American,Hispanic, Asian heritage, and Native Americanfamilies. In J. P. McHale & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.),Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examina-tion of family systems (pp. 6179). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Kulik, L., & Tsoref, H. (2010). The entrance tothe maternal garden: Environmental and personalvariables that explain maternal gatekeeping.Journal of Gender Studies, 19, 263277.

Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers influencechildrens development? Let me count the ways.In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in childdevelopment (5th ed., pp. 126). New York, NY:Wiley.

Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Leonard, S. A. (2000).Parental role identity and fathers involvementin coparental interaction after divorce: Fathersperspectives. Family Relations, 49, 311318.

Markman, M. S., & Coleman, M. (2012). Thegood, the bad, and the ugly: Divorced mothersexperiences with coparenting. Family Relations,61, 586600.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P. R., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990sand beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family,62, 11731191.

Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010).When fathers supportiveness matters most:Maternal and paternal parenting and childrensschool readiness. Journal of Family Psychology,24, 145155.

McBride, B. A., Brown, G. L., Bost, K. K., Shin, N.,Vaughn, B., & Korth, B. (2005). Paternal identity,maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement.Family Relations, 54, 360372.

McClain, L. R. (2011). Better parents, more stablepartners: Union transitions among cohabitingparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73,889901.

McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (2011). Introduction:What is coparenting? In J. P. McHale & K.M. Lindahl (Eds.), Coparenting: A conceptualand clinical examination of family systems (pp.312). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Minuchin, S. N. (1974). Families and family therapy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, E., (2012). Paternal banking and maternalgatekeeping in postdivorce families. Journal ofFamily Issues, 33, 745772.

Nelson, T. J., Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Edin,K. (2002). Sustaining fragile fatherhood: Fatherinvolvement among low-income, noncustodialAfrican-American fathers in Philadelphia. In C. S.Tamis-Lemonda&N.Cabrera (Eds.),Handbook offather involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives(pp. 525554). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Niehuis, S., Lee, K., Reifman, A., Swenson,A., & Hunsaker, S. (2011). Idealization anddisillusionment in intimate relationships: A reviewof theory, method, and research. Journal of FamilyTheory and Review, 3, 273302.

Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and fathersinteractions with their five-month-old infants.Developmental Psychology, 20, 10541060.

Pleck, J. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revisedconceptualization and theoretical linkages withchild outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The roleof the father in child development (5th ed., pp.5893). New York, NY: Wiley.

Pleck, J. H., & Hofferth, S. L. (2008). Motherinvolvement as an influence on father involvementwith adolescents. Fathering, 6, 267286.

Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Parentalinvolvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels,sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.),The role of the father in child development (4thed., pp. 222271). New York, NY: Wiley.

Puhlman,D. J.,&Pasley,K. (2011,November).Usingnational data sets to measure maternal gatekeep-ing. Paper presented at the Pre-Conference TheoryConstruction and Research Methodology Work-shop at the annual meeting of the National Councilon Family Relations, Orlando, FL.

Roy, K. M., & Dyson, O. L. (2005). Gatekeeping incontext: Babymama drama and the involvement ofincarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289310.

Sano, Y., Richards, L. N., &Zvonkovic, A.M. (2008).Are mothers really gatekeepers of children?Rural mothers perceptions of nonresident fathersinvolvement in low-income families. Journal ofFamily Issues, 29, 17011723.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. L., Cannon, E.A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Sokolowski, M. S.(2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparental quality,and fathering behavior in families with infants.Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 389398.

Seery, B. L., & Crowley, M. W. (2000). Womensemotion work in the family: Relationshipsmanagement and the process of building father-child relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 21,100127.

Solmeyer, A. R., Killoren, S. E., McHale, S. M.,& Updegraff, K. A. (2011). Coparenting aroundsiblings differential treatment in Mexican-originfamilies. Journal of Family Psychology, 25,251260.

Stuckey, M. F., McGhee, P. E., & Bell, N. J. (1982).Parentchild interaction: The influence of maternalemployment. Developmental Psychology, 18,635644.

Szabo, N., Dubas, J. S., Karreman, A., van Tuijl,C., Dekovic, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2011).

Understanding human biparental care: Doespartner presence matter? Early Child Developmentand Care, 181, 639647.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & McFadden, K. E. (2010).Fathers from low-income backgrounds: Myths andevidence. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of thefather in child development (5th ed., pp. 296318).New York, NY: Wiley.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Wang, S., Koutsouvanou,E., & Albright, M. (2002). Childrearing values inGreece, Taiwan, and the United States. ParentingScience and Practice, 2, 185208.

Teubert, D., & Pinquat, M. (2010). The associationbetween coparenting and child adjustment:Ameta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10,286307.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender infamilies: Women and men in marriage, work, andparenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family,51, 845871.

Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family:An overview. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.),Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp.124). New York, NY: Longman.

Trinder, L. (2008). Maternal gate closing and gateopening in postdivorce families. Journal of FamilyIssues, 29, 12981324.

Van Egeren, L. A., & Hawkins, D. P. (2004).Coming to terms with coparenting: Implicationsof definition and measurement. Journal of AdultDevelopment, 11, 165178.

Walker, A. J., & McGraw, L. A. (2000). Who isresponsible for responsible fathering. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 62, 563569.

Whiteside, M. F. (1998). The parental alliancefollowing divorce: An overview. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 24, 324.

Wong, M. S., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L. Neff,C., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2009a). Parentalbeliefs, infant temperament and marital quality:Associations with infantmother and infantfatherattachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 23,828838.

Wong, M. S., McElwain, N. L., & Halberstadt, A. G.(2009b). Parent, family, and child characteristics:Associations with mother- and father-reportedemotion socialization practices. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 23, 452463.

Wood, J. J., & Repetti, R. L. (2004). What getsdad involved? A longitudinal study of change inparental child caregiving involvement. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 18, 237249.

Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., &Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Childrens time with fathersin intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family,63, 136154.

rethinking maternal gatekeeping puhlman pasley

Documents

maternal gatekeepingis

types of gatekeeping

fathers involvement

influence onfather involvement

family work

child sciences

scholarsdepartment of

early scholars