Relationship Status, Romantic Relationship Quality, Monitoring, and Antisocial Influence: Is There an Effect on Subsequent Offending?
- 166 Downloads
The current study examines the effect of men’s romantic relationship status on self-reported offending and examines the quality of romantic relationships, monitoring, and antisocial influence on self-reported offending.
Data from the 72-month and 84-month follow-ups of the Pathways to Desistance study were analyzed to examine the effect of romantic relationship status on self-reported offending and to examine quality of romantic relationships, monitoring, and antisocial influence on self-reported offending. Negative binomial regression models were used.
The main finding, although marginally significant, was that at higher levels of quality of relationships, self-reported offending was lower. Impulsivity was significantly and positively associated with self-reported offending in both the romantic relationship status and the quality of romantic relationship models. Prior offending was significantly associated with higher levels of self-reported offending in both analyses. Additionally, in the romantic relationship status model, as respondents aged, their self-reported offending was reduced.
Results indicated that the quality of romantic relationships is important, more so than strictly the romantic relationship itself. However, the results suggest that impulsivity, peer delinquency, and prior self-reported offending are also important, at least for this high-risk sample. We discuss limitations and future research directions.
KeywordsRomantic relationships Delinquent behavior Offending
- 3.Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 23.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- 24.Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1997). A symbolic interactionist theory of role-transitions, role-commitments, and delinquency. Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, 163-213.Google Scholar
- 51.Blumstein, A., Farrington, D. P., & Moitra, S. (1985). Delinquency careers: innocents, desisters, and persisters. Crime and Justice, 187-219.Google Scholar
- 53.Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 56.Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar