-
Kristin Turney University of California, Irvine
Hopelessly Devoted? Relationship Quality During
and After Incarceration
A growing literature highlights the multifacetedconsequences of
incarceration for family life, butlittle is known about the quality
of relationshipsbetween couples who remain together duringand after
1 partner’s incarceration. In thisarticle, the author used data
from the FragileFamilies and Child Wellbeing Study (N= 1,848),a
longitudinal cohort of parents, to considerthe association between
paternal incarcerationand 4 measures of relationship quality:
(a)overall relationship quality, (b) supportiveness,(c) emotional
abuse, and (d) physical abuse.The results showed that paternal
incarcerationin the past 2 years was, by and large, asso-ciated
with lower mother-reported (but notfather-reported) relationship
quality. However,across some outcome variables, current pater-nal
incarceration was positively associatedwith relationship quality.
Taken together, thesefindings suggest that current and recent
incar-ceration have countervailing consequences forrelationship
quality and, more generally, that thepenal system exerts a powerful
influence evenamong couples who maintain relationships.
The dramatic rise in incarceration in the UnitedStates, as well
as its consequences for offendersand those connected to them, is by
now wellknown (Sampson, 2011; Wakefield & Uggen,
Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine,3151
Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA
92697–5100([email protected]).
This article was edited by Robert Crosnoe.
Key Words: Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study,incarceration, relationship quality.
2010). The 2.3 million individuals currentlyincarcerated, as
well as the many others releasedannually from prisons and jails,
are not solitaryindividuals but are instead connected to fam-ily
members as romantic partners and parents(Glaze, 2011). Given the
family roles inhab-ited by currently and formerly
incarceratedindividuals, the majority of whom are men,it is
unsurprising that mass incarceration haswide-ranging collateral
consequences for fam-ily life (for reviews, see Wakefield &
Uggen,2010, and Wildeman & Muller, 2012). Perhapsmost
substantially, a relatively large literaturedocuments that
incarceration increases therisk of marital dissolution (Apel,
Blokland,Nieuwbeerta, & van Schellen, 2010; Lopoo &Western,
2005; Massoglia, Remster, & King,2011; Western, 2006; also see
Geller, 2013).
But the focus on marital dissolution leavesa number of answered
questions about the col-lateral consequences of incarceration for
familylife. For one, although many individuals behindbars are in
nonmarital romantic relationships,relatively few of the
incarcerated are in maritalunions (Western, Lopoo, & McLanahan,
2004).Therefore, any examination of incarceration’sconsequences for
marital dissolution is inap-plicable to a large segment of the
incarceratedpopulation, potentially underestimating thefamilial
consequences of incarceration, and itmay be at least equally
informative to examineincarceration’s consequences for
relationshipquality among (marital and nonmarital) roman-tic
partners. On a related note, incarcerationdoes not unequivocally
lead to relationshipdissolution (e.g., Comfort, 2008), and
under-standing the quality of the relationships amongcouples who
remain together may provide broad
480 Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (April 2015):
480–495DOI:10.1111/jomf.12174
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 481
insight into family functioning that has beenoverlooked in
studies of marital dissolution.
It is not immediately obvious whether incar-ceration will be
deleterious, beneficial, orinconsequential for relationship quality
amongcouples who maintain their romantic relation-ships. On the one
hand, there are a numberof challenges associated with maintaining
arelationship during or after incarceration—including lack of
shared time together, the eco-nomic costs of maintaining contact,
and the emo-tional toll experienced by both partners—thatmay strain
romantic relationships (e.g.,Comfort, 2008; Massoglia et al.,
2011). Onthe other hand, qualitative research suggests thatthe time
spent apart during one partner’s incar-ceration allows couples to
find their relationshipstride in ways not possible outside of the
prisonwalls (e.g., Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008).Alternatively,
because the incarcerated are nota random slice of the population
and are insteaddisadvantaged across an array of characteristics,it
is also possible that incarceration has no inde-pendent association
with relationship quality.
In this study, I considered these possibilitieswith data from
the Fragile Families and ChildWellbeing Study (FFCWB; see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/), a longitudinalcohort of
new parents and their children, toprovide the first systematic
quantitative exami-nation of the association between
incarcerationand relationship quality among couples whoremain
together despite incarceration. Under-standing the potentially
complex associationbetween incarceration and relationship qualityis
important given that high-quality roman-tic relationships are
positively associated withhealth (e.g., House, Landis, &
Umberson, 1988),parenting (e.g., Grych & Fincham, 1990),
andrelationship longevity (e.g., Gottman, 1994)among adults and
positively associated withchild well-being (e.g., Crosnoe &
Cavanagh,2010; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Furthermore,research
suggests that parental relationships maybe one mechanism through
which paternal incar-ceration exerts deleterious effects on
children(Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, Schwartz-Soicher,& Mincy,
2012).
Background
Mass Incarceration and Family Stress Theory
Family stress theory suggests that stressfulevents generate
transformations to the family
system (McCubbin, 1979). Family stress, espe-cially nonnormative
stress such as incarceration,may cause families to disintegrate and
dete-riorate (Lavee, McCubbin, & Olson, 1987).Indeed,
incarceration is a stressor for families(Patterson, 2002; Pearlin,
1989). Prior to incar-ceration, men contribute both economic
andsocial resources to family life (Wildeman,Schnittker, &
Turney, 2012). Romantic part-ners who endure incarceration along
with theincarcerated—albeit outside of the prison walls—may
experience stigma (Braman, 2004), eco-nomic hardship
(Schwartz-Soicher, Geller, &Garfinkel, 2011), poor mental
health (Wildemanet al., 2012), and reduced social support
(Turney,Schnittker, & Wildeman, 2012), all of whichmay create
friction and vulnerability in relation-ship stability and quality.
Also, upon release, thestress of reintegration into family life may
yieldfurther deterioration. Given that these marginalmen are
connected to families—before, dur-ing, and after release—a
burgeoning literaturehas documented the collateral and
unintendedconsequences of incarceration for family life(Wildeman
& Muller, 2012).
Consistent with family stress theory, relation-ship dissolution
is one of the most commonlyconsidered familial consequences of
incarcer-ation. There are many reasons to expect whymaintaining a
relationship with a currently orformerly incarcerated romantic
partner is diffi-cult. Incarcerated men are forcefully removedfrom
their households. Contact with incarceratedmen is expensive and
time consuming, whichis to say nothing of the dignity women
losewhile visiting prisons (Comfort, 2008), and thelack of shared
time together may strain rela-tionships (Rindfuss & Stephen,
1990). Indeed,an array of quantitative research studies,
mostlyusing data from the National Longitudinal Studyof Youth 1979,
have found that incarcerationwas associated with an increased risk
of divorce(e.g., Lopoo & Western, 2005; Massoglia et al.,2011;
Western, 2006; for research on disso-lution among married and
cohabiting couples,see Western et al., 2004). But not all
couplesare in marital unions, and not all couples dis-solve their
unions during or after incarceration.Accordingly, considering the
relationship qual-ity of the marital and nonmarital couples
whoremain together might provide a broad under-standing of how
incarceration affects familyfunctioning.
-
482 Journal of Marriage and Family
Deleterious Consequences of Incarcerationfor Relationship
Quality
In accordance with family stress theory, thereare good reasons
to expect that incarcerationis deleterious for relationship
quality. To begin,incarceration’s influence on economic hardshipmay
play a role. It is well known that incar-ceration has damaging
economic consequences(e.g., Western, 2006). Prior to
incarceration,most men are employed, and nearly all incarcer-ated
men—and their households—experienceincome loss during
incarceration. Upon release,the resultant stigma, discrimination,
and loss ofhuman and social capital makes finding employ-ment
difficult, which may place financial strainon family life. Indeed,
family stress theory high-lights how financial strain, through its
facili-tation of strained marital interactions, reducesrelationship
quality (Conger et al., 1990).
In addition, the association between incar-ceration and
relationship quality may operatethrough reduced physical and mental
health ofboth partners. For men who experience con-finement,
regimentation, and identity transfor-mations associated with their
time behind bars(Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005),
incarcera-tion has negative and lasting effects on mentalhealth
(Schnittker, Massoglia, & Uggen, 2012).Incarceration may
socialize men to engage inviolent behaviors (Nurse, 2002).
Furthermore,the women in relationships with incarcerated
andformerly incarcerated men also experience resul-tant distress
associated with their confinement(Lowenstein, 1984; Wildeman et
al., 2012). Themental health challenges do not dissipate upona
man’s release, because reintegration may beespecially anxiety
producing and challenging,especially if the woman suspects he will
go backto prison (Goffman, 2009). Men’s participationin illegal
activities or return to substance abuse,may crush the high
expectations that womenhave during the incarceration period
(Braman,2004). In turn, impaired mental health associ-ated with
imprisonment may reduce relationshipquality (e.g., Booth &
Johnson, 1994).
Additional Possibilities
Although incarceration may be a stressor tothe family system and
have deleterious conse-quences for relationship quality among
coupleswho remain together, it is also possible thatincarceration
is beneficial or inconsequential for
relationship quality. Qualitative research, espe-cially,
provides a nuanced understanding of howthese couples thrive. For
example, some menuse their time behind bars as an occasion
toreflect on their roles as romantic partners andfathers (Edin,
Nelson, & Paranal, 2004). Thisreflection often leads to a
recommitment to fam-ily life and, if men express these feelings
totheir romantic partners, their partners may alsobe hopeful for
the future (Braman, 2004; Roy& Dyson, 2005). In Braman’s (2004)
ethno-graphic account of incarceration and family life,he described
the behavior of a respondent’s part-ner while in prison: “He was
promising to reformhis ways, writing long letters of regret,
talkingabout his religious reform in prison, and suggest-ing that
they get married on his release” (p. 47).In addition, because men
often stop or dramati-cally reduce their drug and alcohol use while
inprison, partners—whose relationships were onceburdened with
substance abuse—remain opti-mistic that these men have turned over
a newleaf and, therefore, remain by their side (Bra-man, 2004; also
see Comfort, 2008). Further-more, the secondary incarceration
experiencedby some women—as they learn to navigate andadapt to the
correctional environment, especiallywhen visiting their
partners—may help women,many of whom share children with these
men,preserve family relationships (Comfort, 2008).Women,
especially, may stay in relationshipsbecause of pressure from
family members togive men another chance or because they areacutely
aware of the shortage of marriageablemen in their communities
(Braman, 2004).
Finally, it is also possible that incarcerationhas no
independent effect on relationship qual-ity. In the United States,
incarceration is notrandomly distributed across the population
butinstead is especially concentrated among dis-advantaged groups.
For example, incarceratedindividuals, compared to their
counterparts, areless likely to be in marital relationships.
Theyalso have lower socioeconomic status, morehealth problems, and
less self-control (e.g.,Wildeman et al., 2012, pp. 237–238). The
samefactors associated with incarceration may alsobe associated
with poor relationship quality,and therefore it is quite plausible
that any effectof incarceration on relationship quality—or onfamily
life, more broadly—results not fromincarceration but from
characteristics associatedwith selection into incarceration.
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 483
Additional Characteristics Associated WithIncarceration and
Relationship Quality
One way to account for nonrandom selectioninto incarceration is
to adjust for a host of char-acteristics that may render spurious
the asso-ciation between incarceration and relationshipquality.
Therefore, the analyses adjusted for ahost of demographic,
relationship, economic,and health characteristics that were
associatedwith both incarceration and relationship qual-ity.
Demographic characteristics included race,immigrant status, age,
and childhood familystructure, given that previous research
showsall were associated with incarceration and rela-tionship
quality (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach,2000; Brown & Booth,
1996; Glenn, 1990;Wakefield & Uggen, 2010; Webster,
Orbuch,& House, 1995). The analyses also controlledfor an array
of pre-incarceration relationshipcharacteristics, such as
relationship type (Brown& Booth, 1996), duration (Brown &
Booth,1996), joint children (Kurdek, 1989), and atti-tudes about
marriage and gender (Amato &Rogers, 1999; Karney &
Bradbury, 1995; Waller& McLanahan, 2005). Economic
characteristics(Conger et al., 1990; Hardie & Lucas,
2010;Wakefield & Uggen, 2010) and health charac-teristics
(Booth & Johnson, 1994; Wakefield &Uggen, 2010) were
associated with both incar-ceration and relationship quality.
Method
Data Source
I examined the association between paternalincarceration and
relationship quality with datafrom the FFCWB, a longitudinal study
of par-ents born in urban areas between February 1998and September
2000. Mothers and fathers werefirst interviewed when their children
were bornand were reinterviewed when their children
wereapproximately 1, 3, 5, and 9 years old. Formore information
about the study design andresponse rates, see Reichman, Teitler,
Garfinkel,and McLanahan (2001).
The FFCWB data were limited to a sample ofparents and were thus
not a representative sam-ple of adults in romantic relationships,
but theywere ideal to consider the association betweenincarceration
and relationship quality. First,because the data included an
oversample ofunmarried parents, a disproportionately disad-vantaged
group, they comprised a relatively
large number of previously incarceratedmen, some of whom were in
stable romanticrelationships. The data also included
multiplemeasures of relationship quality reported byboth partners.
In addition, although the datawere observational and were therefore
limitedin their ability to provide causal estimates,their
longitudinal nature allowed for variousstrategies to reduce
unobserved heterogeneity,as discussed below. Finally, examining
relation-ship quality among parents, specifically, wasespecially
important because these householdsincluded already vulnerable
children for whompoor relationship quality may be
especiallyconsequential (e.g., Grych & Fincham, 1990).
The two analytic samples, one for mothers’reports of
relationship quality (N = 1,848) andone for fathers’ reports of
relationship quality(N = 1,585), relied on data through the
5-yearsurvey because paternal incarceration was mostprecisely
measured between the 3- and 5-yearsurveys. In constructing both
analytic samples,I first deleted the 1,051 observations (21%)in
which the mother did not participate in the3- or 5-year surveys and
the additional 1,997(41%) observations in which the parents werenot
in a relationship with each other at the5-year survey. I then
deleted an additional twomothers (
-
484 Journal of Marriage and Family
variables—excluding mother’s parenting stress,father’s parenting
stress, and father’s impulsiv-ity, which had about 20% of
observations withmissing data—were missing fewer than 4%
ofobservations. I preserved missing observationswith multiple
imputation.
The data in Table 1 show that the sample wasrelatively
disadvantaged across a wide range ofdemographic characteristics
(though, as notedabove, was less disadvantaged than the fullFFCWB
sample). More than 70% of motherswere racial/ethnic minorities.
More than half ofmothers (55%) did not have education beyondhigh
school. At the 1-year survey, about 43%of couples were married, 39%
were cohabiting,16% were in a nonresidential romantic
rela-tionship, and 3% were not in a relationship.Couples, on
average, had known each other fornearly 6 years prior to the birth
of their child,and nearly half (47%) had additional
childrentogether. More than one quarter (27%) of fathersin the
analytic sample were incarcerated prior tothe 3-year survey.
Measures
Dependent variables. The primary outcomevariables included four
indicators of mothers’
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables Used inAnalyses (N=
1,848)
Variables % or M SD
Mother-reported relationship qualityOverall relationship quality
(range: 1–5) 3.95 0.98Supportiveness (range: 1–3) 2.61
0.40Emotional abuse (range: 1–3) 1.12 0.21Physical abuse (range:
1–3) 1.04 0.15
Father-reported relationship qualityOverall relationship quality
(range: 1–5) 4.15 0.88Supportiveness (range: 1–3) 2.69
0.35Emotional abuse (range: 1–3) 1.16 0.24Physical abuse (range:
1–3) 1.07 0.21
Key independent variablesFather recent incarceration 6.2%Father
current incarceration 2.1%
Control variablesRace/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White 29.1%Non-Hispanic Black 35.1%Hispanic
31.0%Non-Hispanic other race 4.8%
Table 1. Continued
Variables % or M SD
Mother and father mixed-race couple 12.4%Mother immigrant
22.2%Mother age 26.72 6.15Mother lived with both parents at 15
53.7%Mother and father relationship status
Married 43.0%Cohabiting 38.5%Nonresidential romantic 15.7%No
relationship 2.8%
Relationship duration (years) 5.80 4.90Mother and father have
additional children 46.6%Relationship commitment 2.43 0.58Mother
pro-marriage attitudes 2.66 0.42Mother traditional attitudes 2.10
0.65Mother gender distrust 1.96 0.56Mother education
Less than high school 27.6%High school diploma or GED 27.2%More
than high school 45.2%
Mother employment 70.8%Mother income-to-poverty ratio 2.97
2.94Mother depression 12.2%Father depression 7.1%Mother parenting
stress 2.12 0.66Father parenting stress 2.04 0.65Mother fair or
poor health 11.5%Father fair or poor health 8.9%Mother substance
abuse 6.5%Father substance abuse 29.8%Mother reports domestic
violence 2.5%Father impulsivity 1.91 0.64Father prior incarceration
27.0%Mother overall relationship qualitya 3.99 0.99Mother
supportivenessa 2.64 0.37Mother emotional abusea 1.14 0.22Mother
physical abusea 1.04 0.17Father overall relationship qualitya 4.11
0.96Father supportivenessa 2.69 0.34Father emotional abusea 1.19
0.24Father physical abusea 1.09 0.25
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being
Study. The sample was limited to parents in a romanticrelationship
at the 3- and 5-year surveys. Recent paternalincarceration
signifies that the father was incarcerated afterthe 3-year survey
and up to and including the 5-year survey(when relationship quality
was measured). All control vari-ables were measured at the baseline
or 1-year surveys. Ns forfather-reported relationship quality are
smaller (N = 1,585)because fewer fathers than mothers participated
in the 5-yearsurvey.
aLagged.
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 485
and fathers’ relationship quality at the 5-yearsurvey: (a)
overall relationship quality, (b) sup-portiveness, (c) emotional
abuse, and (d) physi-cal abuse. First, overall relationship quality
wasmeasured with an ordinal variable (1= poor to5= excellent).
Second, supportiveness was measured byaveraging the following
items asked of moth-ers and fathers (range: 1= never to 3=
often):(a) [mother/father] is fair and willing to com-promise when
you have a disagreement, (b)[mother/father] expresses affection or
love foryou, (c) [mother/father] encourages or helpsyou to do
things that are important to you, (d)[mother/father] listens when
you need some-one to talk to, and (e) [mother/father]
reallyunderstands your hurts and joys (𝛼s= .76 and.70 for mothers
and fathers at the 5-year survey,respectively). A
principal-components factoranalysis showed that these individual
itemsloaded onto the same factor.
Third, mothers and fathers were each asked11 questions about
abuse in their relationship.Emotional abuse was measured as an
averageof the following seven items (range: 1= neverto 3= often):
(a) [mother/father] insults orcriticizes you or your ideas; (b)
[mother/father]tries to keep you from seeing or talking withyour
friends or family; (c) [mother/father] triesto prevent you from
going to work or school;(d) [mother/father] withholds money,
makesyou ask for money, or takes your money; (e)[mother/father]
tries to make you have sexor do sexual things you don’t want to do;
(f)[mother/father] withholds sex or tries to controlyour behavior;
and (g) [mother/father] insults orcriticizes you for not taking
good enough careof the child or your home (𝛼s= .67 and .69
formothers and fathers).
Physical abuse was measured as an aver-age of the following four
items (1= never to3= often): (a) [mother/father] slaps or kicks
you;(b) [mother/father] hits you with a fist or anobject that could
hurt you; (c) [mother/father]throws something at you; and (d)
[mother/father]pushes, grabs, or shoves you (𝛼s= .65 and .60for
mothers and fathers). The two scales wereinformed by a
principal-components factor anal-ysis. One item ([mother/father]
tries to make youhave sex or do sexual things you don’t wantto do])
loaded onto both the emotional abuseand physical abuse scales. The
factor loadingwas slightly stronger if included in the emo-tional
abuse measure, though results remain
unchanged if I instead included it in the physicalabuse
measure.
On average, parents reported high overallrelationship quality at
the 5-year survey (3.95among mothers and 4.15 among fathers, on
ascale of 1 to 5). Parents also reported high sup-portiveness (2.61
and 2.69, respectively, on ascale of 1 to 3), low emotional abuse
(1.04 and1.16, respectively, on a scale of 1 to 3), and lowphysical
abuse (1.04 and 1.07, respectively, on ascale of 1 to 3).
Independent variables. The two independentvariables included (a)
recent paternal incar-ceration and (b) current paternal
incarceration.Recent paternal incarceration was coded
affir-matively if the father spent time in prison orjail at any
point after the 3-year survey up toand including the 5-year survey.
Consistentwith other research suggesting individuals mayunderreport
incarceration (e.g., Geller et al.,2012), fathers were considered
recently incar-cerated if either parent reported the father
wasincarcerated during this time period. Currentpaternal
incarceration, which is necessary toaccount for the fact that some
measures ofrelationship quality may not apply to fatherscurrently
incarcerated, indicated that the fatherwas in prison or jail at the
5-year survey. Inthe analytic sample, about 6% and 2% offathers
were recently and currently incarcerated,respectively.
Control variables. The multivariate analysesadjusted for an
array of individual-level char-acteristics associated with
incarceration andrelationship quality. It is important to note
thatall variables were measured at the baselineor 1-year surveys
and, therefore, prior to themeasure of recent paternal
incarceration. Demo-graphic control variables included mothers’race
(non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black,Hispanic, non-Hispanic
other race), as wellas dummy variables indicating the mother
andfather were a mixed-race couple, the mother wasforeign born, and
the mother lived with bothparents at age 15. Mothers’ age was
representedby a continuous variable. The analyses alsoadjusted for
an array of relationship charac-teristics, including baseline
relationship status(married, cohabiting, nonresidential romantic,no
relationship), relationship duration, relation-ship commitment (sum
of mothers’ baselinereports of the following: [a] father
provided
-
486 Journal of Marriage and Family
financial support during pregnancy, [b] the childwill have
fathers’ last name, and [c] the fathervisited the mother in the
hospital; see Tach &Edin, 2013), promarriage attitudes (e.g.,
“It isbetter for a couple to get married than to just
livetogether,” ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to4 [strongly
agree]; 𝛼 = .60), traditional attitudes(e.g., “The important
decisions in the familyshould be made by the man of the
house,”ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [stronglyagree]; 𝛼 =
.60), and gender distrust (e.g., “Mencannot be trusted to be
faithful,” ranging from1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly
agree];𝛼 = .64). A dummy variable indicated that theparents shared
additional children besides thefocal child. The analyses also
adjusted for eco-nomic characteristics, including education
(lessthan high school, high school or GED, more thanhigh school);
employment in the past week; andincome-to-poverty ratio. The
analyses adjustedfor health characteristics, including
depression,parenting stress, and fair or poor health. Finally,the
analyses adjusted for characteristics espe-cially associated with
incarceration, includingfathers’ engagement in domestic violence,
sub-stance abuse, impulsivity (e.g., “I will often saywhatever
comes into my head without thinkingfirst,” ranging from 1 [strongly
disagree] to 4[strongly agree]; 𝛼 = .83), and prior incarcera-tion
(any incarceration at or before the 3-yearsurvey).
Analytic Plan
The analytic strategy was straightforward. I firstdocumented
bivariate differences in parents’relationship quality by paternal
incarceration;these data are shown in Table 2. The
multivariateanalyses, presented in Tables 3 and 4, proceededin
three stages. Because the analytic sampleincluded only couples in a
relationship (asrelationship quality was relevant only for
thesecouples), I used a first-stage logistic regressionmodel to
estimate the propensity for being in arelationship at the 5-year
survey as a functionof an array covariates, all measured prior to
the3-year survey. Essentially, this model estimatedeach couples’
probability of being included inthe analysis (see Appendix Table
A1). Second,I saved this propensity score. Third, I usedordinary
least squares (OLS) regression modelsto estimate relationship
quality as a functionof recent paternal incarceration, weighting
theanalyses by the inverse probability of treatment
Table 2. Means of Relationship Quality, by RecentPaternal
Incarceration (N= 1,848)
Recent paternal incarceration
VariableYes
(n= 114)No
(n= 1,734) Cohen’s d
Mother-reportedrelationship qualityOverall relationship
quality3.35 3.99 0.66∗∗∗
Supportiveness 2.50 2.62 0.32∗∗
Emotional abuse 1.20 1.12 −0.38∗∗∗
Physical abuse 1.12 1.03 −0.56∗∗∗
Father-reportedrelationship qualityOverall relationship
quality3.82 4.17 0.40∗∗∗
Supportiveness 2.60 2.70 0.28∗
Emotional abuse 1.26 1.16 −0.45∗∗∗
Physical abuse 1.18 1.07 −0.53∗∗∗
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and ChildWellbeing
Study. Ns for father-reported relationshipquality are smaller (85
fathers experienced recent incar-ceration and 1,500 fathers did not
experience recentincarceration) because fewer fathers than mothers
partici-pated in the 5-year survey. Asterisks represent
statisticallysignificant differences between the two groups. ∗p<
.05.∗∗p< .01. ∗∗∗p< .001 (two-tailed tests).
(with the “treatment” being the probabilityof being in the
analysis). Ordered logisticregression models may be more
appropriate forestimates of overall relationship quality, whichwas
not normally distributed, but supplementalanalyses produced results
that were substan-tively similar to the OLS results. Therefore,
forease of interpretation, I used OLS regressionacross all outcome
variables.
Because there were substantial threats tocausal inference, as
discussed above, these OLSmodels took steps to account for
unobservedheterogeneity between couples who did and didnot
experience paternal incarceration. I adjustedfor a wide array of
covariates—all measuredprior to the measurement of
incarceration—thatmay render the association between incarcera-tion
and relationship quality spurious (includinga lagged dependent
variable). In additionalanalyses, I restricted the sample to those
couplesmost at risk of experiencing paternal incarcera-tion: those
who had previously experiencedpaternal incarceration. In this
model, the
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 487
Table 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models Estimating
Mother-Reported Relationship Quality (N= 1,848)
Overall relationshipquality Supportiveness Emotional abuse
Physical abuse
Variable 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE
Father recent incarceration −0.14 0.18∗∗ −0.15 0.07∗ 0.02 0.04
0.12 0.03†Father current incarceration 0.06 0.32 0.11 0.10∗ −0.05
0.05 −0.12 0.04∗∗Race/ethnicitya
Non-Hispanic Black −0.09 0.09∗ 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.05
0.02Hispanic −0.02 0.09 0.03 0.03 −0.04 0.02 −0.05 0.01Non-Hispanic
other race 0.02 0.17 0.03 0.06 −0.04 0.04 −0.04 0.02
Mother and father mixed-race couple −0.04 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.06
0.04 0.13 0.04†Mother immigrant 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02∗ 0.04
0.02Mother age −0.03 0.01 −0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00Mother
lived with both parents at 15 −0.04 0.08 −0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06
0.02Relationship statusb
Cohabiting −0.07 0.10† −0.03 0.04 0.09 0.02∗ 0.06
0.02Nonresidential romantic −0.05 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 −0.01
0.02No relationship −0.07 0.19 −0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.04
Relationship duration 0.01 0.01 −0.03 0.00 −0.08 0.00∗∗ −0.08
0.00∗Mother and father have more children 0.02 0.08 −0.05 0.03 0.03
0.02 0.03 0.01Relationship commitment 0.07 0.08 −0.03 0.03 −0.03
0.02 −0.05 0.01Mother pro-marriage attitudes −0.05 0.10 −0.02 0.04
0.09 0.02∗ 0.10 0.02∗Mother traditional attitudes 0.04 0.05 0.00
0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.04 0.01Mother gender distrust −0.03 0.07 −0.05
0.02† 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01Mother educationc
High school diploma or GED −0.02 0.09 −0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00
0.02More than high school 0.00 0.10 −0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 −0.09
0.02†
Mother employment 0.00 0.08 −0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01Mother
income-to-poverty ratio −0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08
0.00Mother depression 0.00 0.11 −0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00
0.02Father depression 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02Mother
parenting stress 0.01 0.05 −0.04 0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.03 0.01Father
parenting stress −0.01 0.05 0.06 0.02† −0.02 0.01 −0.03 0.01Mother
fair or poor health −0.12 0.16∗ −0.05 0.04† 0.10 0.04 0.14
0.04†Father fair or poor health −0.01 0.10 −0.10 0.05∗∗ 0.01 0.03
−0.03 0.02Mother substance abuse 0.01 0.12 −0.05 0.05† 0.07 0.03†
0.08 0.03†Father substance abuse −0.03 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02
0.03 0.02Mother reports domestic violence 0.01 0.18 −0.03 0.11 0.12
0.10 0.09 0.06Father impulsivity −0.03 0.05 −0.11 0.02∗∗ 0.03 0.01
0.01 0.01Father prior incarceration −0.04 0.08 −0.02 0.03 0.12
0.02∗∗ 0.11 0.01∗∗Dependent variable (lagged) 0.39 0.04∗∗∗ 0.39
0.04∗∗∗ 0.34 0.05∗∗∗ 0.09 0.06Constant 3.11 1.97 0.26 0.81R2 .30
.27 .49 .17
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Coefficients are standardized; robust standard errorsare
listed as well. All analyses are weighted by the inverse
probability of treatment (i.e., the probability of being in a
relationshipbetween the 3- and 5-year surveys).
aReference category: non-Hispanic White. bReference category:
married. cReference category: less than high schooldiploma.
†p< .10. ∗p< .05. ∗∗p< .01. ∗∗∗p< .001 (two-tailed
tests).
reference group was couples in which thefather had been
previously but not recentlyincarcerated. I do not present these
additionalanalyses because results were nearly identicalto those
presented.
The nonindependence of the couples wasanother threat to
estimating nonbiased results,and, in supplemental analyses, I
implementedseemingly unrelated regressions, which al-lowed for the
estimation of two equations
-
488 Journal of Marriage and Family
Table 4. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models Estimating
Father-Reported Relationship Quality (N= 1,585)
Overallrelationship quality Supportiveness Emotional abuse
Physical abuse
Variable 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE
Father recent incarceration −0.09 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.13
0.04∗
Father current incarceration 0.16 0.21∗∗∗ 0.08 0.14 −0.06 0.07
−0.08 0.06†
Constant 3.91 2.07 0.31 0.17R2 .21 .19 .40 .73
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Coefficients are standardized; robust standard errorsare
listed as well. All analyses are weighted by the inverse
probability of treatment (i.e., the probability of being in a
relationshipbetween the 3- and 5-year surveys).
†p< .10. ∗p< .05. ∗∗∗p< .001 (two-tailed tests).
simultaneously and took into account the cor-relation of errors
across the two equations(Greene, 2002). The results from these
seem-ingly unrelated regression models producedcoefficients and
standard errors that were almostidentical to those from OLS models
and there-fore are not presented here. Because individualswere
clustered in cities, all analyses includedrobust standard
errors.
Results
Bivariate Association Between Incarcerationand Relationship
Quality
Table 2, which presents descriptive statistics forthe four
measures of relationship quality sepa-rately for couples who did
and did not include arecently incarcerated father, showed
substantialvariation by incarceration. Among couples in
arelationship at the 5-year survey, recent paternalincarceration
was associated with lower relation-ship quality among both parents.
For example,mothers in relationships with recently incarcer-ated
men reported an overall relationship qualityof 3.35. This is in
comparison to their counter-parts in relationships with not
recently incarcer-ated men, who reported an overall
relationshipquality of 3.99. Mothers in relationships withrecently
incarcerated fathers also reported lesssupportiveness (2.50
compared to 2.62), moreemotional abuse (1.20 compared to 1.12),
andmore physical abuse (1.12 compared to 1.03).These differences,
all of which were statisticallysignificant, were medium to large in
magnitude(Cohen’s d = .66 for overall relationship qual-ity, .32
for supportiveness, −.38 for emotionalabuse, and −.56 for physical
abuse).
The patterns of fathers’ reports of relationshipquality by
recent paternal incarceration mirroredthe patterns of mothers’
reports. Recently incar-cerated fathers, compared to their
counterparts,reported lower overall relationship quality
(3.82compared to 4.17), less supportiveness (2.60compared to 2.70),
more emotional abuse (1.26compared to 1.16), and more physical
abuse(1.18, compared to 1.07). Again, these differ-ences were
statistically significant and mediumto large in magnitude (Cohen’s
d = .40 for over-all relationship quality, .28 for
supportiveness,−.45 for emotional abuse, and− .53 for
physicalabuse).
Estimating Mothers’ and Fathers’ RelationshipQuality
Given the selectivity of recently incarceratedmen, as described
above, it is possible that theabove associations result not from
incarcerationbut from other individual-level
characteristicsassociated with incarceration and relation-ship
quality. The data in Table 3 consider themultivariate association
between paternal incar-ceration and mothers’ relationship
quality.These models, which adjusted for a wide arrayof covariates,
including a lagged dependentvariable, showed that recent paternal
incarcer-ation was associated with overall relationshipquality (𝛽
=−.14, p< .01) and supportiveness(𝛽 =−.15, p< .05) and was
marginally associ-ated with physical abuse (𝛽 = .12, p< .10).
Butthe statistically significant bivariate associationbetween
recent paternal incarceration and emo-tional abuse, observed in
Table 2, was no longerstatistically significant when I controlled
forfactors that were associated with selection into
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 489
incarceration (though the relationship was in theexpected
direction, 𝛽 = .02, ns).
Table 3 also shows that, for mothers, currentpaternal
incarceration operated differently thanrecent paternal
incarceration. Mothers in rela-tionships with currently
incarcerated fathers,compared to mothers not in relationships
withcurrently incarcerated fathers, reported moresupportiveness (𝛽
= .11, p< .05). In addition,current paternal incarceration was
negativelyassociated with physical abuse (𝛽 =−.12,p< .01),
consistent with expectations, giventhat these couples had few, if
any, opportunitiesto engage in physical abuse. It is important
tonote that the coefficients for recent and currentpaternal
incarceration were statistically differentfrom one another (p= .010
for supportivenessand p= .017 for physical abuse).
In addition, the control variables operatedin the expected
direction and magnitude. Forexample, the estimates for the full
sampleshowed that non-Hispanic Blacks, comparedto non-Hispanic
Whites, reported lower over-all relationship quality (𝛽 =−.09,
p< .05).Cohabiting mothers reported lower relation-ship quality
than married mothers (𝛽 =−.07,p< .10), and mothers’ health (𝛽
=−.12, p< .05)was inversely associated with overall
relation-ship quality. Importantly, for estimates of bothoverall
relationship quality and supportiveness,only one variable was
larger in magnitude thanrecent or current paternal incarceration:
thelagged dependent variable. Prior overall rela-tionship quality
was positively associated withoverall relationship quality at the
5-year survey(𝛽 = .39, p< .001), and prior supportiveness
waspositively associated with supportiveness at the5-year survey (𝛽
= .39, p< .001).
Results estimating father-reported relation-ship quality are
presented in Table 4. Thesemodels show that recently incarcerated
fathers,compared to their not recently incarceratedcounterparts,
reported more physical abuse(𝛽 = .13, p< .05). In these
multivariate anal-yses, however, recent paternal incarcerationwas
not associated with overall relationshipquality (𝛽 =−.09, ns),
supportiveness (𝛽 = .00,ns), or emotional abuse (𝛽 = .05, ns).
Currentincarceration was associated with higher overallrelationship
quality (𝛽 = .16, p< .001) and wasmarginally associated with
less physical abuse(𝛽 =−.08, p< .10). Again, the coefficients
forrecent and current paternal incarceration werestatistically
different from one another (p= .002
for overall relationship quality and p= .026 forphysical abuse).
The covariates, not presentedin the interest of parsimony, also
operated in theexpected direction.
Supplemental analyses
Although the measure of recent paternalincarceration was
appropriate and preciselymeasured, it is limited because it did not
con-sider the possibility that the association betweenincarceration
and relationship quality may varyby incarceration duration or
offense type. Whenfathers experienced recent incarceration,
moth-ers (but not fathers) were asked how long theincarceration
lasted (or, if it was ongoing, itslength until the interview date)
and the reasonfor the incarceration. In supplemental analyses,I
first substituted the measure of recent paternalincarceration with
dummy variables captur-ing incarceration duration: less than 3
months(2.6%), 3 months or longer (2.3%), missing(0.4%), and no
recent incarceration (94.6%). Ithen substituted the measure of
recent paternalincarceration with dummy variables captur-ing
incarceration offense type: violent offense(0.7%), nonviolent
offense (3.4%), missing(1.3%), and no recent incarceration
(94.6%).The results provided virtually no evidencethat duration
differentially affected relationshipquality or that offense type
differentially affectedrelationship quality. There is one
exception:When fathers were incarcerated for less than 3months,
compared to when they were incarcer-ated for 3 months or longer,
mothers reportedmore physical abuse (see Appendix Table A2).Given
the few individuals in each of these cellsas well as the fact that
many of these fathers hadbeen previously incarcerated (and,
therefore, thismeasure does not represent lifetime duration),these
results should be interpreted cautiously.
Discussion
This article extends the growing literature onthe collateral
consequences of incarceration forfamily life by providing the first
quantitativeexamination of the association between incar-ceration
and relationship quality. Data fromthe FFCWB, a longitudinal survey
of parents,documented two main findings that highlightthe
complicated spillover effects of incarcer-ation. First, by and
large, although paternalincarceration in the past 2 years was
mostly
-
490 Journal of Marriage and Family
inconsequential for fathers’ reports of rela-tionship quality,
mothers connected to theserecently incarcerated men reported lower
over-all relationship quality, lower supportiveness,and greater
physical abuse. Second, as currentpaternal incarceration is
positively associatedwith some indicators of relationship quality,
cur-rent paternal incarceration and recent paternalincarceration
were differentially consequentialfor couples.
Family stress theory, often used to describehow economic
circumstances can impair rela-tionship quality, provides some
guidance as towhy recent paternal incarceration is
negativelyassociated with relationship quality among theromantic
partners of the incarcerated. Incar-ceration is a stressor to the
family system and,even when it occurs for only short periods
oftime, is disruptive to family life. Maintaininga romantic
relationship during incarcerationis economically, emotionally, and
logisticallycomplicated, and the challenges associated
withincarceration of a partner—for example, stigma,economic
insecurity, or depression—do notsubside after release and, in some
cases, may bemagnified while the formerly incarcerated tran-sition
back to their pre-incarceration lives. Thesechallenges, along with
the incapacitation andseparation associated with incarceration,
likelymake maintaining high-quality relationshipsduring
reintegration challenging.
Recent paternal incarceration was not uni-formly associated with
all four measures ofmother-reported relationship quality, given
thatits effects on emotional abuse likely result fromselection
processes. It seems reasonable toassume that positive and negative
aspects ofrelationships are inversely correlated and
thatincarceration would be similarly associated withsupportiveness
because it is associated withemotional and physical abuse. But
althoughpositive aspects of relationship quality are con-sidered
less often than negative aspects (White& Rogers, 2000), these
findings are consistentwith other research showing that the
predictorsof positive aspects of relationship quality arenot
necessarily the same as the predictors ofnegative aspects of
relationship quality. Forexample, one examination of the link
betweeneconomic factors and relationship quality foundthat economic
factors predict conflict, but notaffection (Hardie & Lucas,
2010).
Although family stress theory provides aframework for
understanding the association
between paternal incarceration and mothers’reports of
relationship quality, it provides littleguidance as to why recent
paternal incarcerationis, with one exception, not associated
withfathers’ reports of relationship quality. Severalpossibilities
may explain why paternal incar-ceration differentially affects the
incarceratedand their romantic partners. One possibilityis that
incarceration alters men’s personalities(e.g., socializing them to
become violent) and,upon release, romantic partners (but not themen
themselves) have a difficult time adjustingto these altered
personalities. Another relatedpossibility is that fathers, happy to
no longerbe behind prison walls, are simply less likelyto notice
relationship difficulties. Although itis beyond the scope of this
article—and thesedata—to adjudicate between these and
otherpossibilities, doing so is an important direc-tion for future
research. More generally, futureresearch should investigate the
mechanismslinking incarceration to relationship quality.These
include stigma and the resentment thataccompanies stigma (Braman,
2004), fear thata partner will be sent back to prison or
jail(Goffman, 2009), fathers’ identity transforma-tion (Arditti et
al., 2005), the dashed hopesfollowing optimism during incarceration
(Bra-man, 2004; Roy & Dyson, 2005), and the ideathat
incarceration increases the perception “rela-tionships are
inherently exploitative” (Braman,2004, p. 88).
Furthermore, the findings suggest thatalthough recent paternal
incarceration is dele-terious to some measures of mothers’
(overallrelationship quality, supportiveness, physicalabuse) and
fathers’ (physical abuse) relation-ship quality, current paternal
incarceration isbeneficial for some measures of mothers’
(sup-portiveness, physical abuse) and fathers’ (overallrelationship
quality, physical abuse) relation-ship quality. These findings help
reconcilethe differences between quantitative researchsuggesting
that incarceration destroys romanticrelationships by leading to
dissolution (e.g.,Apel et al., 2010; Massoglia et al., 2011;
West-ern, 2006) and qualitative research describingincarceration as
a time when couples becomeoptimistic about and recommitted to their
rela-tionships (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008). Thisethnographic
research often examines couplesduring one partner’s incarceration
and rarelyfollows couples into their postincarcerationlives (though
see Braman, 2004). The fact
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 491
that current and recent paternal incarcera-tion have
countervailing consequences forrelationship quality suggests that
future researchmust continue to rigorously interrogate thetiming of
incarceration’s effects on family life.
Limitations
It is important to note that these analyseshave several
limitations. First, the sample wasrestricted to couples in
relationships at the 3-and 5-year surveys. Importantly, though,
theanalyses accounted for selection into roman-tic relationships,
which is in contrast to mostresearch examining predictors of
relationshipquality. On a related note, I observed these
rela-tionships during a relatively short time windowand, given that
poor relationship quality predictsrelationship dissolution
(Gottman, 1994), theseunions may eventually dissolve.
Furthermore,these analyses are limited by threats to
causalinference. Although it is infeasible to randomlyassign men to
incarceration, and the analysespaid careful attention to causal
processes (e.g.,considering the time ordering of variables,
con-trolling for a wide array of characteristics), theobserved
associations should not be interpretedas causal.
There are additional limitations regardingvariable measurement.
To begin, the incarcera-tion measure did not distinguish between
prisonsand jails despite the fact that these two types
ofcorrectional facilities may differentially affectrelationship
quality. Prison incarceration mayhave more detrimental effects than
jail incarcer-ation, because prisons are often located far
fromromantic partners, and future survey designsshould collect
information about correctionalfacilities. In addition, the alpha
coefficients forseveral of the control variables are low, whichmay
signal that the individual items are notmeasuring the same
construct (though, withthe exception of pro-marriage attitudes,
factoranalysis suggests this is not true). I includedthese
variables in the analyses despite their lowalphas because they are
theoretical predictorsof relationship quality and have been
usedextensively in prior research (e.g., Tach & Edin,2013).
Finally, paternal incarceration was cap-tured by both mothers’ and
fathers’ reports, andboth parents reported on relationship
quality,suggesting that shared methods variance maybias the
results.
Conclusion
Taken together, these results suggest that cyclingthrough the
criminal justice system, which hasbecome increasingly common among
disadvan-taged men in the United States, has
deleteriousconsequences for the quality of relationshipsbetween
parents. Some couples remain inrelationships during and after
incarceration,perhaps because of the anticipation and opti-mism
associated with the incarceration period,but ultimately these
relationships do not thrive(compared to their starting point or
comparedto couples who do not experience paternalincarceration).
These nuanced findings, whichare consistent with other research
documentingthe consequences of incarceration for familylife (e.g.,
Turney & Wildeman, 2013), point toa neglected yet important
piece of the incarcer-ation ledger (Sampson, 2011). It is now
wellknown that researchers need to understand thespillover effects
of incarceration on family lifeto construct an appropriate
incarceration ledger.However, to not underestimate the
consequencesof incarceration for family life, researchers mustalso
consider the quality of relationships amongcouples who remain
together.
Note
This publication was supported by grant number AE00102from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalua-tion (ASPE), which was
awarded by the Substance Abuseand Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).Its contents are solely the responsibility
of the authorand do not necessarily represent the official views
ofASPE or SAMHSA. Funding for the Fragile Familiesand Child
Wellbeing Study was provided by the NationalInstitute of Child
Health and Human Development throughGrants R01HD36916, R01HD39135,
and R01HD40421,as well as a consortium of private foundations (see
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/funders.asp for
thecomplete list). I am grateful to Jessica Hardie and AnitaZuberi
for helpful comments on this manuscript.
References
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Do attitudestoward
divorce affect marital quality? Journal ofFamily Issues, 20, 69–86.
doi:10.1177/019251399020001004
Apel, R., Blokland, A. A. J., Nieuwbeerta, P., &van
Schellen, M. (2010). The impact of imprison-ment on marriage and
divorce: A risk set matchingapproach. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology,26, 269–300. doi:10.1007/s10940-009-9087-5
-
492 Journal of Marriage and Family
Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. S., & Parkman, T. (2005).“It’s
been hard to be a father”: A qualitative explo-ration of
incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3,267–288.
doi:10.3149/fth.0303.267
Booth, A., & Johnson, D. R. (1994). Declining healthand
marital quality. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 56,
218–223.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H.(2000).
Research on the nature and determinants ofmarital satisfaction: A
decade in review. Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
964–980.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x
Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incar-ceration and
family life in urban America. AnnArbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation
versusmarriage: A comparison of relationship quality.Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 668–678.
Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love andfamily in the
shadow of the prison. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Conger,K. J.,
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., . . . Melby,J. N. (1990). Linking
economic hardship to maritalquality and instability. Journal of
Marriage and theFamily, 52, 643–656.
Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Familieswith children
and adolescents: A review, critique,and future agenda. Journal of
Marriage and Fam-ily, 72, 594–611.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00720.x
Edin, K., Nelson, T. J., & Paranal, R. (2004). Father-hood
and incarceration as potential turning pointsin the criminal
careers of unskilled men. In M.Patillo, D. Weiman, & B. Western
(Eds.), Impris-oning America: The social effects of mass
incarcer-ation (pp. 46–75). New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation.
Geller, A. (2013). Paternal incarceration andfather–child
contact in Fragile Families. Journalof Marriage and Family, 75,
1288–1303. doi:10.1111/jomf.12056
Geller, A., Cooper, C. E., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O.,
& Mincy, R. B. (2012). Beyond absen-teeism: Father
incarceration and its effects onchildren’s development. Demography,
49, 49–76.doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0081-9
Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional populations inthe United
States, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.
Glenn, N. (1990). Quantitative research on maritalquality in the
1980s: A critical review. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 52,
818–831.
Goffman, A. (2009). On the run: Wanted men ina Philadelphia
ghetto. American SociologicalReview, 74, 339–357.
doi:10.1177/000312240907400301
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Therelationship
between marital processes and mari-tal outcomes. New York:
Routledge.
Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis (5th ed.).Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflictand
children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextualframework.
Psychological Bulletin, 108,
267–290.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267
Hardie, J. H., & Lucas, A. (2010). Economic factorsand
relationship quality among young couples:Comparing cohabitation and
marriage. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 72,
1141–1154.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00755.x
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988,July 29).
Social relationships and health. Science,241, 540–545.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The lon-gitudinal
course of marital quality and stability:A review of theory,
methods, and research. Psy-chological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Kurdek, L. A. (1989). Relationship quality for newlymarried
husbands and wives: Marital history,stepchildren, and
individual-difference predic-tors. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 51,1053–1064.
Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., & Olson, D. H. (1987).The effect
of stressful life events and transitionson family functioning and
well-being. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 49, 857–873.
Lopoo, L. M., & Western, B. (2005). Incarcerationand the
formation and stability of marital unions.Journal of Marriage and
Family, 67, 721–734.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00165.x
Lowenstein, A. (1984). Coping with stress: The caseof prisoners’
wives. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 46, 699–708.
Massoglia, M., Remster, B., & King, R. D.(2011). Stigma or
separation? Understanding theincarceration–divorce relationship.
Social Forces,90, 133–155. doi:10.1093/sf/90.1.133
McCubbin, H. I. (1979). Integrating coping behaviorin family
stress theory. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 41, 237–244.
Nurse, A. M. (2002). Fatherhood arrested: Parentingfrom within
the juvenile justice system. Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilienceand family
stress theory. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 64, 349–360.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x
Pearlin, L. (1989). The sociological study of stress.Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 30,241–256.
Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., &McLanahan,
S. S. (2001). Fragile Families: Sam-ple and design. Children and
Youth Services
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 493
Review, 23, 303–326. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4
Rindfuss, R. R., & Stephen, E. H. (1990).
Maritalnoncohabitation: Separation does not make theheart grow
fonder. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 52, 259–270.
Roy, K. M., & Dyson, O. L. (2005). Gatekeeping incontext:
Babymama drama and the involvementof incarcerated fathers.
Fathering, 3, 289–310.doi:10.3149/fth.0303.289
Sampson, R. J. (2011). The incarceration ledger:Toward a new era
in assessing societal con-sequences. Criminology & Public
Policy, 10,819–828. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00756.x
Schnittker, J., Massoglia, M., & Uggen, C. (2012).Out and
down: Incarceration and psychiatric dis-orders. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 53,448–464. doi:10.1177/0022146512453928
Schwartz-Soicher, O., Geller, A., & Garfinkel, I.(2011). The
effect of paternal incarceration onmaterial hardship. Social
Service Review, 85,447–473.
Tach, L., & Edin, K. (2013). The compositionaland
institutional sources of union dissolutionfor married and unmarried
parents in the UnitedStates. Demography, 50, 1789–1818.
doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0203-7
Turney, K., Schnittker, J., & Wildeman, C. (2012).Those they
leave behind: Paternal incarcerationand maternal instrumental
support. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 74, 1149–1165.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00998.x
Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Redefiningrelationships:
Explaining the countervailing con-sequences of paternal
incarceration for parenting.American Sociological Review, 78,
949–979.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00998.x
Wakefield, S., & Uggen, C. (2010). Incarcerationand
stratification. Annual Review of Sociology,36, 387–406.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102551
Waller, M. R., & McLanahan, S. S. (2005). “His”and “her”
marriage expectations: Determinantsand consequences. Journal of
Marriage and Fam-ily, 67, 53–67.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00005.x
Webster, P. S., Orbuch, T. L., & House, J. S. (1995).Effects
of childhood family background on adultmarital quality and
perceived stability. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 101,
404–432.
Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality inAmerica. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Western, B., Lopoo, L. M., & McLanahan, S.
(2004).Incarceration and the bonds between parents inFragile
Families. In M. Patillo, D. Weiman, & B.Western (Eds.),
Imprisoning America: The socialeffects of mass incarceration (pp.
21–45). NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
White, L., & Rogers, S. J. (2000). Economic cir-cumstances
and family outcomes: A review ofthe 1990s. Journal of Marriage and
the Family,62, 1035–1051. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01035.x
Wildeman, C., & Muller, C. (2012). Mass impris-onment and
inequality in health and family life.Annual Review of Law and
Social Science, 8,11–30.
doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105459
Wildeman, C., Schnittker, J., & Turney, K. (2012).Despair by
association? The mental health ofmothers with children by recently
incarceratedfathers. American Sociological Review, 77,216–244.
doi:10.1177/0003122411436234
-
494 Journal of Marriage and Family
APPENDIXTable A1. Logistic Regression Model Estimating the
Propensity for Being Included in the Analytic Sample (N= 3,841)
Variable OR SE
Race/ethnicitya
Non-Hispanic Black 0.57 0.11∗∗∗
Hispanic 0.98 0.13Non-Hispanic other race 1.04 0.26
Mother and father mixed-race couple 0.63 0.12∗∗∗
Mother immigrant 2.04 0.14∗∗∗
Mother age 1.02 0.01∗∗
Mother lived with both parents at 15 1.21 0.08∗
Mother and father relationship statusb
Cohabiting 0.24 0.14∗∗∗
Nonresidential romantic 0.14 0.14∗∗∗
No relationship 0.08 0.19∗∗∗
Relationship duration (years) 1.02 0.01∗
Relationship commitment 1.92 0.07∗∗∗
Mother pro-marriage attitudes 1.18 0.11Mother traditional
attitudes 1.10 0.07Mother gender distrust 0.86 0.08†
Mother educationc
High school diploma or GED 0.98 0.10More than high school 1.07
0.11
Mother employment 0.98 0.09Mother income-to-poverty ratio 1.06
0.02∗
Father prior incarceration 0.75 0.09∗∗
Constant −1.13Log likelihood −2,006
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Robust standard errors are listed. OR= odds ratio.aReference
category: non-Hispanic White. bReference category: married.
cReference category: less than high school
diploma.†p< .10. ∗p< .05. ∗∗p< .01. ∗∗∗p< .001
(two-tailed tests).
-
Incarceration and Relationship Quality 495
Table A2. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models Estimating
Mother-Reported Relationship Quality (N= 1,848)
Overallrelationship quality Supportiveness Emotional abuse
Physical abuse
Variable 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE 𝛽 SE
Estimating mother-reported outcomesIncarceration durationa
Less than 3 months −0.13 0.22∗∗ −0.08 0.08∗ 0.06 0.04 0.14
0.04∗∗
3 months or greater −0.05 0.23 −0.10 1.04† −0.01 0.05 0.00
0.04Missing −0.03 0.31 −0.14 0.20∗ −0.11 0.09† −0.05
0.04Statistically different coefficients? No No No Yes
Incarceration offense typea
Violent offense −0.03 0.33 −0.02 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.11
0.11Nonviolent offense −0.14 0.21∗∗ −0.10 0.08∗ 0.03 0.04 0.10
0.03∗
Missing −0.05 0.29 −0.14 0.13∗ −0.03 0.07 0.02 0.05Statistically
different coefficients? No No No No
Estimating father-reported outcomesIncarceration durationa
Incarceration for less than 3 months −0.07 0.19 0.02 0.10 0.02
0.06 0.08 0.05†
Incarceration for 3 months or greater −0.09 0.24 −0.05 0.07 0.07
0.08 0.09 0.05†
Missing 0.07 0.22∗ 0.03 0.10 −0.01 0.06 0.05 0.08Statistically
different coefficients? No No No No
Incarceration offense typea
Violent offense −0.02 0.26 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.07
0.10Nonviolent offense −0.07 0.16 −0.02 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.06
0.04Missing −0.06 0.33 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.06∗
Statistically different coefficients? No No No No
Note: Data are from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Coefficients are standardized; robust standard errorsare
listed as well. Ns for father-reported relationship quality are
smaller (N = 1,585). All analyses are weighted by the
inverseprobability of treatment (i.e., the probability of being in
a relationship between the 3- and 5-year surveys). Rows
indicating“Statistically different coefficients?” refer to
difference in coefficients between less than 3 months and 3 months
or greater (forincarceration duration) and violent offense and
nonviolent offense (for incarceration offense type).
aReference category: no incarceration.†p< .10. ∗p< .05.
∗∗p< .01. ∗∗∗p< .001 (two-tailed tests).