Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Fam Stud. 2019 Sep 21;29(3):802–816. doi: 10.1007/s10826-019-01561-y

Identifying as a Troublemaker/Partier: The Influence of Parental Incarceration and Emotional Independence

Jessica G Finkeldey 1, Monica A Longmore 2, Peggy C Giordano 2, Wendy D Manning 2
PMCID: PMC7034841  NIHMSID: NIHMS1063073  PMID: 32089631

Abstract

Objectives

Researchers have found that experiencing parental incarceration has long-term consequences for children, such as involvement in crime. However, few studies have examined how parental incarceration influences identity endorsement. Given that self-identities influence behavior, including criminal activity, understanding precursors of self-identities is important. In the current paper, we examined the association between parental incarceration and young adult children’s deviant self-identities. Furthermore, we explored how this association varied by emotional independence, or freedom from the excessive need for parental approval.

Methods

We analyzed data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) (n = 965), a sample of men and women interviewed five times over a period of ten years (2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2011), and publically available official incarceration records.

Results

Parental incarceration was only positively associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier during young adulthood among those with low emotional independence (i.e., for those with the need for parental approval) (p < 0.05). That is, parental incarceration was inconsequential for young adults’ identifying as troublemakers/partiers among those with high levels of emotional independence (i.e., for those with freedom from the need for parental approval).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the development of high emotional independence, or values, beliefs, and identities in contrast to and separate from an incarcerated parent, may attenuate the intergenerational transmission of antisocial identities and behavior.

In the United States, the incarcerated population has increased substantially over the past several decades (Carson and Anderson 2016). Moreover, the number of children whose parent(s) have been incarcerated has increased from 945,600 in 1991 to over 1.7 million in 2007, which was an increase of over 80% (Glaze and Maruschak 2008). Estimates suggest that upwards of 8 million children have experienced parental incarceration (Haskins et al. 2018; Kjellstrand and Eddy 2011; Wakefield and Wildeman 2018). Importantly, the consequences associated with parental incarceration are negative and wide-ranging (Wakefield and Wildeman 2014).

Experiencing the incarceration of a parent is associated with children’s and adolescents’ learning disabilities and developmental delays (Turney 2014), depression (Swisher and Roettger 2012), trauma symptoms (Arditti and Salva 2015; Bocknek et al. 2009), lower grade point averages (Hagan and Foster 2012), and delinquency (Dallaire et al. 2015; Geller et al. 2012). The deleterious consequences of parental incarceration also continue into adulthood (Forster et al. 2019). For example, parental incarceration is associated with young adults’ lower educational attainment (Hagan and Foster 2012), poorer physical/mental health (Lee et al. 2013), as well as involvement in criminal activities and contact with the criminal justice system (Besemer et al. 2011; Murray et al. 2014).

Parental incarceration may also affect individuals’ self-identities. Self-identities encompass the content of and provide organization to the self-concept (e.g., Gecas and Burke 1995; Rosenberg 1981; Stryker and Burke 2000). Identity exploration and, ultimately, committing to an identity are critical aspects of adolescents’ (Rosenberg 1981) and emerging adults’ (Arnett 2000) development. As Murray et al. (2012, p. 284) posited, “social expectations about children with incarcerated parents might cause children to adopt a ‘delinquent identity.’” This is plausible because individuals internalize how they think significant others view or label them (Lemert 1967), which scholars have termed “reflected appraisals” (Matsueda 1992). Indeed, research has long documented that individuals adjust their self-identities to conform to the informal labels and social expectations that others have imposed on them (e.g., Asencio and Burke 2011; Brownfield and Thompson 2008).

In general, parents/guardians are important sources of influence on children’s identities. For example, parents’ own early history of engagement in risk behaviors (e.g., Pratt et al. 2010; Thornberry et al. 2009), exposure to parents’ intimate partner violence (Boduszek et al. 2016), and parents’ childrearing strategies, such as those characterized by low levels of emotional support and the use of corporal punishment (e.g., Boduszek et al. 2016; Schroeder et al. 2010), are associated with the development of deviant identities. To explain these processes, the integrated psychosocial model of criminal social identity emphasized that “dysfunctional family” dynamics, such as inadequate parental supervision and inappropriate parenting styles, are associated with identity crises, which, in turn, weaken conventional bonds to society and lead to greater integration into criminal environments (Boduszek et al. 2016, p. 1025). Identity crises and corresponding low self-esteem may pressure individuals to participate in criminal peer networks that further encourage the formation of deviant identities (Boduszek et al. 2016). Moreover, bonds that connect individuals to society, such as involvement in gainful activity (e.g., being in school or the paid labor force) or a committed intimate relationship (i.e., cohabitation or marriage), hinder the development of deviant identities (e.g., Boduszek et al. 2016; Skardhamar et al. 2015). Additionally, formal labeling (often measured with criminal justice contact) and involvement in criminal activity are known correlates of deviant identities (e.g., Brownfield and Thompson 2008; Matsueda 1992).

Sociodemographic characteristics, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, are also associated with self-identities. Prosocial identities generally increase as adolescents enter into young adulthood, and such identity processes may differ for men and women (Rocque et al. 2016). Further, given that minority, compared with White, individuals are more likely to be stereotyped as dangerous and criminal (Tonry 2011), race/ethnicity likely influences individuals’ self-identities, especially when measured with reflected appraisals. Moreover, socioeconomic status may influence the adoption of deviant identities in that socioeconomic disadvantage may present unique barriers that hinder individuals’ ability to adopt non-criminal roles and identities (Alarid and Vega 2010).

Understanding the precursors of self-identities are particularly important because self-identities are consequential for guiding behavioral choices (Gecas 1982; Heimer and Matsueda 1994; Matsueda 1992). Adhering to deviant identities influence engagement in antisocial behavior (e.g., Crank 2018; Johnson et al. 2016; Rocque et al. 2016). For example, researchers have found that identifying as a troublemaker in adolescence, measured with reflected appraisals, is associated with higher levels of intimate partner violence perpetration in adulthood (Giordano et al. 1999). Reslan et al. (2011) research, using a sample of college students (age 18–21), revealed that identifying as a partier, measured with a scale that included reflected appraisals, partially explained the association between binge drinking and a myriad of consequences, including risky behaviors (e.g., physical altercations and damaging property). Recently, Johnson et al. (2016) found that identifying as a troublemaker and partier, also measured with reflected appraisals, was associated with higher trajectories of antisocial behavior from adolescence to adulthood. Summarizing, deviant identities, such as troublemaker/partier self-identities, are important for understanding involvement in antisocial behavior.

Given the well-documented association between identities and behavior, it is plausible that identity formation plays an important role in the intergenerational transmission of crime. As aforementioned, parental incarceration is associated with the intergenerational transmission of offending and involvement with the criminal justice system (Dallaire et al. 2015; Mears and Siennick 2016; Murray et al. 2014; Wakefield and Wildeman 2014). Yet, criminologists have not specified the mechanisms underlying the influence of parental incarceration (Dallaire et al. 2015; Foster and Hagan 2015). To determine whether deviant identities may be a social-psychological mechanism linking parental incarceration to antisocial behavior, we must first understand the association between parental incarceration and individuals’ self-identities.

Incarcerated parents experience identity transformations in which the identity of an “inmate” represses and interrupts the identity of a “parent” (Arditti et al. 2005; Dyer 2005). By extension, the salience of incarcerated parents’ inmate identities may influence children to develop a deviant identity. For example, Boudin and Zeller-Berkman’s (2010, p. 85) qualitative research found that adolescents use their incarcerated mothers as a point of reference in constructing their own identities. Johnston and Sullivan’s (2016) compilation of adult children’s (ages 18–59) personal experiences with parental incarceration also illustrated the influence that parental incarceration has on self-identities. For example, Jeremy (age 33), whose father was incarcerated for most of his childhood, stated: “From a young age, I was convinced that my purpose in life was to follow in my dad’s footsteps… [my dad’s incarceration] created my image of myself as well” (Johnston and Sullivan 2016, p. 97).

Similarly, Saunders (2018) found that adolescents’ sense of self was “damaged” or “tainted” by having an incarcerated parent, particularly because others expected them to turn out like their incarcerated parent. Children confronted with parental incarceration may therefore develop deviant identities through the stigma and social exclusion that accompanies parental incarceration (Dallaire et al. 2010; Kautz 2017; Phillips and Gates 2011). As Shaw (2016) noted, entire family units can be seen as criminal because others label them as such through their connection to a criminal family member, which Goffman (1963) termed a “courtesy stigma.” Given that individuals who have a connection to someone in the criminal justice system face social exclusion, hostility, and a lack of respect from others, courtesy stigmas may result in limited access to conventional (i.e., non-criminal) identities. Recent research supports this idea. For example, Dallaire et al. (2010) found that teachers had lower performance expectations for children who had an incarcerated parent. Similarly, Wildeman et al. (2017) study revealed that teachers expected children with an incarcerated father to display problem behaviors (e.g., anxious, depressive, and attention-seeking behaviors) more so than children with non-incarcerated parents. The courtesy stigma that children of incarcerated parents face may therefore lead to greater acceptance of deviant identities.

Interestingly, Luther (2016) noted that adult children’s separation (physical and/or emotional) from their incarcerated parent(s) helped them to manage their courtesy stigma and ultimately enabled them to develop prosocial identities. Thus, when considering the factors that are associated with identity formation, it is also important to consider separation-individuation. Separation-individuation is an aspect of adolescent and young adult psychosocial maturation that entails developing a sense of self separate from one’s parents (Blos 1979; Kroger 1985; Mahler et al. 2015; Zupančič and Kavčič 2014). One dimension of individuation is developing emotional independence, which involves freedom from the excessive need for parents’ approval, closeness, togetherness, and emotional support (Hoffman 1984). It is well accepted that developing emotional independence is a normative task of separation-individuation (Blos 1979; Mahler 1967; Steinberg and Silverberg 1986). However, controversy over the distinction between normative and maladaptive emotional independence, termed “the detachment debate,” has emerged (Alonso-Stuyck et al. 2018; Koepke and Denissen 2012; Majorano et al. 2015). The detachment debate has led researchers to distinguish between healthy and maladaptive levels of emotional independence.

High levels of emotional independence may represent radical and unhealthy separation and detachment from parents, which can be characterized by distrust, alienation, and having no desire for parents’ approval (Koepke and Denissen 2012). Scholars have found that high emotional independence is associated with internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Ingoglia et al. 2011; Pace and Zappulla 2010). In contrast, low levels of emotional independence may represent excessive, child-like dependence on parents. Low emotional independence involves dependence on and preoccupation with parents’ approval and attachment, and is associated with worse mental health (Dwairy and Achoui 2010) as well as poor social skills and delinquency (Allen et al. 2002). Conversely, moderate levels of emotional independence represent a healthy balance of independence from and connection to parents (Geuzaine et al. 2000; Lapsley et al. 1989; Zupančič and Kavčič 2014). Moderate levels of emotional independence encompass mutual trust and warmth, and are linked to psychosocial maturity (Koepke and Denissen 2012). Thus, it is generally accepted that young adults must find “a balance between enmeshment with parental identifications and complete disengagement and isolation” (Lapsley et al. 1989, p. 286).

However, researchers outlining the problems associated with high and low emotional independence have typically assumed that adult children have parents who hold conventional values that are accepted by mainstream society (i.e., law-abiding, non-incarcerated parents). Existing research on emotional independence has not considered the consequences of high or low emotional independence among young adults exposed to parental incarceration. Consequently, conclusions about finding a balance between enmeshment and complete disengagement with parents may not be generalizable to children of incarcerated parents.

Children’s separation from an incarcerated parent may result in feelings of uncertainty regarding the incarcerated parent’s love and affection. Such separation may ultimately result in low emotional independence or excessive concern over gaining parental approval (Ainsworth and Ainsworth 1958; Frank et al. 1990; Josselson 1980). Although parents who are involved in the justice system do not necessarily encourage their children to develop deviant identities or engage in crime, children likely interpret their parents’ behavior (i.e., involvement in the justice system) and guidelines/rules (i.e., parents’ disapproval of deviant identities or involvement in crime or the justice system) as contradictory messages (Ebersole et al. 2014). Thus, particularly for adult children who have low emotional independence, exposure to parental incarceration may increase the odds of acquiring a deviant identity, such as troublemaker/partier, in an attempt to gain parents’ love and affection.

Identity formation, however, is a complex, life-long process affected by a range of experiences and filtered through individuals’ unique biographies and proclivities. As individuals mature in young adulthood, those who have experienced parental incarceration may engage in a process of emotional and, eventually, identity distancing that serves a protective function. It is therefore plausible that high emotional independence, or attributing little importance to gaining parents’ approval and developing a sense of self separate from one’s parents, is an important dimension of positive identity formation for those who have experienced parental incarceration (Beyers et al. 2005; Kroger 1985; Majorano et al. 2015; Steinberg and Silverberg 1986).

Indeed, researchers have found that some adolescent and adult children with high emotional independence desire to construct identities distinct from that of incarcerated parents (e.g., Johnston and Sullivan 2016; Saunders 2018). Luther’s (2016) qualitative research with college students (ages 18–39) who experienced parental incarceration during childhood found that the development of high emotional independence fostered prosocial individuation. Julian, exemplifying his detachment from and negative feelings towards his incarcerated father, stated: “I don’t like my dad. I don’t like him at all. … He is what he is, that doesn’t involve me. I just feel sorry for him … so I don’t consider my dad my father or anything. So I pretty much discarded him” (Luther 2016, p. 7). Notably, Giordano (2010) found that adolescents who developed an identity in sharp contrast to that of antisocial parents were more likely to be successful in disrupting the intergenerational transmission of crime. Thus, when youths are presented with adverse childhood experiences, such as parental incarceration (Arditti and Salva 2015), high emotional independence (which encompasses freedom from the need for parents’ approval) may be a particularly important social-psychological dynamic linked to healthier development.

We used data from a sample of young adult men and women, the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) (n = 965), and publically available incarceration records, to address two research questions. First, we investigated the association between parental incarceration and emerging adults’ troublemaker/partier identity. We measured having a history of parental incarceration, including maternal or paternal incarceration, during childhood (i.e., before respondents were 18 years of age) through parent/guardian-reports and official records. Operationalizing identities with reflected appraisals, which indicate how individuals perceive how others see them, is a standard and common approach (e.g., Giordano et al. 2009; Matsueda 1992; Maurer et al. 2001); thus, we measured identifying as a troublemaker/partier during adulthood (i.e., when respondents were 18 years of age or older) with reflected appraisals. We hypothesized that experiencing the incarceration of a parent would be positively associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier. Second, we examined how emotional independence, as measured by the relative importance that young adults attribute to gaining parental approval, influenced the association between parental incarceration and young adults’ endorsement of a troublemaker/partier identity. We hypothesized that parental incarceration would be associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier for young adults with low emotional independence (i.e., for those with the need for parental approval), but not be for those with high emotional independence (i.e., for those with freedom from the need for parental approval). Given the known correlates of self-identities, we included parental factors (parents’ own teen risk behavior, parents’ intimate partner violence, parents’ use of corporal punishment, parental support), individual characteristics (juvenile detention, criminal behavior, drug use, alcohol use, peers’ criminal behavior, peers’ drug use, peers’ alcohol use, self-esteem, gainful activity, and relationship status), and sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, mother’s education) in our analyses.

Method

Participants

We used data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), a sample of men and women interviewed five times over a period of ten years (2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2011). Respondents were between the ages 12–19 at the first interview and ages 22–29 at the fifth interview. The first interview included 1,321 respondents. Of the initial sample of 1,321 respondents, we excluded those who did not have valid data on the focal independent (i.e., parental incarceration) or dependent (i.e., troublemaker/partier) variable, yielding an analytic sample of 965.

Our sample, comprised equally of men (50%) and women (50%), included young adults aged 18 to 28 years (M = 18.67; SD = 1.50). Regarding race and ethnicity, most (67%) were White (21% were Black, 10% were Hispanic, and 2% identified as some other racial/ethnic group). Most (56%) of our sample lived with both biological parents during childhood, although 13% lived with a step parent, 20% lived with a single parent, and 11% lived in a house-hold with some other family structure, such as living with grandparents, foster or adoptive parents, other relatives, or other non-relatives. As for respondents’ mother’s education, which served as our proxy for socioeconomic status, approximately 11% of respondents’ mothers had less than a high school diploma, 32% had a high school diploma, 34% had earned some college credits, and 23% had earned a college degree or higher. Although a regional survey, compared to data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), the TARS sample has similar sociodemographic characteristics to national surveys of emerging adults, ages 23–28, in terms of gender, race, and employment status, for example.

Procedure

The initial stratified, random sample of 1321 adolescents (and their parent/guardian at the first interview) were drawn from enrollment records of all students registered for the seventh, ninth, and eleventh grades in the year 2000 in Lucas County, Ohio. School attendance was not required for inclusion in the sample. The sampling frame, developed by the National Opinion Research Center, was comprised of 62 schools across seven school districts. The majority of the interviews took place in-person (in respondents’ homes); however, an online option was available for the fourth and fifth interviews (in 2006 and 2011, respectively) for those who had moved from the original study area or who were reluctant to participate in the in-person interview.

To supplement the TARS data, we completed online public record searches of the respondents’ parents’ incarceration records (including maternal or paternal incarceration). After identifying and confirming the names of the biological parents, we searched for corresponding public court records for any city of residence listed by parents or core respondents. To confirm the police and court records, we linked the records to the target individuals using their estimated birth year and other information including: middle names, residential addresses, previous names, or family relationships listed in publicly available warrants, affidavits, police reports, and citations. We thoroughly examined official documents and records for any details that indicated a stay in jail or prison. Using respondents’ date of birth and the dates noted in the official records, we determined whether parents experienced incarceration prior to respondents turning 18.

For the analyses, we used in-home interview data, data from the parent/guardian questionnaire, and data from the parental incarceration official records search. Missing data on the majority of covariates was minimal (<2%), although one exception was in the case of respondents’ retrospective reports of witnessing parents’ intimate partner violence (15%). To address this missing data, we use multiple imputation across thirty imputed datasets via the ‘PROC MI’ procedure in SAS 9.4.

Measures

Dependent variable: troublemaker/partier

We measured identifying as a troublemaker/partier using reflected appraisals. Similar to previous studies, respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed that other individuals would describe them as a “troublemaker” and “partier” (e.g., Giordano et al. 1999, 2009; Johnson et al. 2016; Reslan et al. 2011). Responses ranged from (0) “strongly agree” to (4) “strongly disagree.” Following Giordano et al. (2009), we dichotomously coded respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the description (i.e., troublemaker and partier) as having the identity, and other respondents as not having the identity. Respondents’ identity as a troublemaker/partier was measured at the first respective interview when respondents were 18 years of age or older. Given TARS’ design, respondents’ outcomes were measured at different interviews (e.g., if a respondent was 18 at the first interview, their outcome was measured at the first interview, whereas if a respondent turned 18 at the third interview, their outcome was measured at the third interview).

Given that having a single deviant identity (i.e., troublemaker or partier) is not unusual because identity experimentation and exploration are normative during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Boduszek et al. 2016), having the reflected appraisals of a “troublemaker” and “partier” is arguably indicative of a solidified deviant identity. That is, our troublemaker/partier identity variable required respondents to meet more “stringent” criteria to be considered as having a deviant identity (i.e., reporting the reflected appraisal of a troublemaker and partier as opposed to having only one of the reflected appraisals). We contend that the way in which we created this variable is more telling of a deviant identity than coding individuals who only identified with one of these items as having a deviant identity.

Focal independent variable: parental incarceration

Parental incarceration combined parents’ reports and official records of parental incarceration. In the parent interview, parents/guardians responded to a question about changes in their child’s (core respondent) living situation due to a parent going to prison (the gender of the incarcerated parent was not specified). Additionally, we gathered publicly available records for respondents’ biological parents to determine whether official records indicated a stay in jail or prison, and we used these data to enhance the parent-reported measure of parental incarceration. Since the parent-reported measure reflected instances of parental incarceration up until the time of the first TARS interview (when some respondents were as young as 12 years old), the official data offered the advantage of capturing cases of parental incarceration for a longer period of time (up until the child’s age of 18). Moreover, because parental incarceration affects children’s outcomes even when children do not live with the incarcerated parent (Geller et al. 2012), the online public records search enhanced the parents’ reports by providing information on parental incarceration even for respondents who did not necessarily reside with their biological parents. That is, the parent-reported measure of parental incarceration reflected a change in living situation due to parental incarceration, whereas the official measure was more inclusive by identifying instances of parental incarceration for parents who did not live with the child. Thus, the official records search provided a useful supplement to the parent-reported data on parental incarceration. We coded the overall measure of parental incarceration as “1” when the parent report or official records indicated parental incarceration and “0” when the parent report and official records indicated no parental incarceration.

Moderator: emotional independence

Emotional independence encompasses freedom from the excessive need of parents’ approval, closeness, togetherness, and emotional support (Hoffman 1984). In the current paper, we focused on one aspect of emotional independence: freedom from the need for parental approval. To measure this aspect of emotional independence, we used a single item that asked respondents (at the first respective interview where respondents were 18 years of age or older) how important it was to gain their parents’ approval (Hoffman 1984). Responses included (0) “very important,” (1) “pretty important,” (2) “somewhat important,” (3) “not too important,” and (4) “not at all important.” Lower values reflected low emotional independence (i.e., the need for parental approval) and higher values reflected high emotional independence (i.e., freedom from the need for parental approval).

Correlates of self-identities

Parental factors We included measures for parents’ own risk behavior when they were teenagers, parents’ intimate partner violence, corporal punishment, and parental support as indicators of parental factors. With the exception of parents’ intimate partner violence, all were reported by parents/guardians in the parent interview. Parents’ teen risk behavior was measured from parents’/guardians’ retrospective reports of their own risk behavior. We created the measure as a count (ranging from 0–6) of the following yes/no items that reflected parents’/guardians’ behavior as a teenager: (1) were involved in extracurricular activities (reverse coded); (2) were suspended/expelled from school; (3) got pregnant/got someone pregnant; (4) were arrested (5) drank alcohol; and (6) used drugs. Exposure to parents’ intimate partner violence was included using four items from an abbreviated version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al. 1996). Measured from respondents’ retrospective reports at the fifth interview, respondents reported whether they had witnessed either one of their parents (1) “throw something at the other,” (2) “push, shove, or grab the other,” (3) “slap the other in the face or head with an open hand,” or (4) “hit the other” during childhood. We created the parents’ intimate partner violence variable as a dichotomous indicator for whether respondents witnessed their parents’ engaging in any intimate partner violence.

Corporal punishment was measured with two items from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al. 1996) that asked if the parent/guardian had (1) “threatened to physically hurt” or (2) “pushed, grabbed, slapped, or hit” their child in the month preceding the interview; these were combined into a dichotomous variable that indicated whether parents/guardians engaged in corporal punishment.Parental support (Cronbach’s α = 0.71) during childhood was measured with four items that asked parents to what extent they agreed [ranging from (0) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree”] that: (1) they liked to hear everything about their child, (2) it was easy to have a good time with their child, (3) their child was closer to them than other kids were to their parents, and (4) they got along well with their child (Hirschi 1969). We averaged these four items to create a single scale of parental support.

Individual characteristics We also accounted for individual characteristics in our analyses, including juvenile detention, self-reported criminal behavior, drug use, and alcohol use, peers’ criminal behavior, drug use, and alcohol use, as well as respondents’ self-esteem, gainful activity, and relationship status. We measured all individual characteristics (with the exception of juvenile detention) at the first interview in which respondents were 18 or older. To control for official labeling by the criminal justice system, we included a measure of juvenile detention. Using a retrospective question at the fourth interview, we created a binary measure that indicated whether respondents had been incarcerated in a juvenile detention center or state facility as a minor.

Criminal behavior (Cronbach’s α was 0.87, 0.82, 0.78, 0.72, and 0.78 at the first through fifth interview, respectively) was the average of a 7-item summation score that asked how often [ranging from engaging in the behavior (0) “never” to (8) “more than once a day”] respondents had: (1) stole/tried to steal something worth less than $5 or (2) more than $50, (3) damaged/destroyed property, (4) carried a weapon, (5) attacked someone to seriously hurt them, (6) sold drugs, and (7) broken/tried to break into a building or vehicle (Elliott and Ageton 1980). We created two separate indicators for respondents’ drug use and alcohol use, which were measured with questions that asked how often respondents used drugs to get high and got drunk, respectively, in the year preceding the interview. Responses for both the drug and alcohol use measures ranged from (0) “never” to (8) “more than once a day.” Peers’ criminal behavior used the same items as respondents’ own criminal behavior (Cronbach’s α levels were 0.81, 0.84, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.80 at each interview, respectively). Likewise, the measures for peers’ drug use and peers’ alcohol use used the same items as respondents’ own drug and alcohol use.

We measured self-esteem (Cronbach’s α levels were 0.71, 0.74, 0.76, 0.77, and 0.76 at each interview, respectively) as a mean scale with six items from Rosenberg’s (1979) scale. Respondents indicated how much they agreed [ranging from (0) “strongly disagree” to (4) “strongly agree”] that they: (1) were able to do things as well as other people, (2) had good qualities, (3) did not have much to be proud of (reverse coded), (4) thought they were no good (reverse coded), (5) felt that they were a person of worth, and (6) took a positive attitude toward their self. A dichotomous measure of gainful activity indicated whether respondents were currently employed full-time or enrolled in school (Alvira-Hammond et al. 2014). We assessed whether respondents were currently single (reference category was cohabiting or married) to reflect relationship status.

Sociodemographic background We included age, gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, and mother’s education as indicators of sociodemographic background. We measured respondents’ age in years at the first interview in which respondents were 18 or older. We measured gender (male) and race [non-Hispanic White (reference category), non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and ‘other’] at the first interview. Family structure, measured in the parent questionnaire, included four dichotomous indicators for whether respondents, while growing up, resided with two biological parents (reference category), a step parent family, a single parent family, or any other family type. Mother’s education, measured in the parent questionnaire, was an indicator of socioeconomic status while growing up, and consisted of dichotomous variables for less than high school (reference category), high school, some college, and college graduate or more.

Data Analyses

We analyzed these data using SAS 9.4. We first examined the descriptive statistics of our sample (Table 1). Using logistic regression analyses, we examined the zero-order relationship between all of our included variables and identifying as a troublemaker/partier (Model 1 in Table 2). We then examined the relationship between parental incarceration and identifying as a troublemaker/partier controlling for sociodemographic background (Model 2). We expected that emotional independence would be especially salient as a moderating influence, and therefore added emotional independence and the interaction term separately from the other measures (Model 3). In the full model (Model 4), we included all the aforementioned parental factors and individual characteristics.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (Means/Proportions) for Young Adult Troublemaker/Partier Identity, Emotional Independence, and all Covariates by Parental Incarceration (Parent Reported or Official Records)

Parental Incarceration
(n = 318)		 No Parental Incarceration
(n = 647)		 Test Statistica,b Total Sample
(n = 965)		 Standard Deviation Range
Dependent Variable
 Troublemaker/Partier Identitya   0.14   0.10     1.85†   0.11 0.31 0–1
Moderator
 Emotional Independencea   1.38   1.13     3.04**   1.21 1.10 0–4
Correlates of Self-Identities
 Sociodemographic Background
  Agea 18.74 18.63     1.12 18.67 1.50 18–28
  Maleb   0.48   0.51   −0.75   0.50 0.50 0–1
  Raceb
   White (Reference)   0.39   0.80 −12.82***   0.67 0.47 0–1
   Black   0.42   0.10   11.52***   0.21 0.41 0–1
   Hispanic   0.17   0.07     5.02***   0.10 0.30 0–1
   Other   0.02   0.02   −0.47   0.02 0.14 0–1
  Family Structureb
   Biological Parents (Reference)   0.27   0.70 −12.54***   0.56 0.50 0–1
   Step Parent   0.18   0.10     3.43***   0.13 0.34 0–1
   Single Parent   0.32   0.15     6.27***   0.20 0.40 0–1
   Other Family   0.23   0.05     8.13***   0.11 0.32 0–1
  Mother’s Educationb
   Less than High School (Reference)   0.21   0.06     7.21***   0.11 0.31 0–1
   High School   0.34   0.31     0.71   0.32 0.47 0–1
   Some College   0.37   0.32     1.43   0.34 0.47 0–1
   College or More   0.08   0.31   −7.64***   0.23 0.42 0–1
Parental Factors
  Parents’ Teen Risk Behaviora   1.74   1.37     3.77***   1.49 1.35 0–6
  Parents’ Intimate Partner Violenceb   0.52   0.22     8.83***   0.32 0.47 0–1
  Corporal Punishmentb   0.19   0.12     2.57*   0.14 0.35 0–1
  Parental Supporta   3.21   3.25     0.82   3.24 0.59 0–4
Individual Characteristics
  Juvenile Detentionb   0.07   0.03     3.07**   0.04 0.20 0–1
  Criminal Behaviora   0.26   0.12     3.94***   0.16 0.44 0–8
  Drug Usea   1.38   1.03     2.12***   1.15 2.28 0–8
  Alcohol Usea   2.26   2.61   −2.40*   2.49 2.15 0–8
  Peers’ Criminal Behaviora   0.76   0.33     5.38***   0.47 0.98 0–8
  Peers’ Drug Usea   2.58   1.91     3.39***   2.14 2.72 0–8
  Peers’ Alcohol Usea   3.52   3.62   −0.69   3.59 2.27 0–8
  Self-Esteema   3.02   3.03   −0.34   3.02 0.58 0–4
  Gainful Activityb   0.67   0.83   −5.53***
   0.77 0.42 0–1
  Singleb   0.82   0.91   −4.21***   0.88 0.32 0–1
Open in a new tab
†

p <0.10

*

p <0.05

**

p <0.01

***

p <0.001

a

Independent sample t-test for continuous variables

b

Independent sample z-test for dichotomous variables

Table 2.

Logistic regression estimates (and Standard Errors) of young adult troublemaker/partier identity on parental incarceration (Parent-Reported or Official Records), emotional independence, and other covariates

Zero-Order Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Predictor Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE
Parental Incarceration   0.39 (0.21)†   0.30 (0.25)   0.79 (0.35)*   0.79 (0.39)*
Emotional Independence   0.02 (0.09)   0.16 (0.13)   0.11 (0.14)
Parental Incarceration × Emotional Independence −0.39 (0.20)* −0.51 (0.22)*
Correlates of Self-Identities
 Sociodemographic Background
  Age −0.11 (0.09) −0.11 (0.09) −0.10 (0.09) −0.10 (0.10)
  Male   0.59 (0.21)**   0.64 (0.22)**   0.62 (0.22)**   0.20 (0.25)
  Race (White)
   Black   0.06 (0.25) −0.11 (0.29) −0.09 (0.29)   0.30 (0.34)
   Hispanic   0.55 (0.30)†   0.51 (0.33)   0.49 (0.33)   0.30 (0.37)
   Other −0.74 (1.03) −0.68 (1.05) −0.74 (1.05) −0.34 (1.06)
  Family Structure (Biological Parents)
   Step Parent   0.53 (0.27)†   0.66 (0.30)*   0.68 (0.31)*   0.28 (0.35)
   Single Parent   0.30 (0.24)   0.47 (0.28)†   0.47 (0.28)†   0.15 (0.31)
   Other Family   0.13 (0.32)   0.42 (0.36)   0.42 (0.36)   0.25 (0.41)
  Mother’s Education (Less than HS)
   High School   0.11 (0.22)   0.80 (0.45)†   0.83 (0.45)†   0.85 (0.51)†
   Some College   0.15 (0.21)   0.83 (0.45)†   0.85 (0.45)†   0.97 (0.51)†
   College or More −0.09 (0.25)   0.84 (0.49)†   0.89 (0.49)†   1.07 (0.56)†
  Parental Factors
   Parents’ Teen Risk Behavior   0.25 (0.07)***   0.20 (0.08)*
   Parents’ Intimate Partner Violence   0.17 (0.24) −0.23 (0.32)
   Corporal Punishment   0.72 (0.25)**   0.59 (0.30)†
   Parental Support −0.42 (0.17)* −0.23 (0.19)
  Individual Characteristics
   Juvenile Detention   1.40 (0.35)***   0.90 (0.44)*
   Criminal Behavior   1.10 (0.17)***   0.45 (0.23)†
   Drug Use   0.21 (0.04)***   0.01 (0.06)
   Alcohol Use   0.30 (0.05)***   0.20 (0.07)**
   Peers’ Criminal Behavior   0.52 (0.08)***   0.27 (0.12)*
   Peers’ Drug Use   0.20 (0.03)***   0.02 (0.06)
   Peers’ Alcohol Use   0.27 (0.05)***   0.07 (0.08)
    Self-Esteem   0.03 (0.18)   0.19 (0.21)
   Gainful Activity   0.11 (0.25)   0.35 (0.30)
   Single   0.34 (0.36)   0.71 (0.45)
Constant −1.55 (1.73) −1.87 (1.74) −4.00 (2.16)†
Open in a new tab
†

p < 0.10

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

n = 965

Results

Table 1 presents the means/proportions for all variables by parental incarceration. Nearly one-third (318/965 = 33%) of young adult respondents experienced parental incarceration (recorded through parents’ self-reports or official records) before the age of 18. Additionally, 11% of all respondents reported identifying as a troublemaker/partier. A marginally higher proportion (p = 0.065) of respondents who experienced parental incarceration (14%), compared with those who did not (10%), identified as a troublemaker/partier during emerging adulthood. On average, the level of emotional independence was higher among those who experienced parental incarceration (1.38 versus 1.13, p < 0.01). That is, those who experienced parental incarceration exhibited higher levels of freedom from the need for parental approval.

As displayed in Table 2, parental incarceration was associated marginally (p = 0.066) with identifying as a troublemaker/partier during emerging adulthood at the zero-order level. That is, children exposed to parental incarceration were marginally more likely identify as a troublemaker/partier as young adults than children who were not exposed to parental incarceration. Regarding sociodemographic background characteristics, men were more likely (p < 0.01) to identify as a troublemaker/partier than women. As for parental factors, parents’ teen risk behavior and parents’ use of corporal punishment were positively associated (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively) with identifying as a troublemaker/partier in emerging adulthood. Regarding individual characteristics, respondents’ contact with the criminal justice system (juvenile detention), criminal behavior, drug use, and alcohol use, as well as peers’ criminal behavior, drug use, and alcohol use, increased the likelihood (p < 0.001) of identifying as a troublemaker/partier. The only variable negatively associated (p < 0.05) with the development of a deviant identity was parental support.

Model 2 displays unstandardized logistic regression estimates of the association between parental incarceration and identifying as a troublemaker/partier controlling for sociodemographic background. With a binary dependent variable, all coefficients can be interpreted as a percent change in the odds of having a troublemaker/partier identity for a unit increase in a respective covariate after computing 100 × [exp (bkxk) − 1]. For instance, Model 2 illustrates that the odds of identifying as a troublemaker/partier were 89% (100 × [exp (0.64) − 1]; p < 0.01) higher among adult men than women. In this model, parental incarceration was not associated with young adults’ troublemaker/partier identity. That is, children exposed to parental incarceration were no more likely to identify as a troublemaker/partier than children who did not experience the incarceration of a parent.

In the next model (Model 3), we added emotional independence and an interaction term between parental incarceration and emotional independence. By including the interaction term, the direct effect of parental incarceration (0.79; p < 0.05) represents the effect for those with low emotional independence–or for those who need parental approval (i.e., who are coded “0” on the emotional independence variable). Specifically, among those with low emotional independence, parental incarceration was associated with 121% (100 × [exp (0.79 + (−0.39 × 0)) − 1]; p < 0.05) higher odds of identifying as a troublemaker/partier. Notably, the interaction term represents the difference in the association between parental incarceration and identifying as a troublemaker/partier for each unit increase in emotional independence. The significant, negative interaction term (−0.39; p < 0.05) suggests that the consequences of parental incarceration on identity diminish as levels of emotional independence increase. That is, among those who had high emotional independence (i.e., freedom from the need for parental approval), parental incarceration was not significantly associated with identifying as a troublemaker/ partier. To aid interpretation, we illustrated this interaction in Fig. 1 by plotting the predicted probabilities of identifying as a troublemaker/partier by parental incarceration at varying levels of emotional independence. This figure exemplifies that, for those who experienced parental incarceration, the predicted probability of identifying as a troublemaker/partier during adulthood is highest for those with low emotional independence (i.e., for those with high need for parental approval) and lowest for those with high emotional independence (i.e., for those with low/no need for parental approval).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Predicted Probability of Young Adult Troublemaker/Partier Identity (with 95% Confidence Intervals) by Parental Incarceration and Emotional Independence (based on Model 3 in Table 2)

In the full model (Model 4), we added parental factors and individual characteristics. The association between parental incarceration and having the reflected appraisal of a troublemaker/partier generally persisted. Again, the negative interaction (−0.51; p< 0.05) indicates that the effect of parental incarceration varies by freedom from the need for parental approval. Each unit increase in emotional independence decreased the influence of parental incarceration on adults’ deviant identity. For those with low emotional independence, parental incarceration was associated with 119% (100 × [exp (0.79 + (−0.51 × 0)) – 1]; p < 0.05) higher odds of identifying as a troublemaker/partier. In contrast, among those with high emotional independence, or freedom from the need for parental approval, parental incarceration was not associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier. Overall, our results indicated that the consequences associated with parental incarceration were present when children needed parental approval (i.e., had low emotional independence) but were not when children had freedom from the need for parental approval (i.e., had high emotional independence).

Discussion

Parental incarceration is associated with a host of problematic outcomes for children, such as mental health issues (Swisher and Roettger 2012) and poor educational performance (Hagan and Foster 2012); such consequences extend into adulthood (e.g., Hagan and Foster 2012; Lee et al. 2013). Researchers have also found that parental incarceration is associated with the intergenerational transmission of crime. That is, experiencing the incarceration of a parent is associated with engaging in delinquency and crime, as well as contact with the criminal justice system, throughout the life course (Besemer et al. 2011; Geller et al. 2012; Mears and Siennick 2016; Murray et al. 2014; Wakefield and Wildeman 2014). Yet, the mechanisms underlying the association between parental incarceration and offending is largely unknown (Dallaire et al. 2015; Foster and Hagan 2015). Given that deviant identities influence engagement in antisocial behavior (e.g., Crank 2018; Johnson et al. 2016; Rocque et al. 2016), identity formation may be an important factor in the intergenerational transmission of crime, particularly for children exposed to parental incarceration. To begin investigating this possibility, we examined the ways in which parental incarceration influenced young adults’ troublemaker/partier identity, and examined whether the influence of parental incarceration varied by the level of young adults’ emotional independence (operationalized with the freedom from the need for parental approval). Our results were generally consistent with the limited qualitative research on parental incarceration and identity processes (e.g., Boudin and Zeller-Berkman 2010; Giordano 2010; Johnston and Sullivan 2016; Luther 2016; Saunders 2018).

Using a sample of men and women from the TARS, we found that experiencing parental incarceration as a child was significantly associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier, albeit only when taking into account the moderating effects of emotional independence. Specifically, we found that high emotional independence, or not needing parental approval, acted as a protective factor in the relationship between parental incarceration and having a deviant reflected appraisal. As hypothesized, parental incarceration was positively associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier for young adults with low emotional independence (i.e., for those who needed parental approval), but not among those with high emotional independence (i.e., for those who had freedom from the need for parental approval).

To understand the association between parental incarceration and identifying as a troublemaker/partier among those with low emotional independence, we drew on the notion of courtesy stigmas (Goffman 1963) and previous research that has found that children of incarcerated parents are labeled negatively through their connection to an incarcerated parent (e.g., Dallaire et al. 2010; Kautz 2017; Luther 2016; Phillips and Gates 2011; Saunders 2018; Wildeman et al. 2017). That is, when children experience parental incarceration, we presume that social exclusion limits children’s ability to access law-abiding roles and identities in familial, peer, educational, and career contexts. Given the unsettling nature of separation-individuation for those with low emotional independence (Allen et al. 2002), it is not surprising that those with low emotional independence rely on parental approval and do not necessarily develop an individualized sense of self when faced with limited access to conventional roles (Mahler et al. 2015; Steinberg and Silverberg 1986). In other words, it is understandable that adult children with low emotional independence who experienced parental incarceration develop deviant identities, plausibly due to rejection from non-criminal identities and roles, which further promotes excessive concern over maintaining a connection with their incarcerated parent(s).

To understand why parental incarceration was not associated with identifying as a troublemaker/partier among those with high emotional independence, we turned to qualitative research that has found that some children engage in a process of emotional and identity disengagement that facilitates the development of values, beliefs, and identities distinct from that of a parent who has been incarcerated (e.g., Giordano 2010; Luther 2016). Although some studies have found that high emotional independence is associated with internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Ingoglia et al. 2011; Pace and Zappulla 2010), in instances when children are exposed to adverse family experiences, such as parental incarceration, we surmise that high emotional independence may be a protective factor for children’s outcomes across the life course. In an effort to ultimately implement evidence-based programs that combat the consequences associated with parental incarceration, future research should proceed by examining what factors encourage high emotional independence among children exposed to parental incarceration.

The larger implications of this research are pertinent to understanding the mechanisms of the influence of parental incarceration on children’s outcomes across the life course. Specifically, because identities influence behavior (e.g., Gecas 1982; Matsueda 1992), it is conceivable that identity processes may be a key mediating mechanism in the association between parental incarceration and adolescent and adult children’s behavioral outcomes. Importantly, our study provides preliminary evidence for intergenerational dis-continuities in deviant identities for young adults with high emotional independence (or freedom from the need for parental approval). Although beyond the scope of the current paper, future research should consider whether such identity processes are linked to intergenerational continuities or discontinuities in crime, as those who experience parental incarceration may exhibit discontinuities in crime if they emotionally detach from and do not identify with their incarcerated parent(s).

Limitations

Our study has some limitations that future research could address. For one, although we supplemented the parent-reported incarceration measure by searching for official records for respondents’ parents, the official records data were imperfect. Some parents could have been incarcerated in locations outside of the search radius. Additionally, when parent names were not reported, it was impossible to determine whether respondents experienced parental incarceration. Furthermore, the official records of parental incarceration only provided us with data on whether or not respondents had a parent incarcerated between the ages of 0 and 18 and did not consistently indicate the length of incarceration. Future research should therefore test the robustness of these results also using measures of official parental incarceration records and should strive to further tease out the effects of parental incarceration on identity development by examining the duration and frequency of incarceration (e.g., Swisher and Shaw-Smith 2015).

Moreover, although we were able to distinguish between maternal and paternal incarceration with the official incarceration records data, the parent-reported measure of parental incarceration did not specify whether respondents experienced maternal or paternal incarceration. Unfortunately, relying only on the official records to examine maternal and paternal incarceration separately would have resulted in the exclusion of respondents with incomplete official records data for one or both parents. That is, to examine maternal and paternal incarceration separately, even if one indicator (i.e., the parent-reported measure or official records of maternal or paternal incarceration) suggested that respondents experienced some form of parental incarceration, cases in which we were unable to confirm whether they experienced only maternal, only paternal, or both maternal and paternal incarceration would have to be excluded. Given that researchers have found that the consequences of parental incarceration vary by the gender of the incarcerated parent (e.g., Hahl et al. 2016; Wildeman and Turney 2014), future research on the association between parental incarceration and identity development should examine maternal and paternal incarceration separately.

The parental factors included in the current study were also limited. For example, retrospective reports of parents’ risk behavior as a teenager, albeit useful, were not available for both biological parents. Additionally, although we accounted for some parenting domains, it would be worth-while to examine other parenting strategies known to influence identity development, such as autonomy-supportive parenting (e.g., Kaniušonytė and Žukauskienė 2018). Moreover, some scholars have posited that the consequences of parental incarceration are not fully attributable to the incarceration itself, but instead to other familial characteristics associated with incarceration, such as disadvantage, substance use/abuse, offending, or mental health issues (e.g., Giordano and Copp 2015; Murray et al. 2014). Future studies could therefore delve deeper into other familial characteristics that may explain the association between parental incarceration and deviant identity development.

Further, although the results in the present study suggested that high emotional independence was a protective factor for those exposed to parental incarceration, the indicator of emotional independence was admittedly limited. Whereas Hoffman’s (1984) scale of emotional independence included 17 items that measured freedom from the excessive need of parents’ approval, closeness, togetherness, and emotional support, we were only able to assess one aspect of emotional independence: young adults’ freedom from the need for parental approval. Additionally, it was impossible to tell whether respondents answered the question regarding their parents’ approval with their incarcerated parent in mind or not, as this measure referenced respondents’ parents as a unit. Moreover, it is plausible that the importance of gaining parental approval is not an accurate representation of how young adult children subjectively define emotional independence or having an identity in contrast to a parent. It is also plausible that emerging adults use terms other than “troublemaker” and “partier” to describe deviant identities. Further, given the multifaceted and dynamic nature of self-identities, it would be valuable for scholars to investigate the influence of parental incarceration on more comprehensive measures of deviant identities over the life course while accounting for other self-identities (Erikson 1968; Rocque et al. 2016; Stryker 1968). Future research should therefore aim to utilize other indicators of emotional independence and identity to test the robustness of our results.

Given that minority children are more likely to experience parental incarceration than white children (Turney 2017), parental incarceration may be less stigmatizing, and, in turn, less consequential for the development of a troublemaker/partier reflected appraisal among minority children (Phillips and Gates 2011). Some research has also found that sons and daughters experience different repercussions of parental incarceration (e.g., Burgess-Proctor et al. 2016; Swisher and Shaw-Smith 2015) and some scholars have suggested that identity development differs for men and women (Rocque et al. 2016). Exploring the role of race/ethnicity and gender in the association between parental incarceration and identity is yet another avenue for future research. Overall, there is still much to be considered in the association between parental incarceration and adult children’s identity.

In conclusion, using TARS data, this study provided evidence that parental incarceration was only associated with a troublemaker/partier identity during emerging adulthood among those with low emotional independence (i.e., who needed parental approval). That is, parental incarceration was not associated with a troublemaker/partier identity among those with high emotional independence (i.e., who had freedom from the need for approval). Importantly, these findings suggest that encouraging and facilitating high emotional independence among those exposed to parental incarceration, or the development of freedom from the excessive need for parents’ approval, closeness, togetherness, and emotional support, may combat the commonly observed intergenerational transmission of antisocial identities and behavior.

Acknowledgements

This research received support from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD036223 and HD044206), the Department of Health and Human Services (5APRPA006009), the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice (Award Nos. 2009-IJ-CX-0503 and 2010-MU-MU-0031), and in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Justice or National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Data Availability

Data are available at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval The Institutional Review Board at Bowling Green State University provided the requisite ethics approvals for the Toledo Adolescent and Relationships Study.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the Toledo Adolescent and Relationships Study.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ainsworth M, & Ainsworth L (1958). Measuring security and personal adjustment. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alarid LF, & Vega OL (2010). Identity construction, self perceptions, and criminal behavior of incarcerated women. Deviant Behavior, 31(8), 704–728. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen JP, Marsh P, McFarland C, McElhaney KB, Land DJ, Jodl KM, & Peck S (2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 56–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alonso-Stuyck P, Zacarés JJ, & Ferreres A (2018). Emotional separation, autonomy in decision-making, and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence: a proposed typology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(2), 1373–1383. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alvira-Hammond M, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Giordano PC (2014). Gainful activity and intimate partner aggression in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2(2), 116–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arditti JA, & Savla J (2015). Parental incarceration and child trauma symptoms in single caregiver homes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(3), 551–561. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arditti JA, Smock SA, & Parkman TS (2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: a qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(3), 267–288. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Asencio EK, & Burke PJ (2011). Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A synthesis of labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological Perspectives, 54(2), 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  10. Besemer S, Van der Geest V, Murray J, Bijleveld CC, & Farrington DP (2011). The relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 413–437. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beyers W, Goossens L, Van Calster B, & Duriez B (2005). An alternative substantive factor structure for the emotional autonomy scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21 (3), 147–155. [Google Scholar]
  12. Blos P (1979). The adolescent passage: Developmental issues. New York, NY: International Universities Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bocknek EL, Sanderson J, & Britner PA (2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(3), 323–333. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boduszek D, Dhingra K, & Debowska A (2016). The integrated psychosocial model of criminal social identity (IPM-CSI). Deviant Behavior, 37(9), 1023–1031. [Google Scholar]
  15. Boudin K, & Zeller-Berkman S (2010). Children of promise In Harris YR, Graham JA & Carpenter G. J. Oliver (Eds), Children of incarcerated parents: Theoretical, developmental, and clinical issues (pp. 73–101). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brownfield D, & Thompson K (2008). Correlates of delinquent identity: testing interactionist, labeling, and control theory. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 3(1), 44–53. [Google Scholar]
  17. Burgess-Proctor A, Huebner BM, & Durso JM (2016). Comparing the effects of maternal and paternal incarceration on adult daughters’ and sons’ criminal justice system involvement: a gendered pathways analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43 (8), 1034–1055. [Google Scholar]
  18. Carson EA, & Anderson E (2016). Prisoners in 2015 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  19. Crank BR (2018). Accepting deviant identities: the impact of self-labeling on intentions to desist from crime. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), 155–172. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dallaire DH, Ciccone A, & Wilson LC (2010). Teachers’ experiences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 281–290. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dallaire DH, Zeman JL, & Thrash TM (2015). Children’s experiences of maternal incarceration-specific risks: predictions to psychological maladaptation. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 109–122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dwairy M, & Achoui M (2010). Adolescents-family connectedness: a first cross-cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19 (1), 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dyer WJ (2005). Prison, fathers, and identity: a theory of how incarceration affects men’s paternal identity. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 3 (3), 201–219. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ebersole DS, Miller-Day M, & Raup-Krieger J (2014). Do actions speak louder than words? Adolescent interpretations of parental substance use. Journal of Family Communication, 14(4), 328–351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Elliott DS, & Ageton SS (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45(1), 95–110. [Google Scholar]
  26. Erikson EH (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. 7th en New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. [Google Scholar]
  27. Forster M, Davis L, Shlafer R, & Unger JB (2019). Household incarceration and salient emerging adult role transitions: findings from an urban sample of Hispanic youth. Emerging Adulthood, 7 (1), 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Foster H, & Hagan J (2015). Punishment regimes and the multilevel effects of parental incarceration: intergenerational, intersectional, and interinstitutional models of social inequality and systemic exclusion. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 135–158. [Google Scholar]
  29. Frank SJ, Pirsch LA, & Wright VC (1990). Late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with their parents: relationships among deidealization, autonomy, relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(6), 571–588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gecas V (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gecas V, & Burke PJ (1995). Self and identity In Cook KS, Fine GA & House JS (Eds), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41–67). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  32. Geller A, Cooper CE, Garfinkel I, Schwartz-Soicher O, & Mincy RB (2012). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child development. Demography, 49(1), 49–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Geuzaine C, Debry M, & Liesens V (2000). Separation from parents in late adolescence: the same for boys and girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(1), 79–91. [Google Scholar]
  34. Giordano PC (2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of the children of highly delinquent girls and boys. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Giordano PC, & Copp JE (2015). “Packages” of risk: Implications for determining the effect of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 157–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Giordano PC, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Northcutt MJ (2009). Adolescent identities and sexual behavior: An examination of Anderson’s player hypothesis. Social Forces, 87(4), 1813–1843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Giordano PC, Millhollin TJ, Cernkovich SA, Pugh MD, & Rudolph JL (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women’s involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37(1), 17–40. [Google Scholar]
  38. Glaze LE, & Maruschak LM (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  39. Goffman E (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hagan J, & Foster H (2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 259–286. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hahl JM, Alarid LF, Harris RJ, & Firestone JM (2016). Comparing criminal outcomes for children of fathers and mothers who are incarcerated: Dallaire revisited. Corrections, 1(3), 177–195. [Google Scholar]
  42. Haskins AR, Amorim M, & Mingo M (2018). Parental incarceration and child outcomes: those at risk, evidence of impacts, methodological insights, and areas of future work. Sociology Compass, 12(3), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. Heimer K, & Matsueda RL (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: a theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 59(3), 365–390. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hirschi T (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hoffman JA (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(2), 170–178. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ingoglia S, Lo Coco A, Liga F, & Grazia Lo Cricchio M (2011). Emotional separation and detachment as two distinct dimensions of parent-adolescent relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 271–281. [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2016). Parents, identities, and trajectories of antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(4), 442–465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Johnston D & Sullivan M (Eds) (2016). Parental incarceration: Personal accounts and developmental impact. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  49. Josselson RL (1980). Ego development in adolescence In Adelson J (Ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (pp. 188–210). New York, NY: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kaniušonytė G, & Žukauskienė R (2018). Relationships with parents, identity styles, and positive youth development during the transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 6(1), 42–52. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kautz SV (2017). Adolescent adaptation to parental incarceration. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 34(6), 557–572. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kjellstrand JM, & Eddy JM (2011). Parental incarceration during childhood, family context, and youth problem behavior across adolescence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(1), 18–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Koepke S, & Denissen JJA (2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood–A conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32(1), 67–88. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kroger J (1985). Separation-individuation and ego identity status in New Zealand university students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14(2), 133–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lapsley DK, Rice KG, & Shadid GE (1989). Psychological separation and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(3), 286–294. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee RD, Fang X, & Luo F (2013). The impact of parental incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics, 131(4), 1188–1195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lemert EM (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  58. Luther K (2016). Stigma management among children of incarcerated parents. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1264–1275. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mahler MS (1967). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15(4), 740–763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Mahler MS, Pine F, & Bergman A (2015). The psychological birth of the human infant symbiosis and individuation. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  61. Majorano M, Musetti A, Brondino M, & Corsano P (2015). Loneliness, emotional autonomy and motivation for solitary behavior during adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3436–3447. [Google Scholar]
  62. Matsueda RL (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577–1611. [Google Scholar]
  63. Maurer TW, Pleck JH, & Rane TR (2001). Parental identity and reflected‐appraisals: measurement and gender dynamics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 309–321. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mears DP, & Siennick SE (2016). Young adult outcomes and the life-course penalties of parental incarceration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(1), 3–35. [Google Scholar]
  65. Murray J, Bijleveld CC, Farrington DP, & Loeber R (2014). Effects of parental incarceration on children: Cross-national comparative studies. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  66. Murray J, Loeber R, & Pardini D (2012). Parental involvement in the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft, marijuana use. depression, and poor academic performance. Criminology, 50(1), 255–302. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pace U, & Zappulla C (2010). Relations between suicidal ideation, depression, and emotional autonomy from parents in adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(6), 747–756. [Google Scholar]
  68. Phillips SD, & Gates T (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding the stigmatization of children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 286–294. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Sellers CS, Winfree LT Jr., Madensen TD, Daigle LE, Fearn NE, & Gau JM (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: a meta‐analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765–802. [Google Scholar]
  70. Reslan S, Saules KK, & Serras A (2011). “Partier” self-concept mediates the relationship between college student binge drinking and related adverse consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 36(8), 855–860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Rocque M, Posick C, & Paternoster R (2016). Identities through time: an exploration of identity change as a cause of desistance. Justice Quarterly, 33(1), 45–72. [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosenberg M (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rosenberg M (1981). The self-concept: Social product and social force In Rosenberg M & Turner RH (Eds), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 593–624). New York, NY: Basic Books Inc. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saunders V (2018). What does your dad do for a living? Children of prisoners and their experiences of stigma. Children and Youth Services Review, 90, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  75. Schroeder RD, Giordano PC, & Cernkovich SA (2010). Adult child-parent bonds and life course criminality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 562–571. [Google Scholar]
  76. Shaw M (2016). The racial implications of the effects of parental incarceration on intergenerational mobility. Sociology Compass, 10(12), 1102–1109. [Google Scholar]
  77. Skardhamar T, Savolainen J, Aase KN, & Lyngstad TH (2015). Does marriage reduce crime? Crime and Justice, 44(1), 385–446. [Google Scholar]
  78. Steinberg L, & Silverberg SB (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841–851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17 (3), 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  80. Stryker S (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30(4), 558–564. [Google Scholar]
  81. Stryker S, & Burke PJ (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297. [Google Scholar]
  82. Swisher RR, & Roettger ME (2012). Father’s incarceration and youth delinquency and depression: examining differences by race and ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(4), 597–603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Swisher RR, & Shaw-Smith UR (2015). Paternal incarceration and adolescent well-being: Life course contingencies and other moderators. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(4), 929–959. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Thornberry TP, Freeman‐Gallant A, & Lovegrove PJ (2009). Intergenerational linkages in antisocial behaviour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19(2), 80–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tonry M (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  86. Turney K (2014). Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(3), 302–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Turney K (2017). The unequal consequences of mass incarceration for children. Demography, 54(1), 361–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.
  89. Wakefield S, & Wildeman C (2014). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wakefield S, & Wildeman C (2018). How parental incarceration harms children and what to do about it. National Council on Family Relations, 3(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  91. Wildeman C, Scardamalia K, Walsh EG, O’Brien RL, & Brew B (2017). Paternal incarceration and teachers’ expectations of students. Socius, 3(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wildeman C, & Turney K (2014). Positive, negative, or null? The effects of maternal incarceration on children’s behavioral problems. Demography, 51(3), 1041–1068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Zupančič M, & Kavčič T (2014). Student personality traits predicting individuation in relation to mothers and fathers. Journal of Adolescence, 37(5), 715–726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES