Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Variation in Intact Family Forms on Deviant and Antisocial Behavior

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Family form sets the stage for a host of adolescent behavioral outcomes. We draw on research, theory, and methodology from within Criminology, Demography, and Family Sociology to examines the effect of variation in intact family form on antisocial and deviant behavior. We find higher antisocial and deviant behavior among youth residing in households where one of the parents has a child from a previous relationship and the parents are currently married but were cohabiting at the time of the birth of their eldest child.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akerlof, G. A., Yellen, J. L., & Katz, M. L. (1996). An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 11, 277–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. Z., & White, G. D. (1986). An empirical investigation of interaction and relationship patterns in function and dysfunction nuclear families and stepfamilies. Family Process, 25, 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, R., & Kaukinen, C. (2008). On the relationship between family structure and antisocial behavior: Cohabitation and blended households. Criminology, 46, 35–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aseltine, R. H., Doucet, J., & Schilling, E. A. (2010). Explaining the association between family structure and early intercourse in middle class adolescents. Adolescent & Family Health, 4, 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. H. (1999). Turning points in the development of blended family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2007). Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi's parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1345–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M. (1999). Feminization and juvenilization of poverty: Trends, relative risks, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child wellbeing: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. H. (1999). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, S. E., & Fomby, P. (2012). Family instability, school context, and the academic careers of adolescents. Sociology of Education, 85, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunifon, R., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2002). Who’s in the house? Race differences in cohabitation, single parenthood, and child development. Child Development, 73, 1249–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1984). The effects of remarriage on children: A review of the empirical literature. Family Relations, 33, 389–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, D. K., & Pollack, R. A. (2004). Family structure and children’s educational outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions. Demography, 41, 671–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graefe, D. R., & Lichter, D. T. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: Parental cohabitation, marriage, and single motherhood. Demography, 36, 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao, L., & Xie, G. (2002). The complexity of endogeneity of family structure in explaining children’s misbehavior. Social Science Research, 31, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemovicha, V., Laca, A., & Cranoa, W. D. (2011). Understanding early-onset drug and alcohol outcomes among youth: The role of family structure, social factors, and interpersonal perceptions of use. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16, 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, A. M. (1997). Divorce-related transitions, adolescent development, and the role of the parent-child relationship: A review of the literature. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, F. (2005). Examining American household composition: 1990 and 2000. Census 2000 Special Reports (No. CENSR-24). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1988). Research on stepfamilies. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kierkus, C. A., Johnson, B. R., & Hewitt, J. D. (2010). Cohabiting, family and community stressors, selection, and juvenile delinquency. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnaird, K. L., & Gerrard, K. (1986). Premarital sexual behavior and attitudes toward marriage and divorce among young women as a function of their mothers’ marital status. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 757–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., & Benson, J. (2012). The implications of family context for the transition to adulthood. National Symposium on Family Issues, 2, 87–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C., & Berger, L. (2011). Family structure and adolescent physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being. Social Service Review, 85, 323–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, W. L., & DeMaris, A. (2002). Stepfather-stepchild relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandara, J., Rogers, S. Y., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2011). The effects of family structure on African American Adolescents’ marijuana use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D. (2004). Children and the stability of cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 674–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent wellbeing in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 876–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLanahan, S. (1995). The consequences of nonmarital childbearing for women, children, and society. In Report to congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing (pp. 229–240). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report (No. 95–1257). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.). New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, M. J., Anderson, E. R., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Patterns of courtship for remarriage: Implications for child adjustment and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3), 686–698.

  • Morin, S. M., Milito, C., & Costlow, N. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of discipline within intact families and stepfamilies. Adolescence, 36, 142–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, D. W., Finken, L. L., & McMorris, B. J. (2002a). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, D. W., McMorris, B. J., & Potenza, M. T. (2002b). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, T. M. (2012). The influence of family structure vs. family climate on adolescent well-being. Child And Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(2), 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portrie, T., & Hill, N. (2005). Blended families: A critical review of the current research. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E. (1990). The effect of parental attachments and direct controls on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and delinquency, 27(2), 140-165.

  • Rebellon, C. J. (2002). Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and exploring its mediating mechanism (s). Criminology, 40(1), 103–136.

  • Smock, P. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, HPA 1, College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 162200, Orlando, FL, 32816 – 2200, USA

    Catherine Kaukinen

  2. School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Robert Apel

Authors
  1. Catherine Kaukinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Apel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Kaukinen.

Appendices

Appendix A. Tree Diagram for Youth in Biologically Intact Households

figure a

Note: N = 2261. Weighted N’s are provided, and they are rounded to the first decimal place to minimize rounding error. The decision rule employed to collapse these categories into the five non-overlapping family structure subgroups is illustrated in the right margin.

Appendix B

Table 5 Variable definitions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaukinen, C., Apel, R. The Effect of Variation in Intact Family Forms on Deviant and Antisocial Behavior. Am J Crim Just 42, 350–372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9361-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9361-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation