Couple Connectedness in Corrections: Attachment,Childhood Parental Stability,and Dyadic Adjustment in Romantic Relationships With an Incarcerated Partner

Abstract

Attachment styles within dyadic relationships affect multiple levels of the family structure that include: the relationship, the ability to navigate and adjust to change as a couple, as well as the implications it has on children. Utilizing data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering [MFS-IP], Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling was used to address the correlation between dyadic adjustment and attachment between couples, as well as addressing factors of race on this correlation. Results yielded that higher rates of attachment were associated with better dyadic adjustment, especially if one partner had a higher rate of attachment.

Keywords

incarceration romantic relationships couples dyadic adjustment parental stability

Incarceration

The United States (U.S.) incarcerates their people at a higher rate than any other country in the world (Wildeman & Wang, 2017). Over the last 40 years, the U.S. has taken a more criminalized approach to enforcing law and order which began in the 1960s and 1970s with legislation created to enforce punishment on social unrest evoked by protests (Adelman, 2017). With an increase in punitive policies, the U.S. population of incarcerated individuals has increased over 2.5 times between the years of 1980 and 2016, with fluctuations of incarceration rates intermittently (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018). Incarceration rates in the U.S. have risen exponentially, even though crime rates have dropped; creating serious social transformations that affect individuals, families, and communities (Adelman, 2017).

Incarceration Impacts on the Family and Community

Mass incarceration impacts communities at various ecological levels (Bruns, 2020; Clear, 2008; Provenchera & Conway, 2019). The negative effects associated with individuals who are incarcerated, are referred to as “spillover;” that is, all of the consequences of incarceration that affect communities, families, and individuals (Kajeepeta et al., 2020). Oftentimes, social services and resources are depleted when communities experience high rates of incarceration (Bruns, 2020; Clear, 2008; Fleming & Nurius, 2020). Communities with incarceration rates experience disruptions in local economies and housing markets, which may be due in part to recidivism rates that change the population and fiscal contributions of communities (Provenchera & Conway, 2019). These spillover effects of incarceration may provide additional social implications that include disparities in racial and ethnic minorities. African American men are 7.3 more times to be incarcerated, compared to their white counterparts, and thus, African American children experience the incarceration of a parent at a disproportionate rate, compared to Caucasian children (Wildeman, 2009). Given the inequitable rates of incarceration between people of color and white populations, children of African American parents who are incarcerated are more likely to experience adverse effects such as: living in poverty, inconsistent caregivers, parental substance use and mental health issues, and exposure to violence and neglect, partially implicated through financial constraints of single-income households, and negative emotional and antisocial behaviors exhibited by caregivers (Cassidy et al., 2010; Kamptner et al., 2017; Wallace et al., 2020). The intermingling of these adverse effects, such as living in a low socioeconomic area with increased crime rates, and poorer academic outcomes, increases the likelihood of individuals being incarcerated later in life (Kamptner et al., 2017). In fact, individuals are often disproportionately incarcerated if they are at a higher risk of experiencing poverty, mental health concerns, social isolation, and unequitable academic opportunities (Wildeman & Muller, 2012). Thus, only furthering the economic, health, and social issues at the community level, and creating a vicious cycle of instability (Clear, 2008; Fahmy & Wallace, 2019; Wildeman & Wang, 2017).

The children and families of incarcerated individuals also experience various residual consequences. It is currently estimated that about 7% of children in the U.S. have lived with a parent that has been incarcerated (Provenchera & Conway, 2019). When children experience the incarceration of a parent, there is a positive correlation between increased parental incarceration rates and being more likely to develop antisocial behaviors, stress-induced health conditions, poor academic performance, exhibiting internalizing or externalizing behaviors, as well as displaying a decrease in coping abilities (Kamptner et al., 2017; Provenchera & Conway, 2019). Individuals who are incarcerated are often characterized with substance use, antisocial behaviors, lack of social support, lower academic and employment levels, and mental health concerns; which are all societal symptoms that negatively impact the children exposed to these behaviors and lifestyle (Wildeman & Muller, 2012).When there is instability or major transitions within a family (i.e., the incarceration of a parent), both parents and adolescents experience negative effects such as diminished mental health and parenting abilities of parents, and increased social-emotional and behavioral issues for children and adolescents (Cassidy et al., 2010; Kamptner et al., 2017; Turney & Halpern-Meekin, 2020). According to Provenchera and Conway (2019), family members of incarcerated individuals experience similar negative effects as children with incarcerated parents, such as developing physical health, mental health, and health risk behaviors. In fact, when parents display harsh or inconsistent punishment and are minimally involved in their children’s life, there is an increase in developing antisocial behaviors, and possibly future delinquency that creates a cyclical familial pattern of incarceration (Patterson et al., 2017). Lastly, mass incarceration rates negatively affect non-incarcerated partners. These individuals, specifically women, are more likely to develop cardiovascular issues, and increased rates of anxiety and depression, due to stressors related to losing their partner and navigating the criminal justice system (Kajeepeta et al., 2020).

The role of family interaction with incarcerated individuals is critical to keep in mind when looking at the spillover effects. Incarcerated individuals who communicate with their families during imprisonment, often are better able to function post release and experience healthy psychological adjustment (Folk et al., 2019). Additionally, it is important to consider the parent-child relationship and attachment styles of both the child and parent, which plays a role in the child’s development (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2017; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). When children experience the incarceration of a parent, there is a physical divide that diminishes the closeness between parent and child, exasperating the already fragile relationship between the dyadic relationship (Yaros et al., 2018). Children naturally seek protection from their parents, but when separation occurs between the parent and child due to incarceration, their attachment style weakens (Bretherton, 2010; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). Children who either saw their incarcerated parent commit their crime, or saw their parent arrested, were more likely to have an insecure attachment with their caregivers (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2017).

Additionally, if an incarcerated individual feels negatively about the caregiver, children will often pick up on that and develop their own negative perceptions of the caregiver, creating more tension and animosity between the family (Tadros & Ansell, 2022). It should also be noted that caregivers who are unavailable or inconsistent in addressing children’s needs, increase the child’s likelihood of developing insecure attachments (Dalgleish et al., 2015). When parents and children develop an insecure attachment, it can exacerbate adverse caregiver responsiveness, economic hardships, and other stressors, as well as affecting children’s psychopathology (Bretherton, 2010). However, incarceration does not only indicate problems with family functioning. In fact, when parents are incarcerated and display more empathy, responsiveness, and sensitivity to their children, a secure attachment is formed (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2017). Additionally, when coparents are able to agree on parental decisions and work collaboratively, family relationships are strengthened (Tadros & Ansell, 2022). Thus, suggesting the importance of empathy, responsiveness, and cohesion in helping children cope with this adverse experience.

Romantic Relationships While Incarcerated

The spillover effects of incarceration impact families and the community at various levels and magnitudes. However, this spillover effect can also be observed in romantic relationships between an incarcerated and a non-incarcerated partner. For instance, when men are incarcerated, their partners are often left in financial despair (Bruns, 2020; Turney, 2015). According to Burns (2020) men contribute about 50% of their family’s income prior to their incarceration; which, given this loss of income, requires women to take on multiple jobs, utilize public assistance, and rely on private support systems (e.g., friend and family). These financial difficulties often create tension within the romantic relationship (Turney, 2015).

However, financial hardships are not the only issues that arise with these couples; there are emotional and psychological impacts to be considered. It is suggested that men who are incarcerated may choose partners who engage in both antisocial and criminal behaviors, which increases the rates of recidivism (De Claire et al., 2020; Wallace et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014). Whereas when individuals choose a partner with a higher education, economic, and job, partners are less likely to engage in criminal activity (Widdowson et al., 2020). Additionally, institutional barriers can create emotional complications within relationships. The separation between spouses can cause distress, which may increase disagreements between partners, and simultaneously increase their relationship dissatisfaction (Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021). Given the limited quality time between partners when one is incarcerated, emotional interaction is limited and creates disengagement between partners; thus not allowing for adequate time to address relationship issues (De Claire et al., 2020; Einat et al., 2015). Turney (2015) explains that men may develop identity and behavioral changes during their period of incarceration, while women may establish high expectations for their partners upon release. Therefore, this dissonance between partners (behaviors versus expectations) can create conflict and require an adjustment of new dynamics between dyads (Wallace et al., 2020).

It should also be noted that the effects of incarceration vary based on gender and the type of romantic relationship. Research has found that partners who are married are less likely to be incarcerated (Apel, 2016; De Claire et al., 2020; Widdowson et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014). Conversely, men who are incarcerated are less likely to be married, and there is a high risk of relationship or marriage dissolution while incarcerated (Apel, 2016; Turney, 2015). Additionally, Wallace et al. (2020) found that romantic relationships tend to increase the rates of incarceration, post-release, while marriages do not. However, it is important to note that there is still limited research on romantic relationships, compared to the research done on marriages and couples with an incarcerated partner, which makes it unclear of the negative impacts of romantic relationships on incarceration (Wallace et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014).

While it is important to consider the negative impacts of incarceration on couples, there is an abundance of literature that looks at the importance of quality relationships and reducing incarceration and recidivism rates. High quality romantic relationships have shown to promote physical and mental health, promote healthy parenting, and establish long-term relationships (Turney, 2015). According to Wyse et al. (2014), high levels of attachment in romantic relationships reduce criminal activity. When incarcerated individuals and their non-incarcerated partners maintain a supportive, committed, and understanding relationship, the rates of recidivism, feelings of loneliness, and disruptive behaviors while in prison all decrease (De Claire et al., 2020). Research has been conducted on the importance of visitation and connectedness during incarcerated and there is information on how to maintain strong relationships during sentences (De Claire et al., 2020; Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021; Poehlmann, 2005; Tadros & Finney, 2018, 2019; Wallace et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014). However, it is important to address and educate others on how to maintain healthy relationships while partners are incarcerated in order to reduce recidivism within society, as well as promote reform in the correctional system.

Attachment and couples

When looking at couples, there is significance in understanding attachment styles. As described by Bowlby (1973), attachment styles emerge during toddlerhood, and influence the perception of future relationship interactions. Relationships themselves describe the security an individual feels in their partner (or attachment figure; Umemura et al., 2018). Research has indicated that there is a strong connection between attachment relationships, romantic relationships, and partner attributes (Kimmes et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021; Umemura et al., 2018). Early attachments to caregivers can impact how an individual evaluates their partner’s behaviors, which influences the interactions, cognitions, and expectations that develop within the relationship (Kimmes et al., 2015). Research indicates that sensitive maternal responsiveness at an early age can lead to a decrease in attachment avoidance in couples in the future (Tadros & Ansell, 2022). Conversely, insecure attachment between partners is related to poorer relationship quality, as well as higher rates of dissolution of the relationship (Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2022). Therefore, addressing attachment style with couples navigating incarceration can be beneficial in conducting effective therapy with these populations.

Within adult attachment styles, there are generally two types: anxiety and avoidance. Avoidance is defined as the avoidance of intimacy, where anxiety is the fear of abandonment (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2022). For instance, attachments in couples that are described as anxious create concern in one partner that their significant other may not be available or accessible to meet their needs, especially in times of crisis (Koh et al., 2021; Umemura et al., 2018). An anxious attachment style can also cause an individual to become critical or negatively evaluate their partner, as well as misunderstand the emotions their partner is trying to convey (Kimmes et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021). Thus, creating communication and perception conflicts between partners.

Romantic attachments between partners may also affect their self-esteem and thus their relationship satisfaction (Erol & Orth, 2011, 2014). For example, secure romantic attachments have low levels of attachment related to anxiety and avoidance (Erol & Orth, 2011). However, high levels of attachment-related anxiety can be associated with excessive reassurance seeking, while high levels of attachment-related avoidance is linked to limited attention to partner emotional health (Erol & Orth, 2011, 2014; Fraley et al., 2000; Shaver et al., 2005). Understanding the attachment styles of couples is instrumental when looking at how couples interact and are able to connect with one another, resulting in more effective therapeutic work that can carry over to family functioning post-incarceration.

When taking this framework and acknowledging the two types of insecure attachments in adult couples, it can be understood why attachment styles are critical in looking at incarcerated couples. When a partner in a dyad experiences attachment anxiety, there are fears of rejection and abandonment (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2022). Given the physical distance between partners where one is incarcerated, it is understandable how one or both partners may feel abandoned or rejected during incarceration. Separation of partners can create distress, which may also increase their relationship dissatisfaction (Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021). If individuals in the dyad already have an anxious attachment, the reinforcement of physical separation may exemplify those fears during incarceration. Physical distance while incarcerated also limits emotional interaction, which may highlight attachment avoidance (DeClaire et al., 2020; Einat et al., 2015). Attachment avoidance is characterized by avoiding intimacy, but also by self-reliance, and fears that the partner will not be there to meet the other’s expectations (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2022). Given the institutional barriers between dyads, the need for self-reliance increases, which eliminates time and space for intimacy. When conducting research with incarcerated couples, attachment styles are a significant variable to be investigated. Couples who are incarcerated tend to have better outcomes when there is more interaction between the dyads (De Claire et al., 2020; Einat et al., 2015; Turney, 2015; Wallace et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014). Therefore, better outcomes for this population can be reached by examining relational and attachment effects (De Claire et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014).

The Current Study

In this study, the relationship between attachment, dyadic adjustment, and childhood parental stability is observed in dyads that were comprised of incarcerated men and their non-incarcerated female coparenting and romantic partners. To estimate the effects of the independent variable attachment on the dependent variable dyadic adjustment (actor effects), the Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM, Cook & Kenny, 2005) was used (see Figure 1). Analyses were conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation using R-package lavaan (APIM_SEM; Stas et al., 2018). This allowed for more than one equation to be tested and estimated simultaneously, while also accounting for any correlated residual errors (Cook & Kenny, 2005). We sought to discover: Do individuals with better attachment have better dyadic adjustment (higher scores on the DAS)? We hypothesized that better attachment is each associated with better dyadic adjustment for both actors and partners, although we expect the actor effects to be stronger. We also asked: Is having a partner with better attachment associated with better dyadic adjustment (higher scores on the DAS)?We hypothesized that the covariates, childhood parental stability and being white, will be associated with the outcome of dyadic adjustment.

Figure 1.

Actor and partner effects of attachment and DAS for incarcerated males and their female partners.

Methods

Data Source

To conduct this study, data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering [MFS-IP] was used. This source is an evaluation of a grant-funded program by the Office of Family Assistance, a subsect of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The purpose of the MFS-IP is to determine how effective the program is at promoting and sustaining healthy family relationships in families with fathers that are incarcerated. The MFS-IP only collected data from incarcerated men and their female coparenting partners (current or past partners), and were all heterosexual dyads. Recent research articles have been published utilizing this dataset to better understand incarcerated familial dynamics (Comfort et al., 2018; Durante et al., 2022; McKay et al., 2018; Tadros, 2022a; Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Tadros & Durante, 2022; Tadros, Durante, McKay, & Hollie, 2022; Tadros, Durante, McKay, Barbini, & Hollie, 2022; Tadros & Tor, 2022; Tadros & Vlach, 2022). The sample consisted of dyads with incarcerated men and their female partners across five states: Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. All participants had to be 18 years of age or older, speak English, and be physically and mentally capable of participating in the interviewing process. Interviews were conducted between December 2008 and August 2014 using both audio computer-assisted self-interviews, and computer-assisted personal interviews. During the initial interviews, incarcerated fathers were to select a child who was closest to 8 years old to be the “focal child.” These men were also asked to identify a female, coparenting partner for the study who would be willing to be surveyed. This could be a current romantic partner who they share a child with or previous partner. If they had multiple coparenting partners they were allowed to pick one.

The data can be found on the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) site and the usage of this data was exempt by the Governors State University’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

This study’s dependent variable is dyadic adjustment which is made up of questions from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Spainer’s (1976) DAS is a universal self-report scale that measures relationship quality and relationship conflict (Graham et al., 2006; Vajda et al., 2019). The scale has 32 measurable items that are broken down into four subscales: Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional Expression (Vajda et al., 2019). This scale can measure to incarcerated coparenting as a dyadic variable, such as parents’ cooperativeness, behaviors, and feelings (Egeren & Hawkins, 2004), as well as the effect of the parental relationship interactions and behaviors on a child’s well-being. The effect on a child’s well-being can be measured before and after parental incarceration to gage the child and parent’s attachment style; and how that attachment style relates to a child’s internalizing and externalizing problems of their parent’s incarceration. For our study, a condensed, 8-point scale was used that consisted of questions from the Dyadic Satisfaction and Dyadic Cohesion subscales. Each member of the dyad from our sample answered at least five items, with the mean imputed for each missing item. Questions and response categories are shown in Table 1. Potential scores from the scale ranged from 1 to 26, with the highest scores indicating greatest relationship satisfaction and cohesion.

Table 1.

Eight-Item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) for Measuring an Individuals’ Relationship Satisfaction and Cohesion with their Intimate Partner.

1.	Which number best describes your happiness with your relationship now?
2.	How often do you and [name] agree on displays of affection? By displays of affection, I mean holding hands, hugging, kissing, or other kinds of physical affection.
3.	How often have you discussed or considered divorce, separation, or ending your current relationship?
4.	In general, how often do you think that things between you and [name] are going well?
5.	Do you confide in [name]? By confide, I mean share secrets or personal, sensitive information.
6.	Do you ever regret getting into your current relationship?
7.	How often do you and [name] calmly discuss something?
8.	How often do you and [name] work together on something?

Note. For question 1, respondents were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means not at all happy and 10 means perfectly happy. For questions 2 to 8 they were asked to respond to a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is never and 4 is often.

Measures in this study included an independent variable of attachment which consisted of four items rated by participants on how much they agree or disagree with the statements when it comes to close relationships (see Table 2). In terms of the control variables, the first, childhood parental stability, was made up of one question that read, “overall, how stable do you feel your parenting arrangement was during your childhood?” The answer options were very stable, stable, unstable, and very unstable. The second control was race: being white, participants identified their race.

Table 2.

Attachment.

1.	It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.
2.	I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
3.	I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
	I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Note. Scale- Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly disagree.

Analytic Strategy

Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) is an ideal methodology for studying dyads/ two-person familial relationships because it is designed for measuring interdependence within interpersonal relationships (Cook & Kenny, 2005). APIM allows researchers to investigate dyadic phenomena as nested data in which each member exists within an interdependent dyad (Kenny et al., 2006). Using APIM_SEM online software (Stas et al., 2018), analyses were conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation (APIM_SEM; Stas et al., 2018) using the R-package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). This allows for estimating and testing more than one equation at the same time while also accounting for any correlated residual errors (Cook & Kenny, 2005).

Results

The total number of dyads is 866. The number of cases for men on attachment is 859 and on dyadic adjustment 861. For women the number of cases on attachment is 855 and on dyadic adjustment 864. A chi-square test of distinguishability 144.324 (p < .001) confirms that the dyad members are statistically different and distinguishable based on their gender and incarceration status (i.e., incarcerated men and non-incarcerated women). The respective R² for men and women are .033 and .022, meaning when one member of the dyad scores high on dyadic adjustment after controlling for the predictor variables, the other member also tends to have a high score. The intercepts for both genders are statistically significant and represent the predicted mean score on dyadic adjustment when the variables of attachment equal zero. For men, it is equal to 21.349 and is statistically significant (p < .001) and is equal to 3.457 (p < .001). The intercept for women is equal to 20.58 and is statistically significant (p < .001) as well. The difference in intercepts is equal to 0.769, this difference is statistically significant (p = .746), which means that there is no main effect of gender/ incarceration status (Stas et al., 2018).

Actor Effects

The actor effect size for men is equal to .146 (p < .001), in support of our hypothesis that higher levels of attachment are associated with higher levels of dyadic adjustment, when controlling for the potential confounding effects of attachment. For men, the standardized actor effect is 0.109 with a partial r of .118. Additionally, in support of our hypothesis, the actor effect size for women is statistically significant and equal to .174 (p < .001). The standardized effect for women is 0.0130 with a partial r of .135. When tested if the two actor effects are equal, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .662). The overall actor effect is equal to 0.160 and is statistically significant (p < .001). Therefore, this also supports our hypothesis for both men and women (Stas et al., 2018).

Partner Effects

Our hypothesis was not supported for the partner effect from incarcerated men to their female partners, as it is equal to 0.036 and is not statistically significant (p = .456) with an overall standardized partner effect of 0.027 (partial r = .024). However, the partner effect from women to men is equal to 0.145, which is statistically significant (p < .001) with a standardized effect of 0.108 (partial r = .116). When tested if the two partner effects are equal, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .092). The overall partner effect is equal to 0.091 (p < .01; Stas et al., 2018). Thus, in support of our second hypothesis, the findings indicate that better attachment in non-incarcerated women is associated with incarcerated mens’ dyadic adjustment.

Covariates: Childhood Parental Stability and Race

We selected childhood parental stability and race: being white as the two within dyad covariates in the model. A within dyad covariate contains a different score for the two members of the same dyad, meaning each partner can have a different score. The effect of the childhood parental stability on dyadic adjustment for men is statistically significant and equal to −.304 (p < .05) with a standardized effect of −0.065. The effect of the childhood parental stability on dyadic adjustment for women is equal to −0.297 with an overall standardized effect of −0.058 and not statistically significant (p = .076). The effect of being a white man on dyadic adjustment is equal to −0.228 and is not statistically significant (p = .442) with an overall standardized effect of −0.025. The effect of being a white woman on dyadic adjustment is equal to 0.08, and it is not statistically significant (p = .788) with an overall standardized effect is 0.009 (Stas et al., 2018). Thus, being a white man or woman is not associated with dyadic adjustment for men or women.

Discussion

When a couple experiences distress due to one of the dyadic members being incarcerated, understanding the source of that distress can be gained through observation of the dyad’s attachment styles. However, previous research has given little attention to the impact of attachment styles on dyadic relationships, where one partner is incarcerated, yet instead has focused primarily on contextual influences (i.e., socioeconomic affects, partner influence on criminal behavior, and family relational impacts) (De Claire et al., 2020; Tadros & Presley, 2022; Tadros, Presley, et al., 2022; Turney, 2015; Turney & Halpern-Meekin, 2020; Wallace et al., 2020; Widdowson et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014; Yaros et al., 2018). With our current study, we sought to minimize the gap in literature, in regards to addressing attachment styles within incarcerated couples. As a further understanding of these dynamics can assist in strengthening relationships and fostering cohesion within couples experiencing incarceration. A more thorough comprehension of the impacts of attachment style on couples and their family dynamics can help in advocating for institutional and clinical changes that best address the needs of dyadic members.

The findings of the current study suggest that better attachment is in fact associated with better dyadic adjustment (actor effects). It was found that both men and women from our sample had statistically significant actor effects, thus supporting our hypothesis that actor effects were indeed the stronger variable between actors and partners. The impacts of incarceration create difficult daily relational impacts, as founded by previous research (Apel, 2016; Bruns, 2020; De Claire et al., 2020; Turney, 2015). However, establishing a secure attachment within a couple, such as through open discussions and fostering connectedness, suggests that couples will be able to better adapt through incarceration and post-incarceration (De Claire et al., 2020; Poehlmann, 2005; Wyse et al., 2014). In our study, we found that when non-incarcerated women have better attachment styles, incarcerated men’s dyadic adjustment is influenced. Thus supporting our first hypothesis. Therefore, when couples feel that their relationships are satisfactory and cohesive, their ability to adjust to structural changes inflicted by incarceration strengthens.

Counter to our second hypothesis, race was not supported as being a significant impact on the outcome of dyadic adjustment. We hypothesized that being white would be associated with the actor effects, however, our study showed that both incarcerated men and non-incarcerated women who were white, did not improve dyadic adjustment. A possible explanation for this result could be that the couples could have experienced incarceration for months or years, which could result in better adjustment between the couple. Racial differences may not be observed in a singular study, but over the course of a longitudinal study may become more apparent. Thus, suggesting a need for further research.

The control of effects of attachment indicates that higher rates of attachment levels also indicate higher levels of dyadic adjustment; meaning that security and connectedness between couples facilitates the ability to adjust to difficult situations. Couples who have secure attachments are often better able to adjust and manage relational conflict due to reduced attachment anxiety and avoidance, as well as being able to emotionally respond (Erol & Orth, 2011; Moser et al., 2018; Poehlmann, 2005). These findings suggest that interventions that are aimed at helping incarcerated couples adjust to the change, should involve fostering secure attachment by encouraging and facilitating open dialogue and emotional responsiveness. Prior research has shown the importance of secure attachments in relationships in maintaining emotional connectedness (Dalgleish et al., 2015; Erol & Orth, 2011; Moser et al., 2018; Poehlmann, 2005; Wiebe & Johnson, 2017). Therefore, this study, in accordance with prior research, supports the notion that secure attachments reinforce the ability of couples to endure difficulties and display resilience.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Relationships with insecure attachments are highly correlated with the dissolution of the relationship (Koh et al., 2021). Thus, the self-esteem, or confidence in one’s own worth can impact the way couples feel satisfied in their relationship. Attachment theory posits that relational problems stem from attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance (Dalgleish et al., 2015; Moser et al., 2018; Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2022). When working with couples from an attachment perspective, emotionally focused couple therapy (EFT) is an advantageous approach to utilize. EFT is an empirically validated, attachment-based approach to couple therapy that addresses couples’ needs and emotions (Dalgleish et al., 2015; Moser et al., 2018; Johnson, 2017; Wiebe & Johnson, 2017; Zuccarini et al., 2013). Therefore, to address relationship issues among couples, EFT therapists work to foster a more secure attachment bond within partners to improve relationship functioning by evoking emotional arousal and responsiveness (Dalgleish et al., 2015; Moser et al., 2018; Johnson, 2017; Wiebe & Johnson, 2017; Wittenborn, 2012).

When working with incarcerated couples, there are various emotional and contextual issues experienced (Bruns, 2020; De Claire et al., 2020; Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021; Provenchera & Conway, 2019; Turney, 2015). For instance, physical distance between incarcerated partners can create gaps in intimacy (i.e., sexual intimacy), which can lead to relationship dissatisfaction (Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021; Wiebe et al., 2019). Additional relationship distress between couples experiencing incarceration can be attributed to partners being unable to emotionally respond and meet the other’s needs, which can be observed through rigid interactions in couples (Moser et al., 2018; Welch et al., 2019; Wiebe & Johnson, 2017). Thus, creating a need for fostering intimacy and emotional responsiveness between partners. Attachment literature focuses on the importance of having open, genuine, and emotionally raw conversations in relationships (Poehlmann, 2005), which is one way to create an environment of connectedness. Additionally, EFT is broken down into three stages that allows for emotional conversations and forgiveness to take place: (1) de-escalation, (2) re-engaging the withdrawer and softening the blame, and (3) integration of positive attachment behavior (Johnson, 2017; Moser et al., 2018; Welchet al., 2019; Zuccarini et al., 2013).

In our own study, this process can be applied in a manner that fosters resiliency with incarcerated couples, which is critical in developing secure attachments (Wiebe & Johnson, 2017). Our results showed that secure attachment styles were associated with better adjustment within couples, and when one partner felt they had a higher rate of attachment, the other partner felt more comfortable in dyadic adjustment. Looking at these results through an EFT lens, validates the importance being able to de-escalate the issues caused by the unique stressors faced by this population (Zuccarini et al., 2013). Additionally, creating an environment where each partner can reduce blame and actively engage with one another, allows for couples to forgive one another, reconnect, and establish positive interactions (Moser et al., 2018; Zuccarini et al., 2013). EFT has shown to have over a 70% recovery rate with couples in distress (Dalgleish et al., 2015). Utilizing this approach with incarcerated couples is advantageous, as it illuminates emotional connectedness that can foster strength in the couple, their family, and ultimately, their community. Further, EFT is recommended during incarceration and/or post-release.

In terms of policy change, there are some technological implications that can be implemented. With the emergence of COVID-19, individuals who are incarcerated have experienced increases in anxiety and depression, likely due to their limited contact with loved ones, as well as experiencing high rates of COVID-19 cases (Dallaire et al., 2021; Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021). Visitation within the correctional system is critical for those incarcerated as it builds family relationships, as well as reducing recidivism rates post-release (Charles et al., 2022; Dallaire et al., 2021). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, correctional facilities had to implement protective factors that limited communication between families, leading to family disruption (Charles et al., 2022). Therefore, ensuring that families have access to adequate communication with their incarcerated loved one is critical in maintaining strong family bonds, which ultimately leads to reduced recidivism rates. This is an important factor to consider when working with incarcerated populations, as reduced recidivism rates can lead to lessened criminal activity in communities, as well as healthier home environments.

Additionally, mental health professionals have had to change the manner in which services are carried out, which has resulted in an increase in telehealth (Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021). With the rise of telehealth, access to services has become more attainable, and has been found to be effective (Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021). However, with the influx of technological advances in long-distance communication, such as being in a correctional facility, there are also additional expenses and areas of consideration. For instance, while utilizing video calls is a convenient form of communication while navigating the restrictions of social distancing, there are additional expenses that accrue such as paying for video or telehealth platforms (Charles et al., 2022). These barriers and financial considerations, especially those compounded by COVID-19, are important to address, in order to provide beneficial services to incarcerated individuals and their families (Tadros, Morgan, & Durante, 2022). Creating more accessibility of services, especially in times of emergency, allows for more individuals to receive the services they need. Since accessibility of mental health services have increased with telehealth, the application of these services can encompass work with families and couples, which can be beneficial in regards to working with couples where one partner is incarcerated and the other is not. A move toward online services allows for mutual access between incarcerated partners, and thus creates better opportunities for relational growth and adjustment.

Limitations

Despite the strengths of the current study, there are some limitations to be considered. Researchers utilized secondary data from the MFS-IP, which is not nationally representative, and therefore, does not support a formal generalization to these populations. Due to the original study, the sample only accounted for men who were incarcerated with a committed, intimate, and/or coparenting non-incarcerated female partner. Hence, the study does not account for same-sex couples, or families with incarcerated mothers and non-incarcerated fathers. This was due to the dataset selected and not the researchers’ exclusion criteria. Our measures had some limitations, for example, the covariate, childhood parental stability, was based on one question and it is a self-reported measure. Therefore, this is each partner’s perceived parental stability in childhood, which may not be completely accurate. Lastly, the effect of incarceration on romantic relationships has been shown to be exacerbated by a variety of systemic factors. Therefore, it is important to consider the implications these factors could pose when attempting to understand attachment and dyadic adjustment.

Future Directions

Incarceration is a growing institutional, and multidimensional problem that affects dyads and families in the United States (Bretherton, 2010; Provenchera & Conway, 2019; Yaros et al., 2018). The current study addresses factors (specifically, relational attachment styles) within the dyad, which ultimately affect family structure. Negative attachment styles with couples lead to significant relational issues that are only exasperated by incarceration which includes: relational dissatisfaction, financial struggles, and mental and emotional issues for both parents and their children (Bretherton, 2010; Einat et al., 2015; Koh et al., 2021; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010; Turney, 2015; Wallace et al., 2020). Additionally, addressing the relationships between both the incarcerated and non-incarcerated parents and their children can further help identify the interconnected problems exasperated by incarceration. Thus, when looking at the multi-level effects of mass incarceration, it is critical to utilize a systemic, incarcerated informed lens (Tadros, 2022b; Tadros, Fanning, et al., 2021; Tadros, Hutcherson, et al., 2021).

While there is an abundance of literature that looks at the significant and positive impacts of relational maintenance during incarceration (Apel, 2016; De Claire et al., 2020; Turney, 2015; Widdowson et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014), there is still a need for research that focuses the type of attachment style a dyad has developed, and how to build on that to foster dyadic adjustment during incarceration and post-incarceration. One dataset that could help achieve these goals along with the MFS-IP, is The Family and Community Health Study data, especially due to the availability of dyadic data.

Additionally, more research could be conducted on mothers who are incarcerated, since research primarily looks at incarcerated fathers, to further clarify the needs and concerns of families impacted by incarceration. Future research in these areas would be beneficial in both a clinical and institutional sense, as strong attachments, and relationships within families, have been found to reduce criminal activity (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2017; Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Wyse et al., 2014). Thus, suggesting that focus on dyadic attachment styles and family relational patterns could promote both individualized care for couples and parents, as well as correctional system reform and a reduction in criminal activity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This paper received IRB approval.

ORCID iD

Eman Tadros

Author Biographies

Dr. Eman Tadros is an Assistant Professor and the Marriage and Family Counseling Track Leader at Governors State University in the Division of Psychology and Counseling. She is a licensed marriage and family therapist, MBTI certified, and an AAMFT Approved Supervisor. She is the Illinois Family TEAM leader advocating for MFTs and individuals receiving systemic mental health services. Her research focuses on incarcerated couples and families.

Alexis M. Gregorash is a doctoral student at Governors State University, where she also obtained her Masters degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling. She is currently working towards a LPC. Her research interests include trauma, advocacy, and underserved populations.

References

Adelman

(2017). How congress, the U.S. sentencing commission, and federal judges contribute to mass incarceration. Litigation 44(1), 8–11.

Apel

(2016). The effects of jail and prison confinement on cohabitation and marriage. The ANNALS of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216629360

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bretherton

(2010). Parental incarceration: The challenges for attachment researchers. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 417–428. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/14616730903417136

Bruns

(2020). Partner incarceration and financial support from kin. Journal of Family Issues, 41(11), 2112–2135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20910168

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). Total adult correctional population, 1980-2016 [Data set]. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=487

Cassidy

Poehlmann

Shaver

P. R.

(2010). An attachment perspective on incarcerated parents and their children. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 285–288. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/14616730903417110

Charles

Muentner

Jensen

(2022). Incarcerated during a pandemic: Implications of COVID-19 for jailed individuals and their families. Corrections, 7, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.2011803

Clear

T. R.

(2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on communities. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 97–132. https://doi.org/10.1086/522360

10.

Comfort

Krieger

K. E.

Landwehr

McKay

Lindquist

C. H.

Feinberg

Kennedy

E. K.

Bir

(2018). Partnership after prison: Couple relationships during reentry. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1441208

11.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

12.

Dalgleish

T. L.

Johnson

S. M.

Burgess Moser

Lafontaine

Wiebe

S. A.

Tasca

G. A.

(2015). Predicting change in marital satisfaction throughout emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 41(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/jmft.12077

13.

Dallaire

D. H.

Shlafer

R. J.

Goshin

L. S.

Hollihan

Poehlmann-Tynan

Eddy

J. M.

Adalist-Estrin

(2021). COVID-19 and prison policies related to communication with family members. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000297

14.

De Claire

Dixon

Larkin

. (2020). How prisoners and their partners experience the maintenance of their relationship during a prison sentence. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2445

15.

Durante

K. A.

Phillips-Meertins

J. R.

Tadros

(2022). Institutional relational maintenance barriers and perceptions of relationship quality among women with incarcerated partners. Criminal & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221113304

16.

Egeren

L. A.

Hawkins

D. P.

(2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jade.0000035625.74672.0b

17.

Einat

Harel-Aviram

Rabinovitz

(2015). Barred from each other: Why normative husbands remain married to incarcerated wives—An exploratory study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(6), 654–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13512768

18.

Erol

R. Y.

Orth

(2011). Self-esteem development from age 14 to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299

19.

Erol

R. Y.

Orth

(2014). Development of self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in couples: Two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2291–2303.

20.

Fahmy

Wallace

(2019). The influence of familial social support on physical health during reentry. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(12), 1738–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819870268

21.

Fleming

C. M.

Nurius

P. S.

(2020). Incarceration and adversity histories: Modeling life course pathways affecting behavioral health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000436

22.

Folk

J. B.

Stuewig

Mashek

Tangney

J. P.

Grossmann

(2019). Behind bars but connected to family: Evidence for the benefits of family contact during incarceration. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000520.supp

23.

Fraley

R. C.

Garner

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult attachment and the defensive regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79(5), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.816

24.

Graham

J. M.

Liu

Y. J.

Jeziorski

J. L.

(2006). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00284.x

25.

Johnson

(2017). The new era of couple therapy: Innovation indeed. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 16(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/14779757.2017.1298050

26.

Kajeepeta

Rutherford

C. G.

Keyes

K. M.

El-Sayed

Prins

(2020). County jail incarceration rates and county mortality rates in the United States, 1987–2016. American Journal of Public Health, 110(1), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305413.

27.

Kamptner

N. L.

Teyber

F. H.

Rockwood

N. J.

Drzewiecki

(2017). Evaluating the efficacy of an attachment-informed psychotherapeutic program for incarcerated parents. Journal of Prison Education & Reentry, 4(2), 62–81.

28.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

29.

Kimmes

J. G.

Durtschi

J. A.

Clifford

C. E.

Knapp

D. J.

Fincham

F. D.

(2015). The role of pessimistic attributions in the association between anxious attachment and relationship satisfaction. Family Relations, 64(4), 547–562. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/fare.12130

30.

Koh

Park

(2021). Attachment and romantic relationship dissolution: A case study of family therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 41, 393–410. https://doi.org/2443/10.1002/anzf.1433

31.

McKay

Comfort

Grove

Bir

Lindquist

(2018). Whose punishment, whose crime? Understanding parenting and partnership in a time of mass incarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1294640

32.

Moser

M. B.

Johnson

S. M.

Dalgleish

T. L.

Wiebe

S. A.

Tasca

G. A.

(2018). The impact of blamer-softening on romantic attachment in emotionally focused couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 640–654. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/jmft.12284

33.

Patterson

G. R.

DeBaryshe

B. D.

Ramsey

(2017). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.2.329

34.

Poehlmann

(2005). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76(3), 679–698.

35.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Burnson

Runion

Weymouth

L. A.

(2017). Attachment in young children with incarcerated fathers. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), 389–404. https://doi.org/2443/10.1017/S0954579417000062

36.

Provenchera

Conway

J. M.

(2019). Health effects of family member incarceration in the United States: A meta-analysis and cost study. Children and Youth Services Review, 103, 87–99.

37.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02

38.

Shaver

P. R.

Schachner

D. A.

Mikulincer

(2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271709

39.

Shlafer

R. J.

Poehlmann

(2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/14616730903417052

40.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15–28. http://doi.org/10.2307/350547

41.

Stas

Kenny

D. A.

Mayer

Loeys

(2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user-friendly app for actor-partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12230

42.

Tadros

(2022a). The importance of the ‘village’: Examining social supports and hazardous alcohol use among mothers with an incarcerated coparent. American Journal of Family Therapy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2022.2040400

43.

Tadros

(2022b). The Tadros theory of change with incarcerated populations. American Journal of Family Therapy, 50, 368–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1929560

44.

Tadros

Aguirre

Jensen

Poehlmann-Tynan

(2021). COVID-19 inspired relational telemental health services for incarcerated individuals and their families. Contemporary Family Therapy, 43(3), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09578-6

45.

Tadros

Ansell

(2022). Romantic attachment, childhood stability, depression, and PTSD in couples with an incarcerated partner. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67, 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14976

46.

Tadros

Durante

(2022). Coparenting, negative educational outcomes, and familial instability in justice-involved families. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211013740

47.

Tadros

Durante

McKay

Barbini

Hollie

(2022). Mental health, perceived consensus of coparenting, and physical health among incarcerated fathers and their non- incarcerated, romantic partners. Families, Systems & Health, 40(2), 210–224.

48.

Tadros

Durante

McKay

Hollie

(2022). Coparenting from prison: An examination of incarcerated fathers’ consensus of coparenting. American Journal of Family Therapy, 50, 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1913669

49.

Tadros

Fanning

Jensen

Poehlmann-Tynan

(2021). Coparenting and mental health in families with jailed parents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8705. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168705

50.

Tadros

Finney

(2018). Structural family therapy with incarcerated families. Family Journal, 26(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718777409

51.

Tadros

Finney

(2019). Exploring the utilization of structural and medical family therapy with an incarcerated mother living with HIV. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(4), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18821825

52.

Tadros

Hutcherson

Greene

(2021). Advocating for an incarcerated informed lens in therapy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(5), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X20975162

53.

Tadros

Morgan

A. A.

Durante

(2022). Criticism, compassion, and conspiracy theories: A thematic analysis of what people on Twitter are saying about COVID in correctional settings. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221102847

54.

Tadros

Presley

(2022). “Fear of the Unknown”: Coparenting with an incarcerated individual. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221106335

55.

Tadros

Presley

Gomez

(2022). “Not for the weak”: The lived experience of women in romantic relationships with incarcerated individuals. Crime & Delinquency, 68(12), 2274–2297. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221077657

56.

Tadros

Tor

(2022). Examining the association between fatherhood attitudes and parental warmth among incarcerated fathers. Family Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221090949

57.

Tadros

Vlach

(2022). Conflictual couples: The impact of dyadic adjustment and depressive symptoms on conflict in incarcerated couples. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2022.2041525

58.

Turney

(2015). Hopelessly devoted? Relationship quality during and after incarceration Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12174

59.

Turney

Halpern-Meekin

(2020). Parental relationship churning and adolescent well-being: Examining instability within families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12665

60.

Umemura

Lacinová

Kotrčová

Fraley

R. C.

(2018). Similarities and differences regarding changes in attachment preferences and attachment styles in relation to romantic relationship length: Longitudinal and concurrent analyses. Attachment & Human Development, 20(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/14616734.2017.1383488

61.

Vaillancourt-Morel

M. P.

Labadie

Charbonneau-Lefebvre

Sabourin

Godbout

. (2022). A latent profile analysis of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48, 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12503

62.

Vajda

Thege

B. K.

Rózsa

(2019). Factor structure of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000405

63.

Wallace

Larson

Somers

Padilla

K. E.

Mays

(2020). Recidivism and relationships: Examining the role of relationships, transitions, and relationship quality in reincarceration. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 6, 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-020-00144-6

64.

Welch

T. S.

Lachmar

E. M.

Leija

S. G.

Easley

Blow

A. J.

Wittenborn

A. K.

(2019). Establishing safety in emotionally focused couple therapy: A single-case process study. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 45(4), 621–634. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/jmft.12398

65.

Widdowson

A. O.

Hay

Siennick

S. E.

(2020). Romantic partners and young adult offending: Considering the role of partner’s socioeconomic characteristics. Criminology, 59, 158–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12265

66.

Wiebe

S. A.

Elliott

Johnson

S. M.

Moser

M. B.

Dalgleish

T. L.

Lafontaine

M.-F.

Tasca

G. A.

(2019). Attachment change in emotionally focused couple therapy and sexual satisfaction outcomes in a two-year follow-up study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/15332691.2018.1481799

67.

Wiebe

S. A.

Johnson

S. M.

(2017). Creating relationships that foster resilience in emotionally focused therapy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 65–69. https://doi.org/2443/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.001

68.

Wildeman

(2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0052

69.

Wildeman

Muller

(2012). Mass imprisonment and inequality in health and family life. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105459

70.

Wildeman

Wang

E. A.

(2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. The Lancet, 389(4), 1464–1474.

71.

Wittenborn

A. K.

(2012). Exploring the influence of the attachment organizations of novice therapists on their delivery of emotionally focused therapy for couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00290.x

72.

Wyse

J. J.

Harding

D. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

(2014). Romantic relationships and criminal desistance: Pathways and processes. Sociology Forum, 29(2), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12088

73.

Yaros

Ramirez

Tueller

McKay

Lindquist

C. H.

Helburn

Feinberg

Bir

(2018). Child well-being when fathers return from prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1441204

74.

Zuccarini

Johnson

S. M.

Dalgleish

T. L.

Makinen

J. A.

(2013). Forgiveness and reconciliation in emotionally focused therapy for couples: The client change process and therapist interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00287.x