Abstract
The collateral consequences of criminal justice involvement on friends and families of offenders is well documented in criminological literature. One less-understood consequence is the impact of these relationships and experiences on the cognitions of friends and family members of offenders. This study examines implicit, unconscious, and explicit, or conscious cognitions of non-criminal individuals who have personal relationships with offenders versus those who do not. Moreover, the effects of reminders of past experiences, nature of the relationship, and closeness with the offender were examined. The Implicit and Explicit Criminal-Self Association Tests were used to measure implicit and explicit criminal-self associations. Results showed that those who were close with an offender and were reminded of a past experience with an offender exhibited stronger implicit associations with the group criminal in comparison to those who were not close with an offender. This research has implications for understanding the effects of relationships with offenders for non-criminal individuals.
At year-end 2021, over 5 million people were under correctional supervision in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2023). The impact of correctional supervision is not limited to those under the purview of the criminal justice system but extends to those who have personal relationships with such individuals (i.e. family members and friends). For example, approximately 1.1 million inmates are parents, but 2.7 million children have an incarcerated parent (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2010). Moreover, it is estimated that approximately 10 million children have experienced parental incarceration at some point in their lives (The Sentencing Project, 2009). While it is unclear exactly how many family members and friends are affected by the correctional supervision of loved ones, these data suggest that many more millions of people each year are impacted (Comfort, 2007).
Research has extensively documented the behavioral, physical, mental, and social impact of the collateral consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system. Following contact with the criminal justice system, many of those embedded in the social networks of offenders, primarily family members, alter their behavior (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2003, 2007), suffer mental and physical health consequences (Arditti et al., 2003), experience economic hardship (Naser and Visher, 2006), reorient their thoughts (May, 2000), and experience stigmatization (Phillips and Gates, 2011).
Notwithstanding the contributions of previous research, it provides only partial understanding of the collateral consequences of criminal justice involvement experienced by non-criminal individuals within the social networks of offenders. First, the extant research has predominantly focused on the collateral consequences of incarceration. A small body of research suggests that those who have relationships with offenders are affected by other types of experiences within the criminal justice system, such as an arrest or conviction (Arditti et al., 2003; Sturges and Hanrahan, 2011). Second, extant research has primarily focused on spouses, parents, and children of offenders. Research has failed to take into account others who are embedded in the social networks of offenders, such as close friends or extended family members (Christian et al., 2006). While not immediate family, these individuals may also be impacted by a loved one’s contact with the criminal justice system (Goffman, 2014). Finally, although some studies suggest that relationships with offenders have cognitive consequences (Comfort, 2003, 2007; Goffman, 1963), yet to the author’s knowledge, no study has examined or measured this. What is known about the cognitive consequences of contact with the criminal justice system is from the perspective of the offender (Rivera and Veysey, 2015, 2018; Veysey and Rivera, 2017) and from those who work with them (Saad et al., 2022).
This study builds upon and extends the criminological literature centered on the collateral consequences and focuses on the cognitive consequences of having personal relationships with offenders. Not only does this study focus on the cognitive consequences of incarceration but also on the cognitive consequences of experiences such as an arrest or conviction. In addition, the scope of this study is not only limited to family members but also to other types of personal relationships including close friends and extended family members (e.g. aunt, uncle, and friends). The goal of this study is to test the extent to which non-criminal individuals who have relationships with offenders implicitly (i.e. unconsciously) associate with the group criminal—one potential consequence of having a relationship with an offender. By utilizing implicit measures, specifically the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998; Karpinski and Steinman, 2006) this study examines self-expansion as a potential mechanism by which the implicit cognitions of those who have relationships with offenders are impacted.
Self-expansion theory
Self-expansion is the idea that people are motivated to expand their self-concept (i.e. idea of oneself) to include others with whom they are close (e.g. spouses, close friends) and with whom they engage in frequent and positive experiences (Aron and Aron, 1986, 1996; Aron et al., 1991). This leads individuals to assume attributes, cognitions, and behaviors of those close others into their self-concept (Aron and Aron, 1986; Aron et al., 1991). Put differently, when the conditions of self-expansion are met, that is, frequent and positive experiences with a close other, an individual is more likely to associate their self-concept with aspects of a close other’s identity. Indeed, empirical evidence has demonstrated that when another person is perceived as a part of the self and characteristics of others are perceived as one’s own (Tesser et al., 1988).
Self-expansion is based on individuals’ desire to enhance personal growth, progress, and self-efficacy (Aron and Aron, 1996). In close relationships, both individuals mutually include some or all aspects of the other into their self-concept. As a result, a mental overlap occurs between the self and the close other which allows both individuals to (1) vicariously take on the resources (i.e. physical and social capital), (2) cultivate new perspectives, and (3) acquire new characteristics or identities related to the other and incorporate them into their self-concept (Aron and Aron, 1986, 1996; Aron et al., 1991, 1992).
Self-expansion theory was first applied within the context of romantic relationships (Aron et al., 1991, 1992; Slotter and Gardner, 2009, 2012). In a romantic relationship where people spend time with each other, engage in positive experiences with each other and become close to each other, both individuals will self-expand. For instance, when a person includes their significant other into his or her self-concept, he or she may begin to think of, or associate with, the traits of his or her significant other. This may be attributed to the cognitive overlap that forms between the self-concept and the other person.
Studies have demonstrated self-expansion using explicit (self-report) measures (Aron et al., 1991, 1992) and implicit (reaction time) measures (Aron et al., 1991; Aron and McLaughlin-Volpe, 2001). For example, married couples exhibited explicit associations between the self and their spouse using the Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) scale, a self-report measure of self-expansion in which participants indicate how close they perceive another person by selecting one of seven pairs of circles that vary in their between-circle distances to represent different degrees of cognitive overlap between the self and the other (Aron et al., 1992, 1995). Using a “me/not-me” tasks, an implicit measure, married participants were quicker (i.e. press a button labeled “me” versus one labeled “not me”) to categorize traits related to their spouses as self-descriptive than traits unrelated to their spouses (Aron et al., 1991; Aron and McLaughlin-Volpe, 2001). Taken together, this past research provides evidence for explicit and implicit self-expansion.
Self-expansion in friendships
Self-expansion has also been applied to understand the effects of intergroup relationships, such as cross-group friendships (e.g. Latino and White friendships; Page-Gould et al., 2010). This line of research suggests that people are motivated to not only expand their self-concept between close others as individuals but also the groups to which a close other belongs. Self-expansion in intergroup relationships requires that an individual has a relationship with a member of a different social group and that they engage in close, frequent, and positive experiences with each other. This results in the association between the self and the close other’s social group and its related attributes (Aron and McLaughlin-Volpe, 2001; Coats et al., 2000; Page-Gould et al., 2010).
Page-Gould et al. (2010) demonstrated that people can implicitly and explicitly associate with a cross-group friend’s ethnic group (e.g. Latinx, White, and American Indian). Using a self-report measure, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they identified with a cross-group friend’s ethnic group. Participants also completed the “me/not-me” reaction time task to measure implicit associations with their cross-group friend’s ethnic group and related traits. Results demonstrate that people can explicitly and implicitly associate with a cross-group friend’s ethnic group and the attributes related to the group (Page-Gould et al., 2010). Importantly, this study highlights that people can associate and identify with negatively perceived groups, such as Latinx and related attributes (Fairchild and Cozens, 1981; Niemann, 2001).
Research has also demonstrated that self-expansion need not occur only in the context of cross-group relationships but can occur in relationships where the close other is perceived as being different from the self. McLaughlin-Volpe and Wright (2002) examined self-expansion within the context of newly formed friendships. Four times throughout a 6-week period, participants were asked to indicate whether they had developed a close friendship and provide self-descriptions. Participants who reported developing a close friendship were also asked to report how close they felt to their friend and rate the ways in which they felt they were different from their friend. Participants who developed a friendship with someone who they perceived as being different from themselves, were more likely to exhibit an increase in self-descriptions at each testing session, which may serve as an indicator of self-expansion. In other words, self-expansion was more likely to occur in friendships where the other was perceived as being different from the self. This study suggests that friendships with people who are different, rather than similar to the self, can result in self-expansion. This may be because people who are different from the self can provide the self with unique resources, perspectives, and characteristics that the self does not already possess (McLaughlin-Volpe and Wright, 2002).
Salient memories and self-expansion
In relationships, people have countless memories of their experiences with close others, but not all memories are accessible simultaneously. Salient memories are those which are used to guide cognitions. Memories are activated based on the contextual cues in which the self is placed (Andersen and Chen, 2002; Linville and Carlston, 1994; Markus and Wurf, 1987; Turner et al., 1987). The activation of a particular memory also activates any concepts related to the memory (Greenwald et al., 2002).
Research has illustrated that salient memories of a close other can activate self-expansion. Page-Gould et al. (2010) asked participants who previously indicated having a close cross-group friend, to describe either a cross-group friend or a same-group friend (depending on the condition to which the participants were assigned). Participants then completed a measure of self-expansion with a friend’s ethnic group using a “me/not-me” task. All participants had a cross-group friend but only participants who were reminded of their cross-group friend exhibited self-expansion with their cross-group friend’s ethnic group (Page-Gould et al., 2010). This demonstrates that salient memories influence the extent to which people exhibit self-expansion.
Relationships with offenders and self-expansion
The present research applies the mechanism of self-expansion to test if and how the cognitions of those who have personal relationships with offenders are impacted. This study is an extension of previous self-expansion research, in that it focuses on the consequences of direct relationships; specifically, personal relationships with offenders. Moreover, it is an extension of criminological research centered around collateral consequences. Others within the social networks of offenders are both observers of the offender’s criminal justice experiences and to some degree participants in the criminal justice system (e.g. family or friends’ prison visitations). The cognitive impact of these vicarious experiences in the criminal justice system on those who have relationships with offenders is less well understood. As such, the purpose of this study is to establish if non-criminal individuals, in relationships with offenders, can self-expand with the group criminal, a group that belongs to a close other.
Implicit criminal-self associations
One potential consequence of self-expansion with an offender may be an implicit association between the self-concept and the group criminal, or an implicit criminal-self association. Past research has found that people who have had personal experiences in the criminal justice system, such as an arrest, conviction, or incarceration, can exhibit an implicit criminal-self association (Rivera and Veysey, 2015, 2018; Veysey and Rivera, 2017). Moreover, research has demonstrated that parole officers, a group that has professional relationships with offenders, can exhibit implicit criminal-self associations (Saad et al., 2022).
Applied to the present research, it is not a person’s personal or professional experiences in the criminal justice system that is expected to contribute to the mental association with the group criminal, but rather relationships with others who have had experiences in the criminal justice system. This study extends the existing research and examines the extent to which non-criminal individuals who have close relationships with offenders self-expand with the group criminal by measuring implicit criminal-self associations.
Using the same logic that underpins previous examinations of self-expansion, those who have personal relationships with offenders may experience self-expansion through close, frequent and positive experiences with offenders. Friends and family of offenders can engage in close, frequent, and positive experiences with offenders inside and outside of the criminal justice system (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2003, 2007). For example, they may accompany an offender to activities such as aftercare programs (Nelson et al., 1999), visit an incarcerated individual (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2003, 2007), or they may engage in everyday activities together, such as sharing a meal. During these various types of interactions, those who have personal relationships with offenders acquire knowledge about the criminal justice system, and procedures, and the perspectives, thoughts, and behaviors related to being an offender. Such opportunities potentially provide new knowledge, perspectives, and new characteristics, thereby potentially impacting the cognitions of those who have personal relationships with offenders. This study tests the following hypothesis: individuals who have personal relationships with offenders are predicted to exhibit stronger implicit criminal-self associations in comparison to those who do not (Hypothesis 1).
However, it is expected that self-expansion will not affect explicit criminal-self associations. People in personal relationships with offenders may be unaware of how their relationships affect their cognitions or, due to the socially sensitive nature of the subject, may be unwilling to report on their associations with the group criminal. In line with this, this study will test the following hypotheses: it is predicted that explicit criminal-self associations will not differ between those who have personal relationships with offenders and those who do not (Hypothesis 2).
Within relationships, people have the ability to engage in various types of experiences that may facilitate or hinder self-expansion. Specifically, positive experiences may be more likely to promote self-expansion, in comparison to negative experiences. Indeed, positive experiences have been found to facilitate the inclusion of aspects of a close other into the self-concept (Aron and Aron, 1986; Fraley and Aron, 2004; Page-Gould et al., 2010; Waugh and Fredrickson, 2006). In contrast, negative experiences or a lack of positive experiences do not facilitate self-expansion and may result in distancing and distinguishing the self from the other (Fraley and Aron, 2004; Waugh and Fredrickson, 2006). The context of parole officers, parole officers who were reminded of a positive experience with a parolee exhibited stronger implicit criminal-self associations in comparison to those who were reminded of a negative experience (Saad et al., 2022). By extension, within personal relationships with offenders, the extent to which people engage in positive experiences may impact the extent to which self-expansion occurs and consequently the strength of an implicit criminal-self association. Using an experimental manipulation of a memory of a past experience with an offender this study tests the following hypothesis: among those who have relationships with offenders, individuals who are reminded of positive experiences with an offender are predicted to exhibit stronger implicit criminal-self associations in comparison to those who are (1) reminded of negative experiences or (2) not reminded of past experiences (Hypothesis 3).
In addition, self-expansion research suggests that people who are in intimate relationships (e.g. parents, partners, and close friends) (Aron et al., 1991, 1992; Page-Gould et al., 2010; Slotter and Gardner, 2009, 2012) or feel close to the other person (Mashek et al., 2003) are more likely to self-expand with the other person in comparison to people who are in more distant or less close relationships. Therefore, it is expected that the nature of the relationship and feelings of closeness with an offender is likely to affect the extent to which people self-expand and exhibit implicit criminal-self associations. As such, this study investigates the following hypotheses: it is predicted that individuals who have intimate relationships with offenders (i.e. immediate family or best friend) will exhibit stronger implicit criminal-self associations in comparison to those who do not (Hypothesis 4), and stronger feelings of closeness will be related to stronger implicit criminal-self associations (Hypothesis 5).
The present study
This experiment tests whether non-criminal individuals who have personal relationships with offenders can exhibit an implicit criminal-self association. This study tests the conditions that may strengthen or attenuate implicit criminal-self associations. First, this study explores the a priori main hypotheses (discussed above). Finally, exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the effects of closeness on reminders of past experiences.
Method
Participants
This study adopted a 4 (Reminder of past experience: positive vs negative vs no reminder vs no relationship) × 2 (Relationship with offender: yes vs no) between participants design. A convenience sample of 182 students from undergraduate psychology courses at an urban public university participated in exchange for course credit. Forty-four participants’ data were dropped from analyses: data from six participants were excluded due to technical difficulties, five participants’ data were four standard deviation outliers on the Single-Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) measure, two participants’ data were excluded from analyses due to reaction time error rates on the SC-IAT (described below) that were greater than 30% overall or over 40% on any given block (as recommended by Greenwald et al., 2003), 21 participants’ data were excluded for inconsistent responses pertaining to their relationship status with an offender (described below), and 10 participants’ data were excluded from analyses due to having a personal criminal justice experience (i.e., arrested, convicted, and/or incarcerated). Having a personal criminal justice experience has been found to impact implicit criminal-self associations (Rivera and Veysey, 2015; Veysey and Rivera, 2017) and as such, participants with personal criminal justice experiences are expected to already exhibit implicit criminal-self associations, regardless of their relationship with an offender.
The final sample consisted of 138 participants (112 female, 26 male, Mage = 21.01, SDage = 5.71, age range: 18–56 years). Approximately 32% of participants identified as Hispanic, 31% were Black, 13% were Asian, 10% were Multiracial, 8% were White, 3% were Middle Eastern or North African, 1% were American Indian or Alaskan, 1% were Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 1% identified as another ethnicity not listed. Seventy-five percent of participants reported having a relationship with an offender (see procedure below).
Measures
Positive versus negative past experience (manipulated)
In the absence of being within the actual presence of a close other, experimental manipulations of memories of a close other can activate the same processes that are activated during real-life interactions and therefore should produce similar effects (Garcia et al., 2002). In the real world, positive experiences with offenders are more likely to promote self-expansion (e.g. moments of success and providing support) in comparison to negative experiences (e.g. confrontation). In the absence of engaging in these experiences, an experimental manipulation procedure was used to make salient memories that are expected to facilitate or hinder self-expansion. In turn, salient memories of past experiences are expected to impact the extent to which people exhibit implicit criminal-self associations.
Rooted in the basic principles of self-expansion, the purpose of the manipulation was to remind participants of a specific type of experience with an offender with whom they have a relationship. Participants who indicated having a relationship with an offender (on a pre-screening questionnaire) were randomly assigned to one of three manipulation conditions: the positive experience condition, the negative experience condition, or the no reminder condition.
Participants who were assigned to either the positive or negative experience condition were first asked: “Please take a moment and select in your mind, a close friend or family member who has been arrested for, convicted (charged of), or incarcerated for a crime. Please type their initials.” Next, to ensure the person imagined in the previous question had a criminal justice experience participants were asked: “Please check the box(es) that apply to the person you indicated above”: and select from the following options: They were arrested, They were convicted, or They were/are incarcerated. Participants in the positive experience condition were given the following prompt: Please imagine a positive interaction or experience you have had with the individual you imagined in the previous question. Please describe the positive experience as well as your thoughts and feelings during this positive interaction. Please provide details and write freely.
Participants in the negative experience condition were given the same prompt but were asked to focus on a negative experience. Participants in the no reminder condition did not complete this procedure; they proceeded directly from the informed consent to the SC-IAT (described below). Twenty eight percent of participants were randomly assigned to the positive experience condition, 28% were randomly assigned to the negative experience condition, and 19% were randomly assigned to the no reminder condition. Twenty-five percent of participants reported no relationship with an offender and were assigned to the no relationship condition, where they did not complete the manipulation procedure and also proceeded directly from the informed consent to the SC-IAT.
Closeness. Participants who indicated having a relationship with an offender were asked to rate how close they felt with the offender they were thinking of. Participants responded to a single question in which they were asked: “How close do you feel to the person you imagined in the previous question?” on a 7-point scale ranging from (0) Not at all close to (6) Very close.
Relationship to the offender
Participants who indicated having a relationship with an offender were asked to describe their relationship by answering the following question: “What is the nature of your relationship with the person you imagined in the previous question?” and were asked to select from the following options: parent, other caregiver, sibling, aunt/uncle, cousin, friend, best friend, or other (please specify).
Implicit criminal-self associations
This study employs an SC-IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998; Karpinski and Steinman, 2006), which uses reaction times to operationalize the strength of implicit mental associations between the self and criminal (Rivera and Veysey, 2015, 2018; Veysey and Rivera, 2017). An SC-IAT (Karpinski and Steinman, 2006) is a measure that is modified from the original IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998) when there is no clear comparison group for a stimulus used in the IAT, in this case, the category criminal.
The semantic stimuli used in the SC-IAT represent self, other, and criminal. Self and other related words were used in prior studies and have been found to be reliable and valid (Rivera and Veysey, 2014; Saad et al., 2022; Veysey and Rivera, 2017). The criminal words were pre-tested with a separate adult sample (N = 48) that rated the words (and a set of criminal-unrelated words) on a 7-point scale from “Not at all related to criminality” to “Completely related to criminality.” The criminal word stimuli, on average, were strongly related to criminality, M = 6.17, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 3.22 (large-effect size; compared to a neutral mid-point) (Rivera and Veysey, 2018; Veysey and Rivera, 2017).
The SC-IAT was administered on a computer and participants were asked to complete four blocks of reaction time trials that were preceded by a set of instructions. In the SC-IAT, semantic stimuli that represent self, other, and criminal randomly appeared one after the other in the center of the screen. The self-related words were me, my, mine, I, and myself. The other-related words were they, them, their, theirs, and other. Simultaneously, category labels were positioned on the top right and top left of the screen. The criminal-related words were criminal, felon, lawbreaker, offender, convict, delinquent, and prisoner.
For half of the task, participants used the “A” key to classify “self” and “criminal” words and the “K” key to classify “other” words. The second half of the task was reversed; participants used the “A” key to classify “other” and “criminal” words and “K” to classify “self” words. These tasks were counterbalanced between participants. For each task, participants first read the instructions then completed 17 practice trials, followed by 51 critical trials. For each trial, the target word remained on the screen until participants responded. If the participant responded correctly, a new target word appeared. If the participant responded incorrectly, the word “ERROR” appeared on the screen in place of the target word and remained until the participant pressed the correct key.
SC-IAT scores are a measure of relative associations, specifically between self-criminal associations relative to other-criminal associations. Therefore, scoring is the difference in reaction times when self and criminal are paired together versus when other and criminal are paired together. In accordance with the procedures outlined by Greenwald et al. (2003) and Karpinski and Steinman (2006), SC-IAT scores are standardized reaction times between self and criminal trials and other and criminal trials. Relatively higher SC-IAT scores indicate faster reaction times when self-related stimuli and criminal-related stimuli are paired together than when other stimuli are paired with criminal stimuli. Thus, a higher SC-IAT score indicates stronger associations between self and criminal.
Explicit criminal-self associations
Participants were asked to self-report the extent to which they associated themselves with the seven criminal words in the SC-IAT on a 7-point scale ranging from (0) Not at all characteristic of me to (6) Extremely characteristic of me. All words were presented in random order. Higher scores indicate stronger explicit criminal-self associations (α = .812).
Demographics
Participants were asked to identify their gender, age, race/ethnicity, income, birth region, marital status, and their personal criminal justice experience.
Procedure
To ensure that participants had a relationship with another person who has had substantial experiences in the criminal justice system, participants were asked the following question on a pre-screening questionnaire: “Do you personally know anyone who was/is incarcerated?” Participants who responded affirmatively to knowing someone who had been incarcerated were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, the positive experience condition, the negative experience condition, or the no reminder condition. Participants who indicated that they did not have a relationship with an incarcerated individual were assigned to the no relationship condition.
Upon arrival to the laboratory, a female research assistant informed participants that the study’s purpose was to examine “people’s identities and experiences.” Participants in the positive or negative experience conditions first completed the manipulation task then proceeded to the measured variables (in the order presented above) and were fully debriefed. Participants in both the no reminder condition and those in the no relationship condition began the study with the two implicit measures in the order presented above and the measure of explicit criminal-self associations. Then, to confirm their relationship status with an offender, participants in these conditions were asked the following question: “Do you have a close friend or family member who has been arrested for, convicted (charged of), or incarcerated for a crime?” Participants who responded affirmatively were then asked to complete the closeness and description of offender measures (described above). This question served two purposes: (1) this was used to confirm that participant responses were consistent with their pre-screen responses regarding their relationship status with an offender and (2) for the participants in the no reminder condition, this was used to collect data about participants’ relationships without making salient the offender before completing the measures of criminal-self associations. Finally, participants in the no reminder and no relationship conditions completed the demographics questionnaire and were fully debriefed.
Results
First, the mean IAT and explicit criminal-self association scores were calculated for each condition: positive experience (MIAT = −.07, SD = .13, Mexplicit = .19, SD = .22), negative experience (MIAT = −.08, SD = .11, Mexplicit = .24, SD = .34), no reminder (MIAT = −.08, SD = .12, Mexplicit = .23, SD = .30), no relationship (MIAT = −.07, SD = .12, Mexplicit = .18, SD = .27). Zero-order correlations between the demographic variables (age, income) and IAT, and explicit criminal-self association scores were conducted for the entire sample. The zero-order correlation analyses revealed that age and income were not statistically significantly related to IAT and explicit criminal-self association scores. The relation between the categorical demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity, employment, parental level of education) and IAT and explicit criminal-self association scores across the entire sample were analyzed using ANOVAs. Gender was coded (1 = male; 0 = female); race/ethnicity was coded (1 = Black/African American and Hispanic; 0 = all others); employment status was coded (1 = employed; 0 = not employed); parental level of education was coded (1 = elementary/middle school; 2 = GED; 3 = high school; 4 = some college; 5 = college graduate school; 2 = some college; 3 = college graduate). This analysis revealed that race/ethnicity was related to explicit criminal-self association strength, F(1, 136) = 8.57, p = .004. Black/African American and Hispanic participants (M = .16, SD = .22) exhibited significantly weaker explicit criminal-self associations in comparison to non-Black/African American and non-Hispanic participants (M = .30, SD = .34). As such, racial-ethnic identification was entered as a control variable in analyses for Hypothesis 2.
First, the main effect of having a relationship with an offender on implicit and explicit criminal-self association strength was tested (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Results yielded no significant difference in IAT scores between participants who had a relationship with an offender and those who did not, F(1, 135) = .49, p = .486, η p2 = .01. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. However, Hypothesis 2 was supported such that there was no significant difference in explicit criminal-self association scores between participants who had a relationship with an offender and those who did not, F(1, 135) = 2.49, p = .117, η p2 = .02.
To test the effect of reminders of past experiences on implicit criminal-self association strength, an omnibus test was conducted between all four conditions (Hypotheses 3). There was no significant difference in IAT scores between conditions, F(3, 133) = .20, p = .897, η p2 = .01. Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Next, the effect of the nature of the relationship with an offender on implicit criminal-self association strength (Hypothesis 4) was tested. In line with self-expansion research, intimate relationships, such as those between parents, spouses, and close friends, are those that have been found to facilitate self-expansion in comparison to more distant relationships (Aron et al., 1991, 1992; Page-Gould et al., 2010; Slotter and Gardner, 2009, 2012). Of the participants who indicated having a relationship with an offender (n = 103), 33% of participants indicated having intimate relationships with the offender they were thinking of (e.g. parent, significant other, sibling, best friend) and 67% indicated having more distant relationships (e.g. aunt/uncle, cousin, friend, family friend). A dichotomous variable was created such that relationship was coded (1 = intimate relationship; 0 = distant relationship). There was no significant difference in IAT scores between participants who indicated having an intimate relationship with an offender and those who did not, F(1, 100) = .63, p = .432, η p2 = .01. Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
To test Hypothesis 5, a regression was used to test the relation between closeness with an offender and implicit criminal-self association strength. In the regression, IAT scores were regressed on mean-centered closeness scores. Implicit criminal-self association strength was not significantly related to closeness, F(1, 101) = 1.72, p = .193, R2 = .02, β = .13. Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Exploratory closeness analyses
Due to the nature of the manipulation, the type of experience that participants were reminded of was expected to strengthen or attenuate implicit criminal-self association strength. However, the results did not demonstrate a main effect of the type of reminders of past experiences on IAT scores. However, this effect may be moderated by feelings of closeness. Self-expansion theory posits that not only are experiences with others important, but feelings of closeness. As such, exploratory analyses were conducted to test the combined effect of closeness and experience condition on IAT scores. First, analyses were conducted in which the IAT implicit criminal-self association scores served as the dependent variable. Then, analyses were conducted in which explicit criminal-self association strength scores served as the dependent variable.
IAT scores
First, a regression was used to test the effect of closeness and experience condition on implicit criminal-self association strength. The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether the positive experience, negative experience, and no reminder condition varied from each other. In the regression, mean-centered closeness scores and experience condition (coded positive = 1, negative = 0, no reminder = −1) were entered in the first step and their interaction term in the second step. There was neither a significant main effect of closeness, ΔF(2, 100) = .91, p = .390, R2 = .02, β = .09, nor a significant main effect of the manipulation, ΔF(2, 100) = .91, p = .864, R2 = .02, β = .02. Regression analyses yielded a marginally significant Closeness × Manipulation interaction, ΔF(3, 99) = 3.16, p = .079, R2 = .05, β = .18. The results of this regression are graphed in Figure 1.
Effect of reminders of past experiences and closeness on implicit criminal-self associations.
Simple slopes analyses were employed to unpack the interaction. Following Aiken and West (1991), planned contrasts were created to test the combined effects of reminders of past experiences and closeness on implicit criminal-self associations. To examine whether the positive experience condition and the negative experience condition varied from baseline (no reminder condition), two dummy variables were created: (1) positive experience condition coded 1 and the other two conditions (negative experience and no reminder conditions) coded 0 and (2) negative experience condition coded 1 and the other two conditions (positive experience and no reminder conditions) coded 0. Because they are entered simultaneously in the regression analysis, the first contrast examines weather the positive experience condition differs from the no reminder condition, while controlling for the negative experience condition, and the second contrast tests whether the negative experience condition differs from the no reminder condition, while controlling for the positive experience condition. Next, implicit criminal-self association scores were regressed on the positive experience versus no reminder contrast, and the negative experience versus no reminder contrast, closeness (centered), and the two interactions (computed by multiplying closeness centered scores by each contrast). The regression revealed significant Closeness × Positive Experience, β = .34, p = .047, and Closeness × Negative Experience, β = .34, p = .044, interactions.
To examine this interaction, simple slope analyses were used in which implicit criminal-self associations were estimated at 1 SD above and below the mean on closeness for the two experience conditions; specifically, (1) positive versus negative and no reminder conditions and (2) negative versus positive and no reminder conditions. Among participants high in closeness, participants in the positive experience condition did not vary in implicit criminal-self association strength when compared to those who were not reminded of past experiences, while controlling for those in the negative experience condition, β = .17, p = .110. Also, among participants low in closeness, participants in the positive experience condition did not vary in implicit criminal-self association strength when compared to those who were not reminded of past experiences, while controlling for those in the negative condition, β = −.25, p = .187. Among participants high in closeness, participants in the negative experience condition did not vary in implicit criminal-self association strength when compared to those who were not reminded of past experiences, while controlling for those in the positive experience condition, β = .27, p = .132. Also, among participants low in closeness, participants in the negative experience condition did not vary in implicit criminal-self association strength when compared to those who were not reminded of past experiences, while controlling for those in the positive condition, β = −.26, p = .148. Moreover, there were no within-group differences. Among participants who were reminded of positive experiences, implicit criminal-self association strength did not vary between participants high in closeness compared to those low in closeness, β = .23, p = .169. Among participants who were reminded of negative experiences, implicit criminal-self association strength did not vary between participants high in closeness compared to those low in closeness, β = .27, p = .108. Among participants who were not reminded of a past experience, implicit criminal-self association strength did not vary between participants high in closeness compared to those low in closeness, β = −.29, p = .148 (see Figure 1).
Because participants who were reminded of a positive and negative experience exhibited similar patterns in implicit criminal-self association strength, a second set of analyses were conducted to examine the effect of being reminded of a past experience, regardless of the type of reminder. Moreover, given the small sample size within each group, it may be the case that there were not enough participants between the three conditions to detect any between group differences. To this end, another regression was used. In the regression, mean-centered closeness scores and experience condition (coded positive or negative experience = 1, no reminder = 0) were entered in the first step and their interaction term in the second step. Consistent with the prior analysis, there was neither a significant main effect of closeness, ΔF(2, 100) = .296, p = .167, R2 = .02, β = −.30, nor a significant main effect of the manipulation, ΔF(2, 100) = .89, p = .955, R2 = .02, β = .01. Regression analyses did yield a significant Closeness × Manipulation interaction, ΔF(3, 99) = 5.11, p = .026, R2 = .07, β = .48. Table 1 summarizes the regression results. The results of this regression are graphed in Figure 2.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting implicit criminal-self association IAT scores from closeness and experience condition manipulation.
p < .05.
Combined effect of reminders of past experiences and closeness on implicit criminal-self associations.
Simple slope analyses were used to examine these interactions and estimated implicit criminal-self associations at 1 SD above and below the mean on closeness for the three conditions. There was a marginally significant difference in implicit criminal-self association strength between participants high in closeness who received the positive or negative experience manipulation when compared to those who were not reminded of past experience, β = .25, p = .077. Also, among participants low in closeness, implicit criminal-self associations did not vary between participants who received the positive or negative experience manipulation, when compared to those who were not reminded of a past experience, β = −.23, p = .125. Moreover, there was a within-group effect, for participants who were reminded of a past experience. Among participants who were reminded of a past experience, participants high in closeness exhibited significantly stronger implicit criminal-self association strength compared to those low in closeness, β = .25, p = .032. Among participants who were not reminded of a past experience, implicit criminal-self association strength did not vary between participants high in closeness compared to those low in closeness, β = −.29, p = .148 (see Figure 2).
Explicit criminal-self association strength
First, a regression was used to test the effect of closeness and experience condition on explicit criminal-self association strength. The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether the positive experience, negative experience, and no reminder condition varied from each other. In the regression racial-ethnic identification was entered in the first step, mean-centered closeness scores and experience condition (coded positive = 1, negative = 0, no reminder = −1) were entered in the second step and their interaction term in the third step. There was neither a significant main effect of closeness, ΔF(3, 99) = .10, p = .980, R2 = .08, β = .01, nor a significant main effect of the manipulation, ΔF(3, 99) = .10, p = .654, R2 = .08, β = −.04. Regression analyses did not yield a significant Closeness × Manipulation interaction, ΔF(4, 98) = 1.10, p = .298, R2 = .10, β = −.10. No further analyses were conducted.
Post hoc power analyses
G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) was used to conduct a post hoc power analysis. The analysis was conducted to determine the power of analyses in which the IAT implicit criminal-self association scores and explicit criminal-self association scores served as the dependent variables. For a multiple regression, omnibus, R2 deviation from zero, sample size of 103, two tested predictors (feelings of closeness and experience condition), effect size of f2 at .25, and alpha at .05, G*Power calculated a robust power of .996.
Discussion
This study examined the effect of personal relationships with offenders on the self-concept of non-criminal friends and family. Moreover, this study examined the conditions of these relationship, specifically, reminders of past experiences, nature of the relationship, and feelings of closeness with an offender, and the impact of these factors on the cognitions of those in relationships with offenders. This study tested self-expansion using a sample of non-criminal friends and family of offenders to examine implicit and explicit criminal-self associations. There was no effect of having a relationship with an offender on implicit criminal-self association strength (Hypothesis 1) or explicit criminal-self association strength (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, reminders of a past experience (Hypothesis 3), the nature of the relationship (Hypothesis 4), and feelings of closeness (Hypothesis 5) with an offender did not have a main effect on implicit criminal-self association strength. Given the small sample size within each group, it may be the case that there were not enough participants between each group to detect any between group differences. Future research might consider using larger samples of participants to gain a better understanding of the implicit consequences of personal relationships with offenders.
In contrast, as predicted, explicit criminal-self association strength did not differ based on having a relationship. This differs from previous examinations of self-expansion which find that relationships can impact explicit cognitions. Due to the negatively perceived status of being an offender, people may be reluctant to explicitly report on their associations with the group criminal. Also, people who have personal relationships with offenders learn about the social and legal consequences of being labeled a criminal and the perceptions of others toward offenders, which may further increase social desirability concerns. Although past self-expansion research has examined self-expansion with groups that may be negatively perceived, such as racial-ethnic groups, these categories represent an ascribed group status. Ascribed statuses are those that are beyond control of the individual, whereas acquired statuses are based on a person’s actions. Given this distinction, the consequences of self-expansion with offenders may not be the same as self-expansion with positive acquired traits or ascribed groups.
Although results show that there was no main effect of relationship, reminder of past experience, nature of the relationship, and feelings of closeness on implicit criminal-self association strength, exploratory analyses yielded a significant effect of reminders of a past experience conditional on closeness on implicit criminal-self association strength. Among participants who were high in closeness, participants who were reminded of a past experience, regardless of the reminder being positive or negative, exhibited stronger IAT implicit criminal-self association strength than those who were not reminded of a past experience. Moreover, participants were high in closeness and were reminded of a past experience, regardless of the reminder being positive or negative, exhibited stronger IAT implicit criminal-self association strength in comparison to participants who were reminded of past experiences, but were low in closeness. It is important to note that participants were not necessarily associating themselves with the group criminal, rather participants exhibited less-cognitive distance between their self-concept and the group criminal in comparison to participants who were high in closeness but were not reminded of a past experience. Put another way, they were not distancing themselves from the group criminal as much as those who were not reminded of past experience or did not feel close to the offender.
One potential explanation for this may be that in personal relationships, people have a variety of experiences, some positive, and some negative, but regardless of these experiences, people still feel close to the other person. Therefore, regardless of the type of experience participants were reminded of, the combination of salient memories and feelings of closeness predicted implicit criminal-self association strength, rather than salient memory or feelings of closeness alone. Moreover, this finding highlights the importance of salient memories in guiding cognitions. This is in line with past research that finds that among people who have close cross-group friends, only those who are reminded of their cross-group friend exhibited associations with their close cross-group friend in comparison to participants who were not reminded (Page-Gould et al., 2010). This would suggest that implicit criminal-self association strength of those who have relationships with offenders is malleable. That is, in relationships where people feel close to an offender, contexts in which the offender is brought to the forefront of one’s memory can at least temporarily strengthen implicit criminal-self associations. This may also elucidate why there was no effect of feelings of closeness for those who were not reminded of a past experience, as no memory was made salient to guide cognitions, irrespective of feelings of closeness.
Prior research has found that self-expansion has implications for interpersonal relationships as well as behaviors of individuals. Self-expansion has been found to be related to relationship maintenance, commitment, and satisfaction due to the increase in perspectives, resources, and characteristics which the self acquires when self-expansion occurs (Aron and Aron, 1986). Therefore, in theory, despite the negative status of the group criminal, to the extent that people exhibit an implicit criminal-self association, they may still acquire perspectives, resources, and characteristics offered by the offender. This may have implications for empathy and helping behaviors toward offenders.
Self-expansion results in the acquisition of perspectives, causing the self to be concerned with the needs of the other (Aron and Aron, 1986; Deutsch and Mackesy, 1985; Wegner, 1980). Similar to this, empathy requires one to take the perspective of the other (Batson, 2009). Therefore, it is plausible that empathy may stem from self-expansion or vice versa (Wegner, 1980). Applied to the present research, the extent to which people exhibit implicit associations with the group criminal may also be indicative of the extent to which they exhibit empathy toward the group, which can potentially be related to helping the other and may ultimately be related to offender success. Those who are able to empathize, may be more likely to identify criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs of those with whom they have relationships and help offenders overcome obstacles related to long-term desistance (Gunnison and Helfgott, 2011).
One way to strengthen implicit criminal-self association among those who have personal relationships with offenders may be to provide opportunities for members of different groups to interact with each other in a positive way that also enhances closeness. For example, one way to increase closeness is by utilizing activities that promote self-disclosure, that, in turn, provide both individuals with opportunities to take the perspective of the other and acquire new cognitive resources. Theoretically, this will result in a decrease the cognitive distance between the non-criminal self and the group criminal. To encourage closeness, Aron et al. (1997) designed a questionnaire to promote reciprocal self-disclosure and intimacy-related behaviors. They found that participant dyads that answered the questionnaire exhibited greater feelings of closeness in comparison to participant dyads that did not answer the questionnaire. Moreover, participants who completed the questionnaire exhibited relationship maintenance seven weeks after completing the task (Aron et al., 1997). Adapting a similar type of questionnaire for those in personal relationships with offenders may help to decrease cognitive distance between non-criminal individuals and the offender, which may help to promote empathy. This can be disseminated through marriage and family counseling programs. Promoting closeness in personal relationships may influence relationship quality, commitment, and satisfaction, which may protect against relationship dissolution. Moreover, this may benefit the offender, insofar as people who exhibit a decrease in the cognitive distance between themselves and the offender, may be more likely to identify and help offenders overcome obstacles related to desistance.
By extension, the relation between empathy, criminal behavior, and self-expansion can also be used in the context of professional relationships with offenders to understand criminogenic needs and criminal behavior. Understanding the feelings and perspectives of offenders may help to promote better relationships between clients and practitioners by promoting empathy. Encouraging practices such as Motivational Interviewing, may help to strengthen implicit criminal-self association strength, because Motivational Interviewing promotes rapport and requires the parole officer to take the perspective of the parolee, it is therefore possible that Motivational Interviewing may also provide parole officers with opportunities to acquire the perspective of their parolees. This may in turn promote parole officer helping behaviors toward parolees as they assist parolees in successful re-entry and long-term desistance (Saad et al., 2022).
It is important to note that this research is limited in its scope with regards to understanding the full range of consequences of self-expansion in relationships with offenders. Prior examinations of self-expansion have examined consequences of relationships and experiences using different measures than those used in this research. Relational self-expansion has often been measured by examining the extent to which people associate themselves with the close other, using the Inclusion of the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992) or a me/not-me task (Aron et al., 1991; Aron and McLaughlin-Volpe, 2001). Therefore, it is possible that people who have relationships with offenders may exhibit consequences of self-expansion that have not been measured in the present research. Future research then might consider utilizing other measures of self-expansion to fully understand the consequences of relationships with offenders on cognitions.
Finally, this study leaves some critical questions unanswered. This study cannot answer the key question about the effect of the offender’s implicit criminal identity strength on self-expansion. People have multiple identities, and for offenders, a criminal identity is one of several other identities. How does the centrality of an implicit criminal identity of the offender affect the extent to which non-criminal individuals within their social network self-expand with the group criminal? Moreover, how does the strength of an implicit criminal identity of the offender affect the extent to which non-criminal individuals within their social network self-expand with the group criminal? Although offenders may exhibit an implicit criminal identity, they may not be actively engage in criminal behavior (Maruna, 2001). Therefore, it is unclear whether self-expansion occurs under circumstances in which the offender is actively engaged in criminal behavior or not. Therefore, this study is limited in its scope with regards to understanding the conditions in relationships with offenders under which the cognitions of family members and friends are affected.
Understanding the types of experiences in personal relationships with offenders which facilitate or attenuate implicit criminal-self association strength may help to elucidate the mechanism between relationships with delinquent others and criminal behavior. Rivera and Veysey (2018) show that implicit criminal-self association strength was the strongest predictor of criminal behavior above and beyond explicit criminal-self association strength and related demographic variables. This suggests that implicit cognitions may be useful in understanding the impact of implicit criminal-self associations on criminal behavior. However, it remains unknown if and how experiences within personal relationships with offenders can strengthen or attenuate implicit criminal-self associations for non-criminal individuals in these relationships. It may be possible that positive experiences in relationships with deviant others may explain the relation between parental or peer criminal behavior and the onset of criminal behavior of non-criminal individuals. Future research using longitudinal studies is necessary to examine the link between implicit criminal-self association strength and behavioral outcomes of relationships with offenders.
This study extends criminological research in several ways. First, this research adds to the criminological literature centered on the collateral consequences of criminal justice experiences in three ways. This study (1) tests the effect a close other’s arrest, conviction, and/or incarceration on non-criminal individuals embedded in the social networks of offenders, (2) examines the effects of these experiences on immediate family, friends, and extended family, and (3) examines the cognitive consequences of personal relationships with offenders. This study established that people in personal relationships with offenders can exhibit differences in implicit criminal-self association strength, not based on their own criminal justice experiences but based on those of a close other. This adds to our understanding of the collateral consequences of criminal justice involvement of close others. This research provides an opportunity for future researchers to examine the effects of implicit criminal-self association strength on criminal behavior of non-criminal individuals who have relationships with offenders. This line of research can potentially improve relationships between pro-social individuals and offenders, reduce the risk of criminal behavior, and may have positive downstream consequences on offenders and those with whom they have relationships with; namely increased desistance—a primary goal of the criminal justice system.
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 received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
