Supportive Communication Skills as a Protective Factor Among Couples Experiencing Incarceration

Abstract

We employ an ABC-X model of family stress theory lens to examine the association between several communication skills and patterns and relationship quality within heterosexual couples where the man is incarcerated and the woman is not. Using data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering and multinomial logistic regression, we found that couples who are regularly able to work out their differences have a lower relative risk of drifting apart in their relationship. Couples who frequently have heated arguments have both increased relative risks of becoming closer together and drifting apart. Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that more frequently having a sense of humor and being able to work out differences is associated with increased relationship happiness while having more frequent heated arguments and a partner who interrupts is associated with decreased relationship happiness during incarceration. Prison programs should include training on improving couples’ communication skills.

Keywords

incarcerated couples relational maintenance incarceration communication relationship satisfaction family stress theory

There were about 1.7 million people incarcerated in prisons or jails in the United States by year-end in 2020, marking more than a 20% reduction from a decade earlier (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022). Even so, the United States continues to lead the world in incarceration, impacting the lives of those individuals as well as their family members and communities. A recent nationally representative survey estimates that 113 million U.S. adults—nearly half—have had an immediate family member incarcerated at some point and that 13.5% of adults have had a spouse or coparent incarcerated, even if briefly (Elderbroom et al., 2018). Although incarceration affects a large swath of Americans, the impacts of it are uneven; Black Americans are three times more likely than white Americans to have had a family member incarcerated for a year or longer (Elderbroom et al., 2018). Furthermore, about 93% of individuals incarcerated are men (Carson, 2021), disproportionately leaving women partners behind to take care of family and financial duties. Men enter incarcerated settings with a broad range of romantic relationships as it has become increasingly rare for incarcerated individuals to get married (Wyse et al., 2014). About 50% of incarcerated men report being in a committed heterosexual relationship before starting their sentences (Carlson & Cervera, 1991; Comfort et al., 2005). Strong intimate relationships are imperative to social policy because discord in intimate relationships is damaging to physical and emotional health and children’s development (Whisman & Uebelacker, 2006).

Maintaining a romantic and/or coparenting relationship requires a sustained effort when one of the members is incarcerated (Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Tadros, Durante, Morgan, & Hutcherson, 2022). For example, strict visitation policies, the often-remote location of prisons, and the costs associated with visitation and phone calls can be burdensome for women seeking to actively communicate with their incarcerated partners (Boppre et al., 2022; Comfort, 2008; Durante et al., 2022). Barriers to communication resulting from incarceration may hurt romantic relationships since communication is the central medium through which couples build and experience their relationships and address their problems (Burleson et al., 1996). Communication skills play an important role in the structure and maintenance of romantic relationships (Burleson et al., 1996), and therefore, supportive communication skills may serve as a protective factor for relationships when a member of a couple is incarcerated, despite the barriers to relational maintenance.

In this study, we use an ABC-X model of family stress theory (FST) lens to examine if supportive communication skills help to mitigate potential harm to relationships caused by the long distance and stressors of incarceration. Specifically, we examine how communication skills and patterns may relate to relationship changes and reported relationship happiness during the period when the male partner is incarcerated, among heterosexual couples. We expect that couples that exhibit supportive communication skills and patterns experience increased relative risks of their relationship staying the same or improving during the incarceration as well as increased levels of happiness in their relationship. We then go on to discuss the clinical implications of these findings, including how carceral facilities can help to strengthen intimate relationships and prepare individuals to adapt back into society. We focus on the perspective of the non-incarcerated partner because the burden of relational maintenance falls on them (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014). Incarcerated partners have restricted agency to make decisions about phone call plans or in-person visitation, placing the decision-making on the non-incarcerated partner, who is often the mother of coparented children (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014). In short, the perspective of the non-incarcerated partner is critical because they control how often and in what medium communication occurs; if they are dissatisfied with the relationship they may use incarceration as an opportunity to sever or reduce communication.

Challenges Associated With Incarcerated Romantic Relationships

Incarceration can put stress on relationships and contribute to negative financial, physical, and mental health outcomes for the non-incarcerated partners left behind (Arditti et al., 2003; Bruns, 2019; DeHart et al., 2018; McKay et al., 2018; Tadros, Durante, McKay, et al., 2022). Incarcerated individuals and/or their partners might disengage from their intimate relationship for many reasons. For example, newly single mothers may lack effective parenting skills and experience increased role strain due to the separation experienced in the relationship (Harman et al., 2007). Separation due to incarceration is a stressful experience that leads to emotional withdrawal and relationship instability (Harman et al., 2007). The physical separation, high costs associated with phone calls and visitation, and unpleasant or stressful visitation procedures or facilities may also lead to relationship strain and an increased likelihood of couples drifting apart (Boppre et al., 2022; Durante et al., 2022).

Financial need or precarity can also cause relationships to become strained or end. Women with incarcerated partners experience an increased risk of losing their housing (Geller & Franklin, 2014) and often have to work multiple jobs, known as the third shift (Bruns, 2019). They may also pursue new partnerships to gain access to necessities like housing or food security (Cooper et al., 2015). Some partnerships may dissolve as women gain financial independence and reexamine the value of their partner, or as they wait for their partner’s release to regain financial support (Cooper et al., 2015; Harman et al., 2007; Turney, 2015).

Non-incarcerated individuals in romantic relationships with incarcerated partners often experience poor psychological and physical health outcomes and may lack the coping skills necessary to establish and maintain preventive health behaviors and habits (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Harman et al., 2007). Incarceration increases the odds of divorce, which is concerning because romantic relationships can have positive benefits for the physical and mental well-being of both members (Apel et al., 2009; Massoglia et al., 2011). The physical separation of incarceration puts limitations on the way partners can express themselves to each other, which can weaken or end relationships (Petersilia, 2003; Tadros & Ansell, 2022). Incarceration removes individuals from their relationships, which disrupts the normal development of intimacy and commitment and makes it hard for relationships to be maintained (Matson et al., 2018). Personal well-being is more influenced by the negative components of romantic relationships, such as conflict and loneliness, than by the positive components of intimate relationships like marital satisfaction (Carcedo et al., 2012). Protective factors like couples having supportive communication skills may help them to experience fewer negative outcomes associated with incarceration. For example, frequent letter writing within romantic couples where a member is incarcerated can play a key role in deepening the intimate relationship (McKay et al., 2018), although less is known about the impact of supportive communication skills, such as how well a couple can laugh together and work through conflict.

Protective Factors of Incarcerated Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships should be preserved in incarcerated settings because they help motivate and maintain important social connections (Einat et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2012) and help reduce future criminality (Sampson et al., 2006; Wyse et al., 2014). Intimate bonds and empathy are intensified after undergoing a traumatic event as partners try to protect each other and their relationship (Einat et al., 2015). Stressful events can make incarcerated individuals and their partners see the importance of maintaining close romantic relationships (Einat et al., 2015).

Incarceration can provide a unique opportunity for couples to improve their relationship despite the many strains they experience (Comfort, 2008; Turney, 2015). For example, incarcerated individuals have the time to reflect on their roles as partners and parents and what they find important in their lives (Turney, 2015). It can also help couples to improve their communication and show the incarcerated person who cares about them (DeHart et al., 2018). Furthermore, the separation can increase romance and create a safe environment for women to connect with partners who may be physically abusive or financially draining (Comfort, 2008). The incarceration period provides an opportunity for couples to work on their relationships, and in turn, can have positive results on family functioning and reentry.

Incarcerated individuals who maintain strong relationships with their romantic partners and families during incarceration have higher rates of success upon release (Apel, 2016; Blokland & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Harman et al., 2007; Sampson et al., 2006). Romantic relationships can promote informal social control on partners, which may limit future criminal activity (Sampson et al., 2006; Wyse et al., 2014). Indeed, marriage is associated with a one-third reduction in offending and is viewed as a “turning point” for individuals involved in crime (Sampson et al., 2006; Wallace et al., 2020). Intimate relationship involvement increases the potential cost of engaging in crime, offers structure and financial stability, provides role expectations for both partners that reflect an identity without crime, and keeps partners away from situations that present criminal opportunities or influence (Wallace et al., 2020; Wyse et al., 2014). High-quality relationships allow each individual to be open to change and shift their identities from criminal to conventional (Wallace et al., 2020). Prison programming that helps partners to maintain and/or strengthen their relationship during a period of incarceration can benefit the health and well-being of the couple as well as help to reduce future criminality, which benefits the wider society.

Communication as a Protective Factor

Communication plays a central role in interpersonal relationships and is the tool that helps us to accomplish our goals (Guerrero et al., 2018). Research on interpersonal communication suggests that good communication is necessary for maintaining relationships, whereas poor communication often causes problems in interpersonal relationships (Guerrero et al., 2018). A quantitative analysis of 142 college students who were currently or formerly in a romantic relationship found that good communication skills and greater confidence in the ability to problem solve in situations where there is a conflict with a partner are associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006). Furthermore, using the Conflict Tendency Scale, which assesses individuals’ communication abilities and problems they face during communication, the researchers found that those with fewer communication problems (i.e., conflict tendencies) were more likely to experience relationship satisfaction (Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006). These findings are similar to Gottman (1994), who earlier found that criticism, contempt/disgust, defensiveness, and stonewalling in relationships can lead to relationship dissolution and further, that supportive communication can assist the maintenance of long-term romantic relationships.

Supportive communication skills may be especially imperative for couples where a member is incarcerated, due to the physical separation. Prisons are designed to be uncomfortable places, characterized by overcrowding and surveillance. In response, Comfort and colleagues (2005), in their qualitative study on sexual intimacy among heterosexual couples where the man was incarcerated, found that women and their incarcerated partners may carve out an alternative “place” (p. 8) for romantic interactions, relying on communication as a substitute for physical intimacy. Some of the women in their study expressed that their relationship lacked good communication before the incarceration and that the physical separation caused them to communicate better since they had to build a friendship not based on sex, which helped them to become closer together during the incarceration (Comfort et al., 2005). Similarly, De Claire and colleagues (2019) observed that couples compensate for the lack of physical contact through communication and that some incarcerated men work to improve their communication to feel more connected to their non-incarcerated partners. For example, they may be more willing to share their feelings when they would not have done so before the incarceration.

Family Stress Theory

We employ an FST (Hill, 1949; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) lens to examine relationship adaptation among couples experiencing incarceration. FST was originally developed as a framework for understanding how families adjusted to crises resulting from the physical separation of family members during wartime (Hill, 1949). According to the ABC-X model of FST, the interaction between the stressor event (A), existing strengths and resources (B), and the familial perceptions of the stressor (C) will determine the likelihood of crisis (X) or the degree to which families successfully adapt (i.e., “bonadaptation”) or plunge into crisis (i.e., “maladaptation”) following a stressful event. The resources a couple has for sustaining a healthy relationship are the “fulcrum” of success in determining if relationships “make it or break it” in response to the stress of incarceration. Without the resources needed (B)—such as positive communication, visiting experiences, and relationship education (RE)—intimate relationships may succumb to stressors (A) and experience maladaptation and, by extension, result in relationship disintegration, dissolution of the family unit, or less positive reentry scenarios. We conceptualize incarceration as the stressor event (A) and positive communication as a strength and resource that may serve as a protective factor (B) that impacts the non-incarcerated partner’s perceptions of their relationship during the incarceration (C) and helps them to successfully adapt their relationship to the situation (X). Flexibility is a primary predictor of the ability to healthily adapt to change (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981), especially in situations of high-stress structural changes such as incarceration (Tadros & Finney, 2018, 2019).

Peters and Massey (1983) advanced FST with the Mundane Extreme Environmental Stress model by asserting that those who experience daily oppression (i.e., racism, discrimination, the stigma associated with incarceration) have more heavily weighted stressors (A) than those who do not. We would be remiss to not acknowledge the institutional racism and oppression inherent to the U.S. criminal legal system, such as racially biased sentencing policies and the overrepresentation of people of color in prisons (Durante, 2021; Garland, 2001; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], 2018). The continuous, persistent, overt, and covert mechanisms of racism, oppression, and discrimination distend the magnitude of stressors, erode families’ available resources, and yield a lower likelihood of bonadaptation. FST facilitates our understanding of the racial and economic inequities that exist in the carceral system; families that experience incarceration are predisposed to more economic (e.g., poverty, housing instability, etc.), psychological (e.g., trauma, substance use, family instability, etc.), and physical (e.g., domestic violence) risks than the general population (Axelson et al., 2020; Murrell et al., 2007). In short, families experiencing incarceration tend to have many stressors and require an abundance of resources to overcome them, considering the importance of healthy relationships in achieving bonadaptation.

Current Study

In this study, we conceptualize incarceration as a stressor experience that can either “make or break” relationships, depending on the availability of resources to overcome stressors and achieve healthy romantic relationships. This research is important because strong intimate and familial relationships promote post-incarceration resilience. We examine the relationship between several communication skills and patterns—including supportiveness, sense of humor, and ability to deal with conflict—and the relationship quality among heterosexual couples where the male partner is incarcerated, from the perspective of non-incarcerated women. Specifically, we analyze relationship changes during the male partner’s current incarceration and the level of relationship happiness at the time of data collection to capture the relationship quality. There is a dearth of quantitative studies that examine the quality of relationships among couples who are romantically committed during the incarcerated period (Turney, 2015). Studying romantic relationships in justice-involved couples from the perspective of non-incarcerated women is important because men are much more likely to be incarcerated than women, and women partners being left behind is a common experience in the United States (Elderbroom et al., 2018; Maruschak et al., 2021). In turn, women are largely responsible for having to overcome the prison institutional barriers to relational maintenance and serve as gatekeepers to relationships between incarcerated fathers and their children (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014; Durante et al., 2022).

We hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Supportive communication skills among couples promote strong intimate relationships during incarceration.

Specifically, we expect that couples who can more frequently keep a sense of humor when arguing and who are good at working out their differences will report more relationship happiness and experience a reduced risk of drifting apart during the incarceration. Furthermore, we expect that couples whose arguments frequently become heated, who frequently experience small issues turning into big issues, and who experience frequent interruptions from their partner when speaking will self-report less relationship happiness and experience an increased risk of drifting apart during the incarceration.

Methods

Data Source

The Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering (MFS-IP) was designed to evaluate family-strengthening programs for incarcerated and reentering men and their partners (Bir & Lindquist, 2017). The MFS-IP recruited two groups: men from state prisons in five states—Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York—and the women they designated as their committed intimate and/or coparenting partners. All participants had to be 18 years of age or older, speak English, and be physically and mentally capable of participating in an interview. Between December 2008 and August 2014, an audio computer-assisted interviewing protocol was used to individually interview all participants by trained interviewers. The baseline interviews for men occurred in state prison facilities, while the interviews for women generally took place in community settings. The survey questions given to participants addressed relationship quality, parenting and coparenting, family contact, and the well-being of children and mothers during the men’s incarcerations.

Participants

We included women in analyses who answered the dependent variable questions, who were not incarcerated at the time of the interview, and who were in a romantic relationship with their partner. All data come from the women’s MFS-IP baseline study; this is a cross-sectional study. The term baseline here refers to when the data were collected, not when the men entered prison; the men had already been incarcerated for an average of 923.87 days (SD = 1,065.56) at the time of data collection. Furthermore, the couples had been in a relationship for an average of 90.31 (SD = 71.96) months at the time of data collection. About 97% of the women indicated that they parented at least one child with their partner. Furthermore, on average, the women had about 2.48 (SD = 1.58) children that they parented. Complete-case analysis left us with 933 cases, out of a possible 937 women who met the criteria above. Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. About 53% of the women were Black, 39% were white, and 8% were Latina or Hispanic. About 29% of them were married to their partner, 74% had at least a high school education or equivalent, and 55% of the women said they had been receiving some form of public assistance during the 6 months before their partner’s current incarceration. Only 5% of the women said they did not want contact with their partner during his incarceration.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables in the Models

Variables	n	M	SD	Min	Max
Relationship change during incarceration
Drifted apart	937	0.25	0.43	0.00	1.00
Became closer together	937	0.60	0.49	0.00	1.00
No change	937	0.15	0.36	0.00	1.00
Level of happiness in relationship	931	6.76	2.74	0.00	10.00
Communication skills
Sense of humor when arguing	935	3.26	0.81	1.00	4.00
Arguments get heated	934	2.18	0.89	1.00	4.00
Small issues suddenly become big issues	934	2.24	0.93	1.00	4.00
Couple good at working out differences	936	3.38	0.71	1.00	4.00
Partner interrupts her when she talks	935	2.56	0.89	1.00	4.00
Race/ethnicity of women
Black	937	0.53	0.49	0.00	1.00
White	937	0.39	0.49	0.00	1.00
Latina/Hispanic	937	0.08	0.27	0.00	1.00
Control variables
Length of relationship, months	936	90.31	71.96	1.00	492.00
Length of relationship, months (ln)	936	4.17	0.87	0.00	6.20
Days man incarcerated	937	923.87	1,065.56	9.00	9,355.00
Days man incarcerated (ln)	937	6.36	0.99	2.20	9.14
Married	937	0.29	0.46	0.00	1.00
Age of woman	937	32.26	9.52	18.00	75.00
Receive public assistance	935	0.55	0.50	0.00	1.00
High school diploma or equivalent	937	0.74	0.44	0.00	1.00
Woman does not want contact	934	0.05	0.23	0.00	1.00

Measures

We employed two dependent variables to capture relationship quality, with the first variable measuring how the relationship changed during the current incarceration and the second variable capturing self-reported happiness in the relationship at the time of data collection. We believe that each of these variables captures an important component of relationship quality among couples experiencing incarceration. For the first dependent variable, the women were asked, “How has [name] time in prison changed your relationship with him, if at all? Has it made you closer, has it made you drift apart, or has there been no change?” About 25% of the couples drifted apart and 60% became closer together during the incarceration period as of the time of the survey. The remaining 15% of women said their relationship stayed the same. The second dependent variable asked, “On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means not at all happy and 10 means perfectly happy, which number best describes your happiness with your relationship now?” The mean score was 6.76 (SD = 2.74).

Five different focal variables were used to capture their communication at the time of the study, during the men’s incarceration. The participants assessed each item on a 1 to 4 scale, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, and 4 = often. The measures include, “Even when arguing, you and your companion can keep a sense of humor” (M = 3.26, SD = 0.81), “Your arguments get very heated” (M = 2.18, SD = .89), “Small issues suddenly become big arguments” (M = 2.24, SD = 0.93), “You are good at working out your differences with each other” (M = 3.38, SD = 0.71), and “Your companion interrupts you when you are talking” (M = 2.56, SD = 0.89).

Analytic Strategy

Multinomial logistic regression was used for the analyses employing the first dependent variable, which is nominally measured. We first examined the focal independent variables (Table 2) and then added in key demographic and control variables, including participants’ race, ethnicity, age, education, marital status, whether they had received any public assistance, whether they did not want contact with their partner, length of their relationship, and the number of days the men had already been incarcerated at the time of data collection (Table 3). The latter two measures were naturally logarithmically transformed in the models to account for positive skew. An ordinary least squares regression model (not shown) was estimated for Models 2 and 3 to assess variance inflation factors (VIFs) and tolerance levels. All VIFs were less than 2.10 (M = 1.34) and the lowest tolerance level was 0.47; no multicollinearity concerns were detected. Next, for the analyses employing the second dependent variable, a 1 to 10 scale, multivariate linear regression modeling was used to examine how the different communication patterns relate to reported happiness in the relationship (Table 4).

Table 2:

Multinomial Logistic Regression Output Estimating Relationship Changes as a Function of Communication Skills and Patterns

Variables	Model 1
	RRR	SE	p	RRR	SE	p
	Closer together			Drifted apart
Sense of humor when arguing	0.909	0.145	.509	0.838	0.159	.267
Arguments get heated	1.402	0.150	.024	1.630	0.171	.004
Small issues suddenly become big issues	0.830	0.143	.193	0.990	0.165	.953
Couple good at working out differences	1.487	0.167	.017	0.683	0.178	.033
Partner interrupts her when she talks	0.844	0.122	.163	0.859	0.141	.283
Intercept	1.571	0.857	.598	4.991	0.937	.086
	χ² = 104.15 (10), p < .001
	Pseudo R² = .0593
	n = 933

Note. Baseline comparison is no change in relationship quality. RRR = relative risk ratio.

Table 3:

Multinomial Logistic Regression Output Estimating Relationship Changes as a Function of Communication Skills and Patterns and Covariates

Variables	Model 2
	RRR	SE	p	RRR	SE	p
	Closer together			Drifted apart
Sense of humor when arguing	0.897	0.149	.465	0.796	0.164	.169
Arguments get heated	1.497	0.154	.009	1.713	0.175	.002
Small issues suddenly become big issues	0.851	0.148	.274	1.009	0.170	.954
Couple good at working out differences	1.435	0.172	.035	0.686	0.184	.043
Partner interrupts her when she talks	0.830	0.126	.140	0.886	0.148	.418
Black	0.797	0.215	.290	0.686	0.249	.130
Latina/Hispanic	0.925	0.374	.835	0.713	0.441	.442
Length of relationship, months (ln)	0.813	0.129	.106	0.996	0.155	.964
Days man incarcerated (ln)	1.350	0.101	.003	1.586	0.121	< .001
Married	0.855	0.231	.495	0.954	0.271	.863
Age of woman	0.990	0.011	.349	0.947	0.014	< .001
High school diploma or equivalent	1.457	0.222	.090	0.999	0.253	.997
Receive public assistance	1.172	0.203	.436	1.250	0.237	.346
Woman does not want contact	0.323	0.434	.009	1.488	0.416	.341
Intercept	0.736	1.131	.787	1.451	1.284	.772
	χ² = 169.14 (30), p < .001
	Pseudo R^² = .0972
	n = 928

Note. Baseline comparison is no change in relationship quality. RRR = relative risk ratio.

Table 4:

Multivariate Regression Output Estimating Relationship Happiness

Variables	Model 3			Model 4
Variables	B	SE	p	B	SE	p
Sense of humor when arguing	0.254	0.121	.036	0.251	0.121	.039
Arguments get heated	−0.505	0.129	< .001	−0.463	0.128	< .001
Small issues suddenly become big issues	0.142	0.126	.261	0.143	0.126	.258
Couple good at working out differences	1.000	0.141	< .001	0.943	0.142	< .001
Partner interrupts her when she talks	−0.205	0.106	.052	−0.244	0.107	.023
Black				0.170	0.179	.342
Latina/Hispanic				−0.151	0.323	.641
Length of relationship, months (ln)				−0.104	0.108	.339
Days man incarcerated (ln)				0.019	0.089	.829
Married				−0.119	0.200	.551
Age of woman				−0.002	0.009	.870
High school diploma or equivalent				−0.263	0.192	.170
Receive public assistance				0.152	0.172	.376
Woman does not want contact				−1.346	0.363	< .001
Intercept	3.869	0.729	< .001	4.590	0.966	< .001
	R² = .1664			R² = .1721
	n = 928			n = 924

Results

Table 2 shows the results of the multinomial logistic regression output that assesses if the focal communication variables relate to an increased relative risk of couples becoming closer together, or conversely, drifting apart during the current incarceration. There is a 40% increase (p = .024) in the relative risk of couples becoming closer together, for every 1-point increase on the 4-point scale measuring if couples’ arguments get heated frequently. Curiously, each 1-point increase in couples’ arguments getting heated quickly is also associated with a 63% increase (p = .004) in the relative risk of drifting apart. That is, more frequent, heated arguments are associated with a higher risk of both becoming closer together and drifting apart, compared to the baseline response of the relationship staying the same. There is a 49% increase (p = .017) in the relative risk of couples becoming closer together, for every 1-point increase on the 4-point scale measuring if couples are frequently good at working out their differences. Likewise, being able to work out their differences more frequently is associated with a 32% decrease (p = .033) in drifting apart. The remaining focal variables are unrelated to a change in the quality of the relationship, at least from the perspective of the women, during the men’s current incarceration: being able to maintain a sense of humor when arguing, small issues suddenly becoming big issues, and having her partner interrupt her when she speaks.

Key demographics and control variables are introduced into Model 2, shown in Table 3. Increases in the frequency of heated arguments continue to be associated with an increased relative risk of both becoming closer together (p = .009) and drifting apart (p = .002), even with the introduction of the additional variables. Consistent with Model 1, we also observe a 44% increase (p = .035) in the relative risk of couples becoming closer together, for every 1-point increase on the 4-point scale measuring if couples are good at working out their differences, and a 31% decrease (p = .043) in the relative risk of drifting apart. An increase in the number of days incarcerated is positively associated with both an increase in the relative risk of becoming closer together (p = .003) and an increase in the risk of drifting apart (p < .001). An increase in years of age is associated with a decrease (p < .001) in the relative risk of drifting apart. Women not wanting contact with their partner during his incarceration is associated with a 68% decrease (p = .009) in the relative risk of becoming closer together. No racial or ethnic differences are observed regarding the relative risk of becoming closer together or drifting apart. The length of the relationship in months, marital status, education, and whether they had received any public assistance are also not associated with either becoming closer together or drifting apart.

Finally, Table 4 shows the results of the multivariate regression analyses predicting relationship happiness at the time of data collection. Four out of five of the focal variables predict relationship happiness, even with the addition of covariates in Model 4. Likewise, the effect sizes were similar across Models 3 and 4. A 1-point increase on the 4-point sense of humor scale corresponds with a 0.254 (p = .036) increase in relationship happiness level in Model 3, with consistent findings in Model 4 (B = 0.251, p = .039) when controlling for the other variables. A 1-point increase on the 4-point heated arguments scale correspondents with a −0.505 decrease (p < .001) in relationship happiness in Model 3 and a −0.463 decrease (p < .001) in Model 4. We expect to observe a 1.000 increase (p < .001) in relationship happiness for every 1-point increase on the 4-point scale capturing the couple’s ability to work out their differences in Model 3 and a 0.943 increase (p < .001) in Model 4, with the introduction of the covariates. Model 3 shows a −0.205 decrease (p = .052) in relationship happiness corresponding to a 1-point increase in the scale capturing their partner interrupting them when they talk, while Model 4 similarly shows a −0.244 expected decrease (p = .023) in relationship happiness. The 4-point scale capturing the frequency at which small issues suddenly become big is unrelated to relationship satisfaction in all models. None of the non-focal independent variables is related to relationship happiness other than the women not wanting contact while their partner is incarcerated (B = −1.346, p < .001). That is, no relationship happiness differences are observed across women from different racial or ethnic backgrounds, marital statuses, ages, or socioeconomic statuses. Nor are there any differences related to the number of days incarcerated or the length of the relationship.

Discussion

Incarceration is associated with a variety of negative outcomes for individuals and their loved ones such as financial precarity and adverse mental and physical health events (Arditti et al., 2003; Bruns, 2019; DeHart et al., 2018; McKay et al., 2018; Tadros & Presley, 2022). Visitation is critical for loved ones to maintain their bonds during incarceration, however, the associated barriers can strain relations and even lead to dissolution (Boppre et al., 2022; Durante et al., 2022). This is concerning because barriers to communication within couples can hurt intimacy and bonds since communication is the central medium through which couples build and experience their relationships (Burleson et al., 1996). Still, the relationship between communication skills and patterns and relationship quality during familial incarceration remains understudied, and this is among the first studies to examine supportive communication as a protective factor for couples experiencing incarceration. Supportive communication skills can help couples to successfully adapt their relationship during incarceration—a volatile time—in accordance with the ABC-X model of FST.

Social policy, as well as prison programs and procedures, should be invested in strengthening intimate relations between incarcerated individuals and their non-incarcerated partners because strong bonds can help to reduce future criminality (Sampson et al., 2006; Wyse et al., 2014). Furthermore, previous research has found that family visits and phone calls, and especially spousal visitation, are associated with a reduction in rule-breaking behavior; correctional staff has a vested interest in helping families maintain their relations because it might motivate good behavior within the prison facility (De Claire & Dixon, 2017). Stronger intimate relationships also benefit children. For example, a recent study found that, among heterosexual couples where the man is incarcerated, a strong coparenting relationship may mitigate the potential harm parental incarceration has on children, such as on educational success (Tadros & Durante, 2022). Notably, incarceration can provide an opportunity for couples to work on their relationships (Comfort, 2008; Turney, 2015). For example, relationship education (RE) programs can help couples to develop critical skills associated with relationship satisfaction, such as supportive communication skills.

Three key findings in this study suggest that supportive communication skills are associated with relationships becoming stronger and happier, at least from the perspective of non-incarcerated heterosexual women experiencing intimate partner incarceration. First, we found that having more frequently heated arguments is associated with couples both coming closer together during the incarceration and with couples drifting apart. Second, as expected, we found that couples who are more frequently good at working out their differences have a higher probability of becoming closer together during incarceration. Strengths and resources, such as supportive communication, and the perception associated with physical separation (e.g., incarceration) can impact how well families adapt or if they plunge into crisis, according to the ABC-X model of FST. Supportive communication skills are a critical tool for helping couples strained by separation due to incarceration, which can help couples to adapt or achieve bonadaptation successfully. Couples or families who experience the incarceration of a member predominantly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, including higher exposures to poverty, housing instability, substance abuse, family instability, and domestic violence (Axelson et al., 2020; Murrell et al., 2007). According to FST, resources such as supportive communication skills, then, are necessary to help these individuals achieve healthy relationships, due, in part to the many stressors experienced by this population. Healthy intimate relationships among the incarcerated population may be a mechanism of resilience with the potential to promote healthy post-carceral adaptation. Still, we cannot know why more frequent heated arguments are associated with an increased risk of becoming closer together during incarceration, based on the data and analyses employed in this study. Frequent heated arguments might suggest that couples are dedicated to working through their conflict for the good of the relationship.

Third, as expected, we found that the two positively-worded communication variables are associated with increased relationship happiness from the women’s perspectives, including more frequently having a sense of humor and more frequently being able to work out differences. Likewise, more frequently having heated arguments and being interrupted by their partners is associated with decreased relationship happiness. These findings are consistent with previous studies that found that supportive communication skills and a lack of conflict are associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction (Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006; Gottman, 1994). Prisons can be a space that allows couples to increase their bond by improving their communication skills, for example, because men might be more willing to share their feelings and because couples are forced to rely on non-sexual intimacy to keep their bonds (Comfort et al., 2005; De Claire et al., 2019).

There are several other notable findings, unrelated to our focal variables. First, we observe no difference in women’s relationship changes or happiness across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds. Next, we find that having been in the relationship longer is associated with relationship change during incarceration—both increased risks of becoming closer together and drifting apart. Finally, we found that not wanting contact, an important control variable, is associated with less risk of becoming closer together and less relationship happiness.

Clinical Implications

RE programs can be effective in imparting skills that encourage healthy relationships among incarcerated couples and families (Harcourt et al., 2017; Negash et al., 2022). These programs target relationship quality by developing communication and problem-solving skills among partners and helping them to understand processes that impact the durability of their intimate relationship, including compatible expectations, commitment, forgiveness, and key risk factors of relationship failure (Harcourt et al., 2017; Kazura, 2018). Facility-based RE programs for couples are most effective when the non-incarcerated partner can physically visit the prison or jail and participate in the classes with the incarcerated partner (Lindquist et al., 2012). This allows couples to experience physical contact with each other, talk through challenges they are facing as a couple, and practice new communication skills with one another (Kazura, 2018).

Supporting couples’ patterns of communication during incarceration is critical for maintaining their intimate connection, which can have implications for reentry success and recidivism (De Claire et al., 2019). Indeed, research finds that programming focused on improving communication skills among couples can be successful. Einhorn and colleagues (2008) evaluated an adapted version of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP Inside and Out) for individuals incarcerated in Oklahoma correctional facilities and found that participation in the program positively increased communication skills, relationship confidence and dedication, and relationship satisfaction. Notably, they found the program, which was designed to prevent marital distress and divorce by teaching couples skills and principles they need to maintain a healthy and lasting relationship, to be beneficial to all groups experiencing incarceration, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity.

There is also a need for marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to provide services to incarcerated persons and their loved ones. MFTs are well-positioned to take a systemic approach to rehabilitative efforts that are inclusive of the families of incarcerated persons. Furthermore, they have been shown to promote more successful reentry of the justice-involved individual into society and reduce recidivism, thereby reducing the burden placed on judicial systems (Datchi & Sexton, 2013). Still, there is a shortage of access to MFT services in incarcerated settings (Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Tadros & Durante, 2022). MFTs should work with both incarcerated and non-incarcerated partners to improve their self-confidence in problem-solving abilities and to acquire constructive communication skills to help couples achieve higher satisfaction. They should identify and explore factors that may impair effective communication, such as being insistent on one’s thoughts without listening to the other partner’s views or drawing conclusions before trying to alter misunderstandings (Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006). Furthermore, working in correctional facilities with couples and families calls for MFTs to address issues of power, privilege, racial discrimination, and historical trauma. Incarceration within the United States is not randomly distributed across the population, but instead, disproportionately impacts disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic groups (Elderbroom et al., 2018). MFTs and other mental health professionals working in incarcerated settings should be mindful of how this informs peoples’ sense of identity, mental well-being, and subsequent choice of behaviors that have ushered them into the judicial system. Furthermore, these individuals should especially benefit from resources and tools aimed to help them achieve bonadaptation.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study had several limitations, primarily due to the usage of secondary data. First, the data are not comprised of a random sample of individuals incarcerated (and by extension—their partners) across U.S. prisons and are therefore limited in their generalizability. Still, the data capture the perspective of women whose male partners were incarcerated in five states, demonstrating that the findings are more widespread than just a single state or institution. Next, the questions were designed for program evaluation purposes, and not for the present study. As a result, each of the focal communication skills questions is a single-item measure. Furthermore, the measures were collected to capture couples’ communication skills during the current incarceration; therefore, this is an observational study and we cannot and do not claim to demonstrate causation.

The original MFS-IP study, and therefore the present study, focused solely on heterosexual couples where the man was incarcerated. The data in this study come from the perspective of women who were in a romantic relationship with an incarcerated man. We encourage future researchers to investigate LGBTQ+ couples’ relationship changes and happiness during incarceration. We also recognize that our findings might have been different had we studied men whose partners were incarcerated, since, for example, McKay and colleagues (2019) found that couples experiencing incarceration report conflicting perceptions of their relationship quality. Understanding how people from diverse backgrounds approach relationship intimacy and connection is important for promoting relationship well-being. Finally, future qualitative research should examine why frequent heated arguments among couples experiencing incarceration may facilitate couples becoming closer together.

Concluding Remarks

This study employed an ABC-X model of FST lens and data from the MFS-IP to examine if supportive communication serves as a protective factor among heterosexual couples experiencing incarceration. Specifically, we examined if and how supportive communication skills relate to relationship changes and happiness from the perspective of women whose male partners were incarcerated. Previous research has found that close intimate relationships during incarceration are associated with higher rates of post-release success (Apel, 2016; Blokland & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Harman et al., 2007; Sampson et al., 2006) and that studying the non-incarcerated partner’s relationship experience is critical because the burden of maintaining the relationship and familial contact falls to them (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014). The findings of this research suggest that more frequently heated arguments are associated with couples both coming closer together during the incarceration and with couples drifting apart and that couples who are more frequently good at working out their differences are more likely to become closer together during incarceration. Furthermore, we found that having a sense of humor and being able to work out differences are each associated with greater relationship happiness while frequently getting into heated arguments and frequent interruptions while speaking are associated with less relationship happiness. We argue that, given the importance of supportive communication to relationship stability and happiness during incarceration, carceral facilities should integrate RE and employ MFTs to help strengthen relationships.

Footnotes

AUTHORS’ NOTE:

There is no funding for this project and there are no conflicts of interest to report.

ORCID iDs

Katherine A. Durante

Eman Tadros

Melanie Barbini

Katherine A. Durante, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Sociology Department at the University of Utah. Her research centers around racial inequality and punishment and the impacts of incarceration on families.

Eman Tadros, PhD, is an assistant professor at Syracuse University in the Department of Marriage and Family Therapy. She is a licensed marriage and family therapist, MBTI certified, and an AAMFT Approved Supervisor. Her research focuses on incarcerated couples and families.

Candis Braxton, MA, is a licensed marriage and family therapist associate (LMFTA) practicing in Fayetteville, NC. She received her master’s degree in General Family Therapy from Northcentral University. Candis’ current research interests surround the utility and utilization of systemic family therapies for the rehabilitation of marginalized populations.

Melanie Barbini is an MD/PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. She is interested in using her dual degree to better understand neurobiological and psychiatric diseases and help marginalized populations receive effective and adequate health care.

References

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

Apel

Blokland

A. A. J.

Nieuwbeerta

van Schellen

(2009). The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk set matching approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9087-5

Arditti

J. A.

Lambert-Shute

Joest

(2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00195.x

Axelson

Kelleher

Chisolm

Boch

(2020). How do I help this kid adjust to what real life is for them? Youth service providers experiences on supporting children with incarcerated parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104802

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Arditti

J. A.

(2014). Implications of in-person visits for incarcerated parents’ family relationships and parenting experience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.868390

Bir

Lindquist

(2017, November 17). Multi-site family study on incarceration, parenting and partnering, 2008-2014. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36639.v1

Blokland

A. A. J.

Nieuwbeerta

(2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology, 43(4), 1203–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00037.x

Boppre

DeHart

Shapiro

C. J.

(2022). “The prison system doesn’t make it comfortable to visit”: Prison visitation from the perspectives of people incarcerated and family members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(1), 1474–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221094823

Bruns

(2019). The third shift: Multiple job holding and the incarceration of women’s partners. Social Science Research, 80(1), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.024

10.

Burleson

B. R.

Kunkel

A. W.

Samter

Werking

K. J.

(1996). Men’s and women’s evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: When sex differences make a difference—And when they don’t. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 201–224.

11.

Carcedo

R. J.

Perlman

López

Begoña Orgaz

(2012). Heterosexual romantic relationships, interpersonal needs, and quality of life in prison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n1.37308

12.

Carlson

B. E.

Cervera

(1991). Inmates and their families: Conjugal visits, family contact, and family functioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(3), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854891018003005

13.

Carson

(2021). Prisoners in 2020–Statistical tables (NCJ 302776). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf

14.

Comfort

(2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of prison. University of Chicago Press.

15.

Comfort

Grinstead

McCartney

Bourgois

Knight

(2005). “You can’t do nothing in this damn place”: Sex and intimacy among couples with an incarcerated male partner. Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552251

16.

Cooper

H. L. F.

Caruso

Barham

Embry

Dauria

Clark

C. E.

Comfort

M. L.

(2015). Partner incarceration and African-American women’s sexual relationships and risk: A longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 92(3), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9941-8

17.

Coyne

J. C.

DeLongis

(1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.454

18.

Datchi

C. C.

Sexton

T. L.

(2013). Can family therapy have an effect on adult criminal conduct? Initial evaluation of functional family therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(4), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034166

19.

De Claire

Dixon

. (2017). The effects of prison visits from family members on prisoners’ well-being, prison rule breaking, and recidivism: A review of research since 1991. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603209

20.

De Claire

Dixon

Larkin

. (2019). How prisoners and their partners experience the maintenance of their relationship during a prison sentence. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2445

21.

DeHart

Shapiro

Clone

(2018). “The pill line is longer than the chow line”: The impact of incarceration on prisoners and their families. The Prison Journal, 98(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517753159

22.

Durante

K. A.

Meertins

J. R. P.

Tadros

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

23.

Durante

K. A.

(2021). County-level context and sentence lengths for Black, Latinx, and white individuals sentenced to prison: A multi-level assessment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(9), 915–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021893

24.

Eğeci

İ. S.

Gençöz

. (2006). Factors associated with relationship satisfaction: Importance of communication skills. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9010-2

25.

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

26.

Einhorn

Williams

Scott

Wunderlin

Markman

Eason

(2008). PREP inside and out: Marriage and education for inmates. Family Process, 47(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00257.x

27.

Elderbroom

Bennett

Gong

Rose

Towns

(2018). Every second: The impact of the incarceration crisis on America’s families. FWD.us. https://everysecond.fwd.us/downloads/everysecond.fwd.us.pdf

28.

Garland

(2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Sage.

29.

Geller

Franklin

A. W.

(2014). Paternal incarceration and the housing security of urban mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12098

30.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Guerrero

L. K.

Andersen

P. A.

Walid

A. A.

(2018). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (5th ed.). Sage.

32.

Harcourt

K. T.

Adler-Baeder

Rauer

Pettit

G. S.

Erath

(2017). Relationship education for incarcerated adults. Family Process, 56(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12164

33.

Harman

J. J.

Smith

V. E.

Egan

L. C.

(2007). The impact of incarceration on intimate relationships. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(6), 794–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807299543

34.

Hill

(1949). Families under stress. Harper & Row.

35.

Kazura

(2018). Relationship intervention for inmates and their partners: Bringing couples together before release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(9), 2586–2600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X177215

36.

Kluckow

Zeng

(2022). Correctional populations in the United States, 2020—Statistical tables (NCJ 303184). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus20st.pdf

37.

Lindquist

McKay

Bir

(2012). Strategies for building healthy relationship skills among couples affected by incarceration. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

38.

Maruschak

Bronson

Alper

(2021). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmcspi16st.pdf

39.

Massoglia

Remster

King

R. D.

(2011). Stigma or separation? Understanding the incarceration-divorce relationship. Social Forces, 90(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/90.1.133

40.

Matson

P. A.

Towe

Ellen

J. M.

Chung

S. E.

Sherman

S. G.

(2018). The interaction of sexual validation, criminal justice involvement, and sexually transmitted infection risk among adolescent and young adult males. Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, 45(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000724

41.

McCubbin

H. I.

Patterson

J. M.

(1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1), 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002V06N01_02

42.

McKay

Comfort

Lindquist

Bir

(2019). Holding on: Family and fatherhood during incarceration and reentry. University of California Press.

43.

McKay

Lindquist

Feinberg

Steffrey

Landwehr

Bir

(2018). Family life before and during incarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1441209

44.

Minuchin

Fishman

H. C.

(1981). Family therapy techniques. Harvard University Press.

45.

Murrell

A. R.

Christoff

K. A.

Henning

K. R.

(2007). Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: Associations with childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9100-4

46.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2018). Criminal justice fact sheet. https://naacp.org/resources/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/

47.

Negash

Roberson

P. N.

Tadros

DeJesus

(2022). A brief relationship education pilot intervention for men post-release. The Prison Journal, 102(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221095560

48.

Peters

M. F.

Massey

(1983). Chronic vs. mundane stress in family stress theories: The case of black families in white America. Marriage and Family Review, 6, 193–218.

49.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.

50.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

Wimer

(2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00055.x

51.

Tadros

Ansell

(2022). Romantic attachment, childhood stability, depression, and PTSD in couples with an incarcerated partner. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(2), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14976

52.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

(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

53.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000671

54.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

Morgan

A. A.

Hutcherson

(2022). An actor-partner interdependence model analysis of family support and depression among coparenting couples with an incarcerated partner. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 61(7), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2022.2116521

55.

Tadros

Finney

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

56.

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

57.

Tadros

Presley

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

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.

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

60.

Whisman

M. A.

Uebelacker

L. A.

(2006). Impairment and distress associated with relationship discord in a national sample of married or cohabitating adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369

61.

Wright

E. M.

DeHart

D. D.

Koons-Witt

B. A.

Crittenden

C. A.

(2012). “Buffers” against crime? Exploring the roles and limitations of positive relationships among women in prison. Punishment & Society, 15(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474512466199

62.

Wyse

J. J.

Harding

D. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

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