Desistance from Crime during the Transition to Adulthood: The Influence of Parents, Peers, and Shifts in Identity

• Author: Wendy D. Manning,Peggy C. Giordano,Monica A. Longmore,Jennifer E. Copp
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427819878220
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Desistance from Crime

during the Transition

to Adulthood:

The Influence

of Parents, Peers,

and Shifts in Identity

Jennifer E. Copp

1

, Peggy C. Giordano

2

,

Monica A. Longmore

2

, and Wendy D. Manning

2

Abstract

Objectives: Research on criminal continuity and change has traditionally

focused on elements of the adult life course (e.g., marriage and employ-

ment); however, recent social and economic changes suggest the need to

consider a broader range of factors. In addition, researchers have increas-

ingly recognized the importance of identity changes in the desistance pro-

cess. Methods: Using five waves of structured data from the Toledo

Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), we examined identity changes,

shifts in involvement with delinquent peers, and variability in closeness with

parents as influences on desistance. In-depth interviews with a subset of

TARS respondents offered a person-centered lens on individual and social

processes associated with variability in criminal behavior. Results: Findings

1

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

2

Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jennifer E. Copp, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University,

Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

Email: jcopp@fsu.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2020, Vol. 57(3) 294-332

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427819878220

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

indicated that identity changes were associated with declines in offending. In

addition, changes in parental closeness and the extent of affiliation with

antisocial peers contributed to patterns of offending, net of these subjec-

tively experienced cognitive changes. Conclusions: Cognitive processes are

important to desistance. However, they do not independently provide a

path to sustained behavioral change. Social experiences, including changes in

relationships/supports from parents and affiliation with delinquent peers,

also figure into change processes. We discuss the implications of our find-

ings for future research and programmatic efforts.

Keywords

life-course theory, developmental theories, desistance from crime,

cognitive theories, criminological theory, qualitative research, research

methods

Marriage and employment have been central to theory and research focused

on the process of desisting from crime (e.g., Farrington and West 1995;

King, Massoglia, and MacMillan 2007; Sampson and Laub 1993; Uggen

2000). The emphasis on these important life-course transitions fits well with

the notion of “asymmetrical causation,” or the idea that the causes of

offending are likely to differ from the causes of crime cessation (Uggen

and Piliavin 1998; see also Laub and Sampson 2001). Early findings sup-

ported this emphasis, as some research indicated that traditional risk factors

associated with the onset of criminal behavior were not particularly strong

predictors of desistance (Laub, Nagin, and Sampson 1998; Nagin, Farring-

ton, and Moffitt 1995). Research instead has focused heavily on the ways in

which marriage and employment provide offenders the elements of social

control and stability necessary to support a change in life direction (e.g.,

Laub and Sampson 2003; Horney, Osgood, and Marshall 1995; Sampson,

Laub, and Wimer 2006). Conversely, traditional risk factors (e.g., affiliation

with delinquent peers, lack of attachment to parents, or antisocial family

climate) have garnered relatively little attention as factors related to crim-

inal persistence and desistance.

While marriage and employment are key adult experiences, our view is

that an exclusive focus on these two domains does not result in a complete

portrait of the adult life course or of the nature of desistance processes. One

potentially significant complication is that, as compared to earlier genera-

tions, young adults are putting off marriage longer (often into their late 20s

Copp et al. 295

and beyond) or not getting married at all (Raley, Sweeney, and Wondra

2015). Employment experiences have also changed; the availability of sta-

ble blue-collar jobs has declined for those with only a high school education

(Mortimer 2009; Schneider and Stevenson 1999), and frequent job changes

have become increasingly normative (Metcalfe et al. 2003). Yet despite this

changing social and economic landscape, declines in criminal behavior

continue to occur, as revealed in longitudinal studies that have traced indi-

viduals from adolescence across the transition to adulthood (e.g., Farrington

1986; Shulman, Steinberg, and Piquero 2013). At the same time, research-

ers have highlighted variability within samples (see, e.g., Evans, Simons,

and Simons 2016; Monahan et al. 2009), raising the possibility that previ-

ously observed general age trends and within-sample variability do not trace

solely to marriage and employment circumstances.

Sampson and Laub’s theorizing about marriage and employment effects

placed the emphasis on forces “external to the individual.” As interest in the

area has developed, some researchers have focused attention on individual-

level factors such as identity changes and other kinds of cognitive transfor-

mations that are not fundamentally dependent on these exogenous forces

(Farrall and Bowling 1999; Giordano 2016; Giordano, Cernkovich, and

Rudolph 2002; Maruna 2001; Paternoster and Bushway 2009). Although

this focus on subjective changes offers a more agentic view of the desis-

tance process, most of the research in this area has been based on qualitative

research and retrospective accounts (Bersani and Doherty 2018; Giordano

et al. 2002; Paternoster and Bushway 2009; but see Rocque, Posick, and

Paternoster 2016). In addition, this li ne of research has the potential to

foster a view of desistance as an individualistic process in which offenders

simply decide that it is time to change, and subsequently things begin to fall

into place.

The focus on subjective processes, including identity changes, has been a

useful theoretical development, but as a standalone theory does not fully

account for either (a) the difficulties some offenders face on the road to

desistance (Halsey and Deegan 2015) or (b) the role of social experiences

that can support or inhibit the process of making these significant life

changes. In this analysis, we focus on two social domains—parents and

peers—that figure heavily in studies of criminal “onset” but that have been

relatively neglected in studies of adult desistance. Particularly within the

contemporary context, parents and peers may continue to play a role as

significant sources of support and influence, as more general research on the

uncertain period of “emerging adulthood” has recently highlighted (Barry,

Madsen, and DeGrace 2015; Fingerman et al. 2012; Young et al. 2015).

296 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 57(3)