‘Man’s best possession’: Period effects in the association between marriage and offending
| Published date | 01 July 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812448330 |
| Author | Catrien Bijleveld,Joris Beijers,Frans van Poppel |
| Date | 01 July 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
9(4) 425 –441
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812448330
euc.sagepub.com
‘Man’s best possession’:
Period effects in the
association between
marriage and offending
Joris Beijers
Phoolan Devi Institute, VU University, The Netherlands
Catrien Bijleveld
NSCR Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, The Netherlands; Phoolan Devi Institute, VU
University, The Netherlands
Frans van Poppel
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Abstract
We assess to what extent the associations between marriage and offending differ for high-risk
men marrying in two distinct periods: 1930–70 and 1971–2006. Between these two periods,
power relations between the sexes, laws governing marriage and in general the role and
expectations attached to marriage differed. Based on these differences, we argue that – following
two explanations for the ‘marriage effect’, that is the control and the social capital explanation – a
different effect of marriage is expected for the two marriage cohorts. Our results confirm these
expectations and thus provide support for both explanations.
Keywords
criminal careers, desistance, history, marriage, the Netherlands, period effects
Introduction
Quite a number of studies have established that offenders who marry tend to decrease
their offending. Much of the evidence is based on studies carried out in Anglo-Saxon
Corresponding author:
Joris Beijers, Phoolan Devi Institute, De Boelelaan 1077, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: j.e.h.beijers@vu.nl
448330EUC9410.1177/1477370812448330Beijers et al.European Journal of Criminology
2012
Article
426 European Journal of Criminology 9(4)
countries focusing on recent cohorts of males (Savolainen, 2009; Zoutewelle-Terovan
et al., in press). It is less clear whether the supposed effect of marriage on offending also
holds for males in other countries and in other periods, because cultural settings, legal
implications and the characteristics of marriage and family formation vary between
countries and over time.
This study investigates this ‘marriage effect’ for Dutch men in different periods
(marriage cohorts 1938–70 and 1971–2006) over which marriage evolved in terms of its
role, the expectations attached to it, and the power relations between spouses. This
evolving role of the institution of marriage makes it possible to shed light on the
mechanisms through which marriage is supposed to exert an effect.
In this study we will firstly investigate whether marriage had a dampening effect on
men’s offending levels, disaggregating between two different periods. Next, we will
assess which factors associated with different mechanisms that explain the protective
effect of marriage can account for that effect.
This study adds to the literature in four ways. First, we extend the study of the marriage
effect to a non-Anglo-Saxon country. Secondly, we extend the study of the marriage
effect on offending to different historical periods so that, through the use of historical
changes in marital relations, we will be able to investigate whether such aspects can
explain the protective effect of marriage. Thirdly, in doing so, we will use objective data
on offending and marriage, collected prospectively for a large sample at high risk of
offending and thus well suited to shed light on the research issues at hand. Fourthly, we
will employ fixed-effects models to be able to assess the causal relations between
marriage and offending.
Theories on the relationship between marriage and
offending
Four possible mechanisms have been put forward in the literature through which marriage
could be generating a reduction in offending in married males.
First, marriage could reduce offending through the control exerted by the spouse. In
general, female romantic partners are likely to disapprove of offending in their male
partner. Through control over their husband’s whereabouts and doings, wives restrain,
it is argued, their partner from offending. The wives’ disapproval is in a sense the
driving force in this explanation. Support for this explanation has been found in
qualitative studies (Sampson and Laub, 1990), as well in studies that found that it is the
stability and the quality of the relationship that predicted desistance (Laub et al., 1998),
and in studies that found that the reducing effect of marriage was much smaller when
spouses themselves were delinquent (Capaldi et al., 2008). A second mechanism is that
of social capital. The idea here is that, because men are likely to marry a non-delinquent
partner, marriage increases males’ social capital (Laub and Sampson, 2003).
Delinquency might put that social capital, its network and support, at stake. The third
explanation is that married men spend more time with their wife, more time earning a
family income and thus less time with (delinquent) peers (Warr, 1998). Fourthly, the
transition into marriage could forge an identity shift, from an irresponsible adolescent
into a responsible adult, into which delinquency does not fit (Giordano et al., 2002;
Lebel et al., 2008; Maruna, 2001).
To continue reading
Request your trial