Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 1
Romantic Partners as Turning Points in the Development
of Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood:
Developmental Systems Theory as a Framework for Understanding Change
Manfred H. M. van Dulmen, Susaye Rattigan
Kent State University, Department of Psychology
Address correspondence regarding this paper to Manfred H. M. van Dulmen, PhD, Assistant
Professor, Kent State University, Department of Psychology, PO Box 5190 Kent OH 44242,
email: mvandul@kent.edu; voice: 330.672.2504
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 2
Abstract
This paper proposes –guided by empirical evidence and developmental systems theory- a
conceptual model to investigate the role of romantic relationships in the development of
antisocial behavior. The model includes five different components: (1) pathway from overall
family functioning/parent-child conflict, romantic relationship overall quality and conflict
resolution, to antisocial behavior; (2) pathway from friendship quality/friendship deviancy,
romantic overall quality and conflict resolution, to antisocial behavior; (3) pathway from overall
family functioning/parent-child conflict, dating pattern (level of involvement and number of
partners), to antisocial behavior; (4) pathway from friendship quality/friendship deviancy, dating
pattern, to antisocial behavior; (5) feedback loops from individual antisocial behavior back to
family/parent-child relationships and friendship/peer relationships.
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 3
Romantic Partners as Turning Points in the Development of Antisocial Behavior during
Adolescence: Developmental Contextualism as a Framework for Understanding Change
Developmental scholars have gained an increasing appreciation for the significance of
adolescent romantic relationships (Collins, 2003). By age 16, the majority of adolescents have
been in a romantic relationship (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). The successful formation of
romantic relationships is one of the major developmental tasks of adolescence (Sullivan, 1953)
and experiences in adolescent romantic relationships have vast implications for both normative
and atypical development (Furman & Shaffer, 2003). Involvement in romantic relationships
provides opportunities for psycho-social development, including for example developing
intimacy, and becoming more autonomous from parents (Furman, Ho, & Low, 2007). At the
same time, adolescent romantic relationships may also be associated with maladaptation and
risky behavior, including stress and depression (Welsh, Grello, & Harper, 2003), dating violence,
and sexual risk taking (see e.g. Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003).
Although involvement in adolescent romantic relationships provides opportunities to
fulfill developmental tasks, and is sometimes associated with maladaptive functioning, relatively
few studies on adolescent antisocial behavior have considered the role of romantic relationships.
This is somewhat surprising because (a) the large majority of adolescents are involved in a
romantic relationship by middle to late adolescence and (b) developmental perspectives on
continuity and change of antisocial behavior1 (e.g. Lahey, Waldman, & McBurnett, 1999) have a
long history of considering contextual influences in the development of antisocial behavior. In
fact, family and non-romantic peer relationships have for long been implicated in the
1
Conceptual definitions of antisocial behavior vary greatly across empirical studies. In the current study, we include
both aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior that is generally reflective of rule-breaking behavior. Our
conceptualization does not include some domains that are sometimes included in definitions of antisocial behavior,
most notably substance abuse and sexual risk taking, and recognized the need for precise definitions (see Tremblay,
2000)
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 4
development of antisocial behavior, and their significance is particularly paramount during
adolescence (see literature on childhood- versus adolescent-onset antisocial behavior, Moffitt,
2006). Furthermore, antisocial behavior peaks during adolescence (with the exception of
physical aggression see Tremblay, 2000), and therefore this age-period provides opportunities
for identifying turning points and transitions, also because developmental pathways of antisocial
behavior increasingly diverge during this time (Rutter, 1996).
Attention to the role of romantic relationships in the development of antisocial behavior
stems, however, primarily from the adult literature. The purpose of this paper is to propose a
developmental framework for studying the role of adolescent romantic relationships for the
development of antisocial behavior during adolescence. This paper, and thus the proposed
conceptual model, is limited to the study of individual antisocial behavior and does not focus on
violence within the romantic relationship. Developmental models on the latter are already
available in the literature (see e.g. Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2004). Before we discuss the
conceptual model proposed in this paper, we will provide a discussion of the empirical evidence
for the role of romantic partners in the development of antisocial behavior and discuss other
theoretical perspectives that have been used to understand the romantic relationship-antisocial
behavior link.
Empirical Evidence That Romantic Relationships Affect Antisocial Behavior
Seminal work on the development of antisocial behavior suggests that romantic partners
may serve an important role in predicting who continues to be involved in antisocial behavior
across the life-course as compared to who desists from criminal involvement (Laub & Sampson,
2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993). A number of studies have found that romantic relationship
involvement during adulthood is associated with declines in antisocial behavior (e.g., Farrington,
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 5
1995; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Some studies have suggested that
involvement in romantic relationships have protective effects even if individuals have a history
of antisocial behavior (e.g., Sampson, Laub, & Wilmer, 2006).
Studies with adolescent populations, however, suggest that early involvement in romantic
relationships (i.e. by age 16 see Meeus, Branje, & Overbeek, 2004; Neeman et al, 1995; ZimmerGembeck, Siebenbruner, & Collins, 2001) is associated with elevated levels of antisocial
behavior during adolescence and into young adulthood, but also that this effect is stronger for
females as compared to males (Haynie, 2003; Kiesner et al, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck et al.,
2001). Additionally, studies have found particular aspects of adolescents’ romantic relationship
to have significant predictive value. Zimmer-Gembeck and colleagues (2001) indicated that
overinvolvement in romantic relationships during early and middle adolescence was a significant
predictor of antisocial behavior (Zimmer-Gembeck et al, 2001) in middle and late adolescence in
that individuals involved in a high amount of dating by age 16 were more likely to engage in
antisocial behavior as compared to individuals who were not, or little, involved in dating during
that age (see also Furman et al., 2007).
Despite some consistent findings that involvement in romantic relationships has
significant value for predicting commission of antisocial acts, pioneers in the romantic
relationship research area have argued that examination of specific relationship processes may be
more fruitful (Collins, 2003). Indeed, findings from a number of studies suggest that higher
quality young romantic relationships are associated with individual differences in decreases of
antisocial behavior (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Meeus et al., 2004; Sampson & Laub, 1993;
Simons et al, 2002; Wright et al, 2001), with some findings indicating that this effect is stronger
for females as compared to males (Simons et al., 2002). This findings indicate that not mere
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 6
involvement, but the quality of the relationship, as for exampled reflected by levels of partner
support or romantic relationship security, are essential in understanding pathways to antisocial
behavior.
Besides focusing on the role of romantic relationship involvement and romantic
relationship processes (i.e. quality), various studies have also focused on the role of partner
characteristics. Findings from the empirical literature have indicated a positive relationship
between involvement with a deviant/antisocial partner and elevated levels of antisocial behavior
(Haynie, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2005; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Simons
et al, 2002). Findings from these studies indicate that individuals involved in relationships with
antisocial partners are more likely to participate in antisocial and delinquent acts throughout
adulthood compared to unmarried individuals. Results from Sampson and colleagues’ study
examining the effects of marriage on desistance from crime between the ages of 17 to 32
indicated that although men in high quality relationships had lower levels of antisocial behavior,
men with antisocial partners had significantly higher levels of antisocial behavior (regardless of
the quality of the romantic relationship).
Theoretical Perspectives in the Adult Literature:
Social Control Theory and Social Learning Theory
The role of romantic partners in the development of antisocial behavior has primarily
been explained through social control and social learning theory (although for an exception see
Capaldi et al. 2004). Both social learning (Akers, 1977) and social control theories (Hirschi,
1969) offer a complementary conceptualization of the effects of social influences on the
developing adolescents’ antisocial behavior. From the social learning perspective, close
relationships provide a developmental context that allows for the shaping of individuals’
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 7
emotional and cognitive processes by reinforcing acceptable behaviors and punishing
unacceptable behaviors. The close relationships that adolescents have with their caregivers and
their peers also lay the foundation from which they develop prosocial or antisocial values and
behaviors. These values affect individuals’ decision-making processes in subsequent interactions
within significant relationships. As romantic relationships develop, adolescents incorporate their
views and values from earlier relationships to guide their relational patterns with their partners.
During this period, adolescents’ romantic partners also contribute to their socialization since
views and values are continuously being refined. If these close relationship partners value,
reinforce and provide opportunities for antisocial behavior, they are more likely to impact the
ways in which adolescents and adults think about their decisions to participate in prosocial or
antisocial behavior. Although social learning theory offers some insight into varying ways in
which individuals develop antisocial motivations, it does not explain how relationship quality
affects the development of emotional and cognitive processes leading to antisocial behaviors
(Huang, Kosterman, Catalano, Hawkins & Abbott, 2001).
Social control theory offers an alternative to the social learning conceptualization by
defining the specific ways in which social bonds may impact antisocial behavior. Control
theorists argue that individual behavior is largely determined by the attachments and bonds that
they hold to social institutions (Hirschi, 1969). The prosocial or antisocial nature of these bonds
and their valence in young people’s lives are the forces that impact whether they will value
antisocial behavior. From this perspective, if adolescents have strong attachments to antisocial
individuals, these individuals are more likely to affect adolescents’ behaviors than other
prosocial individuals with whom they have weaker bonds i.e. social bonds control the decisions
that adolescents make when faced with antisocial opportunities. Adolescents who are developing
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 8
or have developed strong attachments to their antisocial romantic partners are more likely to
participate in antisocial behavior, particularly if their partners value them. On the other hand,
having strong attachments to prosocial individuals also reduces the likelihood that individuals
will participate in antisocial behavior. These attachments to prosocial individuals will result in
reinforcements to participate in prosocial behavior, minimize opportunities for antisocial
activities, and the possibility that the social bond will be threatened by participation in antisocial
behavior.
Although social control theory may provide a useful framework for understanding the
role of marriage and romantic relationships in adult antisocial behavior and crime (see e.g.
Sampson & Laub, 1993), social control theory does not provide much insight as to why
experiences in romantic relationships may lead to changes in antisocial behavior. Social learning
theory unfortunately, provides little context for understanding why the positive/buffering effect
of romantic relationship involvement on antisocial behavior seems to be primarily limited to high
quality romantic relationships.
A Developmental Framework for Studying Romantic Relationships
In addition to these aforementioned theoretical perspectives –social control and social
learning theory—not providing full accounts of the empirical literature on romantic relationships
and antisocial behavior, they may also be less applicable for understanding the role of romantic
relationships in the development of antisocial behavior during adolescence. In fact, various
scholars (Collins, 2003; Furman & Wehner, 1994) have called for research approaches that take
into consideration the specific nature and course of adolescent romantic relationships. That is,
although there is some benefit of applying adult models to the study of adolescent romantic
relationships (see e.g. Tabares & Gottman, 2003), these models do not place particular emphasis
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 9
on the developmental context of adolescent romantic relationships. Indeed, as previously
mentioned, adolescent romantic relationships are different in terms of length and commitment
during adolescence as compared to adulthood. Adolescent romantic relationships are not
spurious, on average somewhat shorter than adult romantic relationships, but increase in length
and commitment from early to late adolescence (Carver et al., 2003; Schulman & Scharf, 2000).
In addition to differences in duration and commitment, their developmental significance
also differs from adult romantic relationships, with a shift occurring during late adolescence.
During early adolescence, adolescent romantic relationships more reflect the characteristics of
non-romantic peer relationships whereas by late adolescence, their features and what adolescents
seek to get out of the relationship reflect more the characteristics of adult romantic relationships
(Furman & Wehner, 1994; Shulman & Scharf, 2000). Romantic relationships during early
adolescence reflect the characteristics of friendship relationships, with companionship being
more on the forefront of the relationship whereas during late adolescence intimacy plays a more
prominent role in the relationship (Shulman & Scharf, 2000).
Evidence that the Role of Romantic Relationships in the Development of Antisocial Behavior
Differs during Adolescence versus Young Adulthood
Further evidence of the distinctiveness of adolescent romantic relationships from adult
romantic relationships can be derived from formally testing the role of adolescent romantic
relationships in predicting individual outcomes during adolescence versus consequent ageperiods (Collins & van Dulmen, 2006). Research findings suggest that the role of romantic
relationships may vary with developmental level, in that early (age 16) involvement in romantic
relationships serves as a risk factor whereas involvement during young adulthood serves as a
protective factor (Farrington, 1995; Joyner & Udry, 2000; Meeus et al., 2004). The finding that
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 10
early romantic relationship involvement is a risk factor is contrary to the concept of romantic
relationships as positive turning points (Sampson & Laub, 1993). One possible explanation for
this finding is that the impact of romantic relationships on antisocial behavior is moderated by
developmental period as (experiences in) romantic relationships serve different functions during
adolescence as compared to young and later adulthood (Collins, 2003).
Whereas early involvement in romantic relationships seems to serve as a risk factor for
the development of antisocial behavior from adolescence into young adulthood, romantic
relationship processes seem to become more important during young adulthood in serving as a
protective factor. Findings from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
(Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005) show that while adolescent romantic relationship
security is significantly associated with externalizing behavior problems during adolescence (age
16) and young adulthood romantic relationship security is significantly associated with young
adulthood externalizing behavior problems (age 23), this relationship is significantly stronger
during young adulthood as compared to adolescence, and cannot be accounted for by early
childhood quality of parenting, middle childhood peer competence, or adolescent planful
competence (van Dulmen, Goncy, Haydon, & Collins, under review). These findings suggest
that, when studying individual differences in antisocial behavior during different developmental
periods, romantic relationship processes may have unique predictive validity and become more
important as a protective factor during young adulthood as compared to adolescence.
Needless to say, any conceptualization of the role of romantic relationships in the
development of antisocial behavior would be incomplete without giving consideration to the role
of other developmental contexts during this age-period. It is particularly important to consider
these other developmental contexts because a large body of research has established their central
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 11
place in understanding antecedents and correlates of antisocial behavior. For example, peer
rejection (Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1999), disorganized attachment (Renken, Egeland,
Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989), quality of parent-child relationships (Moffit, Caspi,
Rutter, & Silva, 2001), parenting style (Baumrind, 1971), friendship quality (Laird, Jordan,
Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2001), and deviant peer involvement (Laird et al., 2001) all have been
implicated in the development of antisocial behavior.
What is the Empirical Evidence for a Link Between Experiences in Family/Non-Romantic Peer
Relationships and Experiences in Romantic Peer Relationships?
Experiences in family relationships have salient developmental implications for
experiences in relationships outside the family. Various theoretical perspectives (e.g. attachment
theory, social learning theory) reflect constructs that highlight these linkages between
experiences in various relationship domains. Based on attachment and social learning theory, a
number of studies have investigated primarily homotypic continuity or coherence (stability of
interindividual differences in similar behavioral constructs across relationship domains) in
behavior among various relationship domains. This body of research indicates that conflict
resolution (Reese-Weber & Bartle-Haring, 1998; Reese-Webber & Marchand, 2002), negative
affect (Kim, Conger, Lorenz, & Elder, 2001), overall relationship quality (Crockett & Randall,
2006; Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman, & Klessinger, 2001), perceptions of negative interactions
(Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bourchey, 2002), and experiences of victimization (Linder &
Collins, 2005), provide evidence for continuity among family/peer domains on the one hand, and
romantic relationship functioning on the other. Empirical findings further indicate that the role of
family relationships may be more salient than the role of non-romantic peer relationships in
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 12
predicting romantic relationship functioning, even into young adulthood (Crockett & Randall,
2006).
In addition to understanding homotypic continuity between family/non-romantic peer
relationships on the one hand, and romantic relationships on the other hand, a body of research
on heterotypic continuity across family/non-romantic peer relationships and romantic
relationships is emerging (see e.g. Collins & van Dulmen, 2005). Although a large body of
research has documented the role of peer relationships in the development of romantic
relationships, it is not clear what specific mechanisms exist, particularly in predicting romantic
relationship quality (Collins & van Dulmen, 2005). There are, however, some notable
exceptions. Empirical findings indicate clear evidence for a link between social competence and
romantic relationship involvement (Neemann, Hubbard, & Masten, 1995)—although early
involvement in dating (prior to age 16 Zimmer-Gembeck, Siebenbruner, & Collins, 2001) and
atypical dating –either not dating at all or early dating (Furman, Ho & Low, 2007) are associated
with lower ratings of peer social acceptance.
Developmental Systems Theory as a Framework for Understanding the Role of Adolescent
Romantic Relationships in the Development of Antisocial Behavior
In summary, theoretical perspectives that have previously been used to investigate the
role of romantic relationships in the development of antisocial behavior –namely social control
theory and social learning—are limited in their consideration of developmental aspects, and may
therefore be not as useful for understanding the role of romantic relationships in the development
of antisocial behavior during adolescence. As a number of other relationship domains –primarily
family and peer relationships—have been implicated in the development of antisocial behavior,
it is imperative to consider the role of those interpersonal relationships, and how they may
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 13
explain and further illuminate the role of romantic relationships. In order to fully account for the
developmental significance of romantic relationships, and consider the role of other relationship
domains, the proposed model builds on developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992)
and is situated within research and conceptualization efforts that focus on the role of family-peer
linkages in understanding individual adaptation (Kerns, Contreras, & Neal-Barnett, 2000).
Developmental Systems Theory
Developmental systems theory (DST) views individuals as flexible in adaptation
(plasticity) at each developmental stage. As such, developmental changes and individual
maturation, as well as changes in context, provide opportunities for individual change. DST
emphasizes reciprocal changes between various contexts and individual behavior (Ford &
Lerner, 1992). Changes in developmental contexts, such as the family or the friendship network,
lead to changes in individual behavior while changes in individual behavior may also affect
changes in the family and/or friendship network. This process of constant and dynamic
interaction between the individual and his/her environment is also referred to as developmental
contextualism (Lerner & Kauffman, 1985). The importance of considering reciprocal influences
also reflects the primary importance in DST of the individual as an active agent who, through
goal-directed behavior, facilitates change. The individual and his/her environment are in constant
interaction and changes occur in a bidirectional manner.
Although in many ways similar to other developmental frameworks-such as ecological
theory and developmental psychopathology—in focusing on individual adaptation in context,
and highlighting the importance of understanding the interplay among multiple levels of
analysis, developmental systems theory is also different in some important ways from these
frameworks. Most importantly, and in line with other systems perspectives, developmental
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 14
systems theory (DST) highlights the importance of focusing on relationships as the unit of
analysis. That is, although DST does not diminish the importance of individual characteristics,
the primary emphasis is on understanding the role of relationship properties for individual
adaptation. Because the focus of the proposed model is to investigate the role of romantic
relationships in the development of antisocial behavior, DST is particularly well-suited.
The proposed model is on purpose restricted to experiences in relationship domains during
adolescence. Although experiences earlier in life set the stage for behavior and individual
adaptation during adolescence, the focus in DST is on understanding changes in individual
behavior as result of current changes in contextual domains and individual development. The
advantage of such a model is that mechanisms for change can be highlighted.
Proposed Conceptual Model
Various studies have used an ecological framework to investigate how family and peer
relationships are associated with romantic relationships (e.g. Bryant & Conger, 2002; Murry,
Hurt, Kogan, & Luo, 2006). The proposed conceptual model (see Figure 1) is different from
these approaches in that it examines how the interplay among various contextual domains affects
adolescent antisocial behavior. Control variables in the model include constructs that have
previously been shown to be associated with antisocial behavior as well as potentially moderate
the association between interpersonal relationships and antisocial behavior namely gender, SES,
ethnicity, life stress, and partner level of antisocial behavior.
Pathway 1: Family/Parent-Child Relationships  Romantic Relationship Processes 
Antisocial Behavior Pathway
The first pathway in the model reflects the interplay between family/parent-child
relationships and romantic relationship processes, and their contribution to adolescent antisocial
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 15
behavior. DST would suggest that changes in family/parent-child relationship processes would
be associated with changes in romantic relationship processes (and vice versa), which in turn
may lead to changes in antisocial behavior. Evidence for the specific processes highlighted in
this model stems from studies on continuity and coherence between family/parent-child
relationships and romantic relationships (see earlier in this paper) suggesting continuity in
quality between adolescent family and romantic relationships (Crockett & Randall, 2006;
Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2001) as well the potential role of conflict resolution in romantic
relationships (Crockett & Randall, 2006). In the proposed model, romantic relationship processes
and family/parent-child relationships are also proposed to have a unique contribution to changes
in antisocial behavior.
Pathway 2: Family/Parent-Child Relationships  Dating Pattern  Antisocial Behavior
Pathway.
The second pathway in the model reflects the interplay between family/parent-child
relationships, dating patterns, and antisocial behavior. Early dating involvement has been
associated with antisocial behavior (Neemann et al., 1995), and family relationships have been
implicated in atypical dating patterns during adolescence (Doyle, Brendgen, Markiewicz, &
Kamkar, 2003). From a DST perspective, it is hypothesized that negative changes in overall
family functioning, as well as increases in parent-child conflict, are associated with an increased
likelihood of atypical dating patterns –either reflected by early onset of dating or dating a high
number of partners – which in turn is associated with increases in antisocial behavior.
Pathway 3: Friendship/Peer Relationships  Romantic Relationship Processes 
Antisocial Behavior Pathway
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 16
The third pathway reflects the link between friendship/peer relationships and romantic
relationship processes, and its impact on adolescent antisocial behavior. From a DST
perspective, changes in friendship quality lead to changes in romantic relationship quality, which
consequently should change levels of antisocial behavior. Evidence for the link between
friendship quality and romantic relationship quality stems from literature on coherence between
interpersonal relationships (see e.g. Sroufe et al., 1999). Friendship quality (e.g. Laird et al.,
2001) and romantic relationship quality (e.g. Meeus et al., 2003) have both been linked to
adolescent antisocial behavior, although some studies indicate that deviant peer involvement may
help further explain how, and when, friendship quality is associated with antisocial behavior
(Laird et al., 1999). In sum, it is hypothesized that positive changes in friendship quality lead to
positive changes in romantic relationship quality –as well as positive changes in romantic
relationship conflict resolution- and in turn to decreases in antisocial behavior (and vice versa).
Increased association with deviant peer would be linked to lower levels of romantic relationship
quality and conflict resolution, which in turn increases individual levels of antisocial behavior.
Pathway 4: Friendship/Peer Relationships  Dating Pattern  Antisocial Behavior
Pathway
Some empirical findings indicate that high levels of friendship quality during Grade 6 are
associated with early onset of romantic relationships and higher levels of dating (ZimmerGembeck, Siebenbruner, & Collins, 2004; Furman et al., 2007), although some dating patterns,
but not others seem to be predicted by friendship quality. For example, Furman and colleagues
(2007) found that indicators of serious romantic relationships (including relationship
satisfaction), but not indicators of casual dating were associated with friendship competence.
From a DST perspective is expected that changes in friendship quality are associated with
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 17
changes in dating patterns. Based on the empirical literature, it is not directly clear what the
direction of this link would be, although atypical dating patterns have been linked to higher
levels of antisocial behavior during adolescence (Neemann et al., 1995).
Feedback Loops through Adolescent Antisocial Behavior
As mentioned previously, DST highlights the interaction between individual and
environment. To account for these interactive processes, the model also includes two feedback
loops. In the proposed model, individual levels of antisocial behavior, that may have changed as
a result of the interplay between family/peer relationships and romantic relationship processes on
the one hand, and family/peer relationships and changes in dating history/current dating status on
the other, are hypothesized to predict family/parent-child relationships and friendship/peer
relationships. From a DST perspective, elevated levels of antisocial behavior, should lead to
changes in family functioning and more specifically lower quality family relationships (e.g. poor
communication, low positive affect, high levels of conflict), and higher levels of parent-child
conflict. Likewise, elevated levels of antisocial behavior are predicted to lead to changes in
friendship/peer relationships and more specifically, a higher likelihood of deviant peer
affiliation. On the other hand, decreases in antisocial behavior as a result of engagement in high
quality romantic relationships should lead to increases in high quality friendship relationships.
Conclusion
The main purpose of the current paper was to stress the importance of using
developmentally guided frameworks for understanding the role of romantic relationships in the
development of antisocial behavior, and develop empirically testable models that can provide
valuable clues for intervention and prevention efforts with adolescents. The proposed model
highlights some of the contextual mechanisms that may help explain how adolescent
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 18
interpersonal relationships are related to antisocial behavior during this age-period. Next, we will
discuss how the model may potentially be extended to address the role of adolescent gender and
type of antisocial behavior.
Gender
Although not directly addressed in the model, it may be the case that the model works
differently for males versus females. Unfortunately, developmental systems/ecological
perspectives do not provide much guidance for such hypotheses, and empirical studies on the
moderating role of gender in the development of psychopathology are rare though desperately
needed (Crick & Zahn-Waxler, 2003). The empirical findings that do exist, however, indicate
that social contextual factors may be more important in the development of antisocial behavior
for girls as compared to boys (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Therefore, we expect that
the model would work better for females as compared to males -- that the relations among the
various constructs in the model would be stronger for females as compared to males.
Type of Antisocial Behavior
In addition to working different for gender, the proposed model may also differ
depending on the type of antisocial behavior that is being studied. Empirical evidence indicates
that antisocial behavior is multifaceted (Achenbach, Conners, Quay, Verhulst, & Howell, 1989),
and findings suggest that there are at least two different dimensions, namely aggressive (e.g.
stealing, lying) and nonaggressive (e.g. physical fighting) antisocial behavior (see Eley,
Lichtenstein, & Moffitt, 2003). Contextual factors, particularly process variables, seem to be
more salient for the development of nonaggressive (e.g. stealing, lying) as compared to
aggressive (e.g. getting into fights) antisocial behavior (Maughan, Pickles, Rowe, Costello, &
Angold, 2000), and findings the differential role of family relationships for aggressive versus
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 19
nonaggressive antisocial behavior have recently been extended to the domain of adolescent and
young adulthood romantic relationships (van Dulmen & Goncy, 2006). Using data from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Carver, Joyner & Udry, 2003), we found that
early romantic relationship involvement was a risk factor for the development of aggressive, but
not nonaggressive antisocial behavior, whereas romantic relationship quality (as indicated by
high levels of mutual love and commitment) was primarily associated with lower levels of
nonaggressive antisocial behavior (van Dulmen & Goncy, 2006). Based on these findings, we
expect that the model works differently in predicting nonaggressive as compared to aggressive
antisocial behavior. More specifically, we expect that the pathways involving dating history and
current dating status work better in predicting aggressive antisocial behavior whereas the
pathways involving romantic relationship processes work better in predicting nonaggressive
antisocial behavior.
In Conclusion
The current paper proposes, informed by developmental systems theory, a conceptual
model to investigate the role of romantic relationships in the development of antisocial behavior
during adolescence. The proposed model highlights specific pathways –involving the role of
family and friendship relationships –through which experiences in adolescent romantic
relationships may change the course of antisocial behavior during this age-period. We recognize
that other plausible models may exist highlighting other pathways involving family/peer and
romantic relationships for understanding adolescent antisocial behavior. Furthermore, the current
model is conceptually kept simple to illustrate the various pathways. We aim to fully understand
these mechanisms, and their temporal order, employing latent variable modeling techniques (e.g.
autoregressive growth curve modeling) that fully capitalize on data collected through
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 20
longitudinal designs. For example, although the current model highlights family/peer
relationships impacting romantic relationship processes and dating patterns, we also recognize
that, in turn, romantic relationship processes and dating patterns may impact family and nonromantic peer relationships. Employing longitudinal studies using analytical techniques that can
disentangle the direction of these relations will be essential.
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 21
References
Achenbach, T. M., Conners, C. K., Quay H. C., Verhulst, F. C., & Howell, C. T. (1989).
Replication of empirically derived syndromes as a basis for taxonomy of child and
adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 299 – 323.
Akers, R. (1977). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont Mass, Wadsworth:
NY
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4 (1).
Bryant, C., & Conger, R. (2002). An intergenerational model of romantic relationship
development. In A. Vangelisti, H. T. Resiss, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and
change in relationships (pp. 57 – 82). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in
young adult romantic relationships: A developmental systems model. In M. Putallaz & K.
L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: A
developmental perspective (pp. 223 – 241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, R. J. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic
relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and sexual
behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23 – 56). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic
relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13 (1), 1 – 24.
Collins, W. A., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2005). “The course of true love(s)…”: Origins and
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 22
pathways in the development of romantic relationships. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth
(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and
opportunities (pp. 63 – 86). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Collins, W. A. & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2006). Friendships and romantic relationships
in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. Tanner (Ed.), Emerging adult in America:
Coming of age in the 21st Century (pp. 219 – 234). Washington, DC: APA.
Crick, N. R., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2003). The development of psychopathology in females and
males: Current progress and future challenges. Development and Psychopathology, 15,
719 – 742.
Crockett, L. J., & Randall, B. A. (2006). Linking adolescent family and peer relationships to the
quality of young adult romantic relationships: The mediating role of conflict tactics.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 761 – 780.
Doyle, A. B., Brendgen, M., Markiewicz, D., & Kamkar, K. (2003). Family relationships as
moderators of the association between romantic relationships and adjustment in early
adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 316 – 340.
Eley, T. C., Lichtenstein, P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). A longitudinal behavioral genetic analysis
of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior. Development and
Psychopathology, 15, 383 – 402.
Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from
childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 360(6), 929 – 964.
Ford, D. L., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 23
Furman, W., Ho, M. J., & Low, S. M. (2007). The rocky road of adolescent romantic experience:
Dating and adjustment. In R. C. M. E. Engels, M. Kerr, H. Stattin (Eds.) Friends, lovers
and groups: Key relationships in adolescence (pp. 61-80). West Sussex, England: Wiley
and Sons.
Furman, W., & Shaffer, L.(2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development.
In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior: Theory,
research, and practical implications (pp. 3 – 22). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic
relationships. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & G. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Relationships
during adolescence: Advances in adolescent development (Vol. 6) (pp. 168 – 195).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models
and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child
Development, 73, 241 – 255.
Haynie, D.L. (2003). Contexts of risk? Explaining the link between girls’ puberty development
and their delinquency involvement. Social Forces, 82, 355-397.
Haynie, D. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2005). Adolescent
romantic relationships and delinquent involvement. Criminology, 43 (1), 177 – 210.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D.& Abbott, R.D. (2001) Modeling
mediation in the etiology of violent behavior in adolescence: A test of the Social
Development Model. Criminology, 39, 75-107
Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2000). You don’t bring me anything but down: Adolescent romance
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 24
and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 369 – 391.
Kerns, K. A., Contrerars, J. M., & Neal-Barnett, A. M. (2000). Family and peers: Linking two
social worlds. Westport, CO: Praeger.
Kiesner, J., Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2004). Very important persons in adolescence: Going beyond
in-school, single friendships in the study of peer homophily. Journal of Adolescence, 27,
545-560.
Kim, K. H., Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2001). Parent-adolescent
reciprocity in negative affect and its relation to early adult social development.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 775 – 790.
Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). Annotation: The development of
antisocial behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40 (5), 669 – 682.
Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer rejection in
childhood, involvement with peers in early adolescence, and the development of
externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 337 – 354.
Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. A. (1999). Best friendships, group
relationships, and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence,
19 (4), 413 – 437.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age
70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lerner, R. M., & Kauffman, M. B. (1985). The concept of development in contextualism.
Developmental Review, 5, 309 – 333.
Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 25
conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 252 – 262.
Maughan, B., Pickles, A., Rowe, R., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2000). Developmental
trajectories of aggressive and non-aggressive conduct problems. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 16, 199 – 221.
Meeus, W., Branje, S., & Overbeek, G. J. (2004). Parents and partners in crime: A six year
longitudinal study on change in supportive relationships and delinquency in adolescence
and young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 45 (7), 1288 – 1298.
Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D.
Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, disorder,
and adaptation (2nd Ed. pp. 570 – 598). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial
behavior, conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal
Study. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Murry, V. M., Hurt, T. R., Kogan, S. M., & Luo, Z. (2006). Contextual processes of romantic
relationships: Plausible explanations for gender and race-effects. In A. C. Crouter & A.
Booth (Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and
opportunities (pp. 151 – 160). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Neemann, J., Hubbard, J., & Masten, A. S. (1995). The changing importance of romantic
relationship involvement to competence from late childhood to late adolescence.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 727 – 750.
Reese-Weber, M., & Bartle-Haring, S. (1998). Conflict resolution styles in family subsystems
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 26
and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 735 – 752.
Reese-Weber, M., & Marchand, J. F. (2002). Family and individual predictors of late
adolescents’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 197 – 206.
Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early
childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school.
Journal of Personality, 57, 257 – 291.
Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental psychopathology: As applied
to the age span between childhood and mid-adulthood. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 19, 603 – 626.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R.J., Laub, J.H. & Wilmer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual
causal effects. Criminology, 44, 465-509.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., Shulman, S., & Klessinger, N. (2001). Adolescent precursors of romantic
relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 327
– 346.
Shulman, S., & Sharf, M. (2000). Adolescent romantic behaviors and perceptions: age- and
gender-related differences, and links with family and peer relationships. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 10, 99 – 118.
Simons, R.L., Stewart, E., Gordon, L.C., Conger, R.D. & Elder, G.H. (2002). A test of lifecourse explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to
young adulthood. Criminology, 40, 401-434.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (1999). One social world: The integrated development
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 27
of parent-child and peer relationships. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.),
Relationships as developmental contexts: The 30th Minnesota Symposium on Child
Psychology (pp. 241 – 262). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the
person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.
Tabares, A., & Gottman, J. (2003). A marital process perspective of adolescent romantic
relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior:
Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 337 – 354). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behaviour during childhood: What have
we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioural Development, 24,
129–143.
Van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Goncy, E. (2006, August). Romantic relationships and antisocial
behavior from adolescence into young adulthood: Differential effects by type of
antisocial behavior. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Psychological Association, New Orleans (LA).
Van Dulmen, M. H. M., Goncy, E., Haydon, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (under review).
Distinctiveness of adolescent and emerging adulthood romantic relationship features
predicting externalizing behavior problems.
Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., Harper, M. S. (2003). When love hurts: Depression and adolescent
romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 28
sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 185 – 212). Mahwah,
NJ: LEA.
Wright, B.R.E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E. & Silva, P.A. (2001). The effects of social ties on crime
vary by criminal propensity: A life-course model of interdependence. Criminology, 39,
321-351.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2001). Diverse aspects of dating
associations with psychosocial functioning from early to middle adolescence. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 313 – 336.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2004). A prospective study of
intraindividual and peer influences on adolescents’ heterosexual romantic and sexual
behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 381 – 394.
Romantic Relationships and Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence 29
Figure 1. Conceptual Model Linkages among Family/Parent-Child Relationships, Friendship/Peer Relationships, and Romantic
Relationships Predicting Antisocial Behavior during Adolescence
Family/Parent-Child
Relationships
Family Functioning
Parent-Child Conflict
Romantic Relationship Process
Overall Quality
Conflict Resolution
Controls
Gender
SES
Ethnicity
Life Stress
Romantic Partner
Antisocial Behavior
Antisocial Behavior
Aggressive
Nonaggressive
Friendship/Peer
Relationships
Friendship Quality
Friendship Deviancy
Dating Pattern
Level of Involvement
Number of Partners