Romantic Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS FROM ADOLESCENCE TO YOUNG ADULTHOOD: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Ann Meier* University of Minnesota

Gina Allen University of Minnesota

Theories of romantic relationship development posit a progression of involvement and intensity with age, relationship duration, and experience in romantic relationships. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, this study tests these propositions by considering relationship type and patterns of relationships over the course of adolescence and their influence on relationship formation in young adulthood. Results confirm recent theories of relationship progression and the findings of smaller-scale empirical studies. Moreover, the findings add depth to debates on racial differences in relationship formation and demonstrate the developmental currency of adolescent relationship experience for young-adult relationship formation. Rather than being trivial or fleeting, adolescent romantic relationships are an integral part of the social scaffolding on which young-adult romantic relationships rest.

The past decade has seen a marked increase in adolescent romantic relationship research. Much of the literature prior to the mid-1990s focused on the role of key earlier relationships with parents and peers for social development during the transition to adulthood, but virtually no research considered the developmental currency provided by adolescent romantic relationships.1 This increase is driven by a number of advances in the area of adolescent development and in sociology more broadly. First, theories have adapted to more fully account for adolescent romantic experience (Furman and Wehner 1994; Brown 1999; Connolly and Goldberg 1999; Giordano 2003; Giordano, Manning, and Longmore 2005), and empirical research to test theoretical propositions has begun to appear, yet gaps remain in the evidentiary base. Second, romantic relationships have been implicated both in negative behaviors (Neeman, Hubbard, and Masten 1995) and psychosocial well-being (Davies and Windle 2000; Joyner and Udry 2000), and cited as imperative for development (Erikson 1968; Giordano 2003). Thus, researchers have aimed to identify the age, stage, and social conditions under which such relationships are pro-social or maladaptive.

*Direct all correspondence to Ann Meier, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 267 19th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55455; e-mail: [email protected] 308

The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

Ann Meier and Gina Allen

Young Adult Relationship Formation

Finally, sociologists and demographers have noted significant changes in the life course generally and in the transition to adulthood more specifically (Elder 1998; Shanahan 2000; Furstenberg 2003; Settersten 2003). The transition to adulthood has become elongated and less orderly. Young people take longer to “become” adults (i.e., Arnett 2004), and they pass various markers of adulthood out of the sequence common to prior generations (Settersten, Furstenberg, and Rumbaut 2005; Schoen, Landale, and Daniels 2007). Significantly, young people are delaying marriage; the average age at first marriage is 25 years for women and 27 years for men (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). At the same time, half of all adolescents are romantically involved by age 15 years (Carver, Joyner, and Udry 2003), resulting in 10 to 12 years of romantic experience prior to marriage, a significant span of time and one that is dense with interpersonal development (Dornbusch 1989). Given these changes in the transition to adulthood and significant theoretical developments, understanding adolescent romantic relationships is a timely and compelling research objective. In this article, we integrate theories on the development of romantic experience from adolescence to adulthood, and we review findings from empirical forays into the romantic lives of adolescents. Then we conduct prospective analyses to describe patterns of involvement, assess their correlates, and estimate associations between adolescent relationship progression and qualities and the formation of adult relationships. We use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to investigate patterns of romantic relationships over 18 months in adolescence and link these patterns to young adulthood relationships and union formation nearly six years later. Although the Add Health data have been useful in other studies of adolescent romance (Joyner and Udry 2000; Carver et al. 2003; Giordano et al. 2005; Raley, Crissy, and Muller 2007), our study capitalizes on the longitudinal nature of the data to understand relationship progression during both adolescence and the transition to adulthood across six years. Our study makes three important contributions. First, we use a large, nationally representative, and longitudinal sample to confirm findings on adolescent relationship progression from various past studies that were limited by small, nonrepresentative, cross-sectional, and age- or time-limited samples. Specifically, we find that nearly twothirds of adolescents have some romantic relationship experience and that most follow normative patterns of relationship development as they age and gain relationship experience. In this way, we are able to address the gap between recent theoretical developments and empirical tests of these theories. Second, we find differences in adolescent relationship experiences by race, which may help us to better understand the divergent young-adult relationship experiences of blacks and whites. Finally, we show that adolescent relationships hold developmental currency for the more serious relationship commitments of young adulthood. While theories suggest this should be the case, there is scant empirical evidence linking adolescent to young-adult relationships. With the changes of recent decades in prolonging the transition to adulthood and delayed entry into marriage, young adults now have more time and opportunity to gain valuable experience in romantic relationships before forming adult unions. Rigorous empirical The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

309



testing of the foundational theories of romantic relationship development is imperative for the advancement of the field. Moreover, revealing the importance of early relationships can help inform policy and program efforts to strengthen the unions of young adults who are married or bearing children together. BACKGROUND Theory As noted above, several important theoretical schemas have emerged to help make sense of how adolescent romantic relationships fit into the existing social relationship order and how they develop over time. While relatively new, these schemas have roots in earlier theories of development (Sullivan 1953; Dunphy 1963; Hazan and Shaver 1987). Furman and Wehner (1994) offer a behavioral systems approach to understanding the developmental tasks accomplished by adolescent romance. The systems invoked in adolescent romantic relationships are affiliative, sexual/reproductive, attachment, and caregiving. In this behavioral systems approach, the affiliative function of adolescent romantic relationships offers companionship, reciprocity, and cooperation. The sexual/ reproductive system includes physical intimacy and the potential for procreation. The attachment system includes love, closeness, bonding, and feelings of security; the caregiving system is represented by support and assistance between partners. Furman and Wehner (1994) suggest that the affiliative and sexual/reproductive systems are active in adolescent romance before the attachment and caregiving systems. These latter two systems may not manifest until early adulthood. This model also suggests that systems are engaged in a cumulative fashion rather than a progression where one system gives way to another. For example, when the attachment system is active in a relationship, the sexual/reproductive and affiliative systems are probably also active. Other theorists approach adolescent romantic relationships with a phase-based approach rather than a behavioral systems framework. Phase-based models introduced by Brown (1999) and Connolly and Goldberg (1999) allow for the identification of four distinct phases: initiation, affiliation, intimate, and committed.2 In the initiation phase, attraction and desire are key feelings, but contact between partners is limited. In the affiliation phase, individuals interact in group settings, giving them opportunities to learn how to interact with the opposite sex and meet potential partners. In the intimate phase, couples form and begin to distance themselves from the peer group to focus emotional energies on the dyadic relationship. In the committed phase, couples share emotional and physical intimacy, exhibit caregiving behavior, and serve as attachment figures. When assessed as partially overlapping and complementary perspectives, the system and phase conceptualizations lead to similar hypotheses regarding adolescent romantic relationships. Together, these theories suggest that the normative adolescent relationship experience starts in early adolescence with a short-lived relationship characterized by group dating. In middle adolescence, one progresses to multiple short relationships that are decreasingly group-focused and increasingly characterized by both sexual and, to a 310




lesser extent, emotional intimacy. Finally, in late adolescence, one progresses to a single, committed, intimate relationship of longer duration (see also Seiffge-Krenke 2003). Of course this is only a normative experience, and individuals are expected to deviate from this idealized progression model because of individual, social, and cultural conditions (Cohen et al. 2003). As such, it should be considered a “soft-stage” model where the tempo and direction of movement can vary (although mostly progression rather than regression) rather than a “hard-stage” model where sequential progression is compulsory (Connolly et al. 2004). The theory-building of the last decade has motivated an encouraging amount of empirical work to test these theories. This research has touched on the number, duration, and quality of romantic relationships. Most often, researchers investigate one or a few discrete dimensions of relationships, such as how number of partners varies with age and gender, or how relationship quality varies with the duration of the relationship. We build upon this theorizing and the empirical base described below to develop testable hypotheses regarding the progression of romantic relationships from adolescence into young adulthood, and to assess how these vary across gender and race/ ethnic groups.

Empirical Literature Patterns of Involvement A few recent studies shed light on the normative patterning of adolescent romantic relationships. A study of fifth to eighth graders (approximately 10- to 14-year-olds) in Canada finds that while there is a substantial degree of stability in a phase over the course of one year, when they change, young adolescents generally move through romantic involvements sequentially and progressively. That is, they are more likely to progress than regress through phases of romantic relationships, and they do so mostly sequentially rather than by skipping a phase (Connolly et al. 2004). A study of slightly older adolescents (ages 15 and 16 years) at two points in time, one year apart, classified respondents into four relationship patterns defined at both points in time: (1) no dating relationships; (2) a single, casual dating relationship; (3) multiple, casual relationships; and (4) steady dating relationships (Davies and Windle 2000). The cross-classification of these four patterns of dating at times 1 and 2 reveals several patterns consistent with the relationship progression idea. Common transitions between the two time points are from (1) no dating to a single, casual relationship; (2) a single casual relationship to multiple casual relationships; (3) a single casual relationship to a steady dating relationship; and (4) multiple casual relationships to a steady dating relationship. Other research suggests that older adolescents (age 17 years) maintain relationships of longer durations or what might be classified as steady relationships (Seiffge-Krenke 2003). Thus, it appears most adolescents follow the orderly patterns predicted by theory—forward progress from fewer short and casual relationships to more relationships overall, often to a single steady relationship. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis regarding relationship progression: The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

311



Hypothesis 1: Most adolescents progress from one short relationship in early adolescence to multiple relationships in middle adolescence and a single, steady relationship in late adolescence. Relationship Qualities As patterns of relationship involvement change with age, so too do relationship qualities change from early to late adolescence and as youths gain more romantic experience. For example, some research indicates that younger adolescents do not differentiate in their ratings of the importance of support from parents, peers, or partners (Connolly and Johnson 1996). However, by late adolescence, as young people gain experience in more relationships and relationships of longer durations, partner support increases in ratings of importance in both an absolute sense and relative to peer and parental support (Seiffge-Krenke 2003), suggesting that longer relationships are characterized by more partner attachment (Miller and Hoicowitz 2004). Moreover, with age, partners report relationship behaviors that reflect higher levels of commitment, and emotional and sexual intensity (Carver et al. 2003). Thus, we hypothesize that, Hypothesis 2: As adolescents progress toward steady relationships, their relationships become more dyadic and more likely to include sexual and emotional intimacy than they were at lower stages of progression. Sociodemographic Characteristics While studies have shown race/ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic differences in adolescent sexual behavior (e.g., Upchurch et al. 1998; Giordano et al. 2005; Meier and Allen 2008), we still know relatively little or have mixed evidence about differences across these domains in adolescent romantic behavior. Connolly et al. (2004) find no gender differences in romantic behavior in their study of young adolescents, although several studies of older adolescents have shown that girls report more romantic involvement and more steady relationships than boys (Davies and Windle 2000; Carver et al. 2003). Thus, we hypothesize that, Hypothesis 3a: Girls are more likely than boys to be in a romantic relationship, especially a steady relationship. Regarding race and ethnic differences in romantic relationships, Connolly et al. (2004) compared adolescents of European, Caribbean, and Asian descent and found that European and Caribbean adolescents follow the expected progression while Asian adolescents do not progress over the one-year period. Others have found lower rates of sexual activity among Asian-American teens (Upchurch et al. 1998). Together, these studies suggest that Asians are less romantically involved during adolescence. Compared with whites, black adolescents report longer but less emotionally intimate relationships (Carver et al. 2003; Giordano et al. 2005), and are less likely to make serious romantic commitments (Cohen et al. 2003), but are more likely to be sexually involved (Upchurch et al. 1998). Some researchers suggest that it is low social class, not race, that inhibits family formation among blacks (Edin and Kefalas 2005). This claim is supported by findings 312




that young adults not enrolled in postsecondary education are more likely than those in school to marry early, but they have lower marriage rates overall (Thornton, Axinn, and Teachman 1995). Yet, there is little research on class differences in adolescent relationships. One study using Add Health data found that adolescents in the highest familyincome quintile were slightly more likely to report romantic involvement but found no consistent relationship between income and involvement over the full income distribution (Meier and Allen 2008). With this past research in mind, we expect that Asian-American adolescents will be less likely than others to have romantic experience and that the relationships of black respondents will be longer and more sexually involved, but less emotionally intimate than those of their white counterparts. While empirical work is beginning to account for socioeconomic differences in adolescent romantic relationships (e.g., Meier and Allen 2008), the underdevelopment of the literature on class and adolescent romance precludes a clear hypothesis in the present analysis. Thus, we hypothesize that, Hypothesis 3b: Compared to whites, Asian-American adolescents are more likely to report no relationship experience and less likely to progress in involvement during adolescence. Hyothesis 3c: Compared to whites, blacks are more likely to have longer relationships that are characterized by more sexual intimacy but less emotional intimacy.

Young-Adult Relationship Formation Finally, extending the above findings into young adulthood, Seiffge-Krenke (2003) finds that adolescent relationships are more strongly associated with young-adult relationship quality than peer relationships or conceptions of the self. While other studies have examined the influence of earlier relationships in other domains, relationships in the same domain (romantic) may hold more sway over young-adult relationships. Although Seiffge-Krenke (2003) does not model relationship involvement in young adulthood (only quality), her findings, those of the other progression studies restricted to adolescents, and the aforementioned theories suggest that those with prior relationship experience will have more partners and be more likely to cohabit or marry early; those with steady adolescent relationships will be especially likely to marry early. Hypothesis 4a: Those who report any relationship experience in adolescence report more partners from adolescence to adulthood than those who report no relationship experience in adolescence. Hypothesis 4b: Those who report any relationship experience in adolescence are more likely to cohabit in early adulthood than those who report no relationship experience in adolescence. Hypothesis 4c: Those who report any relationship experience in adolescence are more likely to marry in early adulthood than those who report no relationship experience in adolescence. Hypothesis 4d: Respondents in a steady relationship as teens are more likely to marry as young adults than are those with other relationship experiences. The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

313



While the prior empirical research is instructive, several limitations remain. First, most studies examine one or a few discrete aspects of relationships, such as the number of partners, and the duration or qualities of relationships. While most examine age and gender differences in one of the aforementioned aspects, few studies examine the influence of other demographic characteristics, and rarely do studies examine relationship and individual characteristics together. Two of the studies outlined above are groundbreaking in their use of prospective data to confirm propositions about how adolescents progress in relationships during early (Connolly et al. 2004) and middle (Davies and Windle 2000) adolescence. However, these studies do not cover a wide age range or span of time. Seiffge-Krenke (2003) accounts for relationships over a wider age range, but because the analysis ends at age 21 years, it may miss the bulk of the transition to adulthood. For example, it may be that black adolescents’ lower levels of emotional intimacy and hesitancy to make serious romantic commitments can partially explain the lower marriage rates found among black young adults (Lichter et al. 1992; Rendall 1999; Chandra et al. 2005). Differences in how studies define romantic relationships may at least partially account for different findings across studies. In addition, studies of adolescent romantic relationships are often based on small and select samples of subjects from one school, city, or region. A primary disadvantage of such samples is their homogeneity. If local norms condition adolescent experiences, then using homogeneous subjects in a few schools in a geographically limited area substantially restricts generalizability. Finally, while several high-quality studies have described adolescent romantic relationships using the Add Health data, they have used only one (Carver et al. 2003) or two (Joyner and Udry 2000; Giordano et al. 2005) waves of these data resulting in observations that end at about age 18 years and miss young-adult relationships. One new study by Raley et al. (2007) uses Add Health data to examine the influence of time 1 relationships on duration to cohabitation and marriage at time 3 among only the oldest sample members. None of these studies explicitly test developmental theories of relationship progression over time. The present study describes relationship patterns over the course of approximately six years by considering both relationship type and quality among a nationally representative sample of adolescents during the transition to adulthood. Adolescents are ages 11 to 18 years at time 1 (1995), 13 to 20 years at time 2 (1996), and 18 to 25 years at time 3 (2001–2002), allowing us to test relationship progression across a wider age range than has been possible in past studies. In addition, at each interview, respondents report retrospectively on multiple recent romantic relationships, allowing us to capture more than current relationship experience. Although there are not rich measures on romantic relationship qualities, we include a few available measures to give some sense of how relationships change qualitatively across time. Finally, the sample is heterogeneous on several key dimensions: gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family structure, and age. 314




DATA, MEASURES, METHODS Data The Add Health includes interview data from respondents in grades 7 to 12 in 1995 who are followed up in a second interview approximately one year later in 1996 and in a third interview in 2001 to 2002. A sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools from the United States was selected with unequal probability of selection. Incorporating systematic sampling methods and implicit stratification into the Add Health study design ensured this sample is representative of U.S. schools with respect to region of the country, urbanicity, school size, school type, and ethnicity (Udry 2003). All multivariate analyses are weighted to represent the U.S. population of youths in grades 7 to 12 in 1995 and adjust for differences in sample selection probabilities and response rates (Chantala and Tabor 1999). In the first stage of analysis we use respondents who completed interviews at times 1 and 2, had complete information on romantic relationships, age, gender, and race/ ethnicity, and had valid sample weights (N = 8,949).3 We describe relationships in adolescence by pattern of involvement and relationship qualities for those with relationships, and we assess sociodemographic differences in these patterns and qualities. In the second stage we use respondents who completed all three interviews and who have complete information on relationships at times 1 and 2 and relationship history at time 3 (N = 7,258). We investigate the influence of adolescent relationships on youngadult relationship involvement.4 Questions on relationships were administered by Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview where respondents hear questions through headphones and see them on a computer screen. They enter responses into the computer without assistance from an interviewer. This method is used to get the most honest answers possible on potentially sensitive matters. All analyses are limited to heterosexual respondents.5 Measures Adolescent Romantic Relationship Type We define adolescent romantic relationships using two sets of questions. First, at times 1 and 2, respondents are asked to report on up to three special romantic relationships in the past 18 months. Second, if respondents do not identify any special romantic relationships, then they are asked whether they have held hands with, hugged, or kissed, anyone (not family members) in the past 18 months. If they respond affirmatively to all three questions, then they are asked whether they did these things with the same person. If so, the relationship is considered romantic and the respondent is routed back into the series of questions that asks for details about their romantic relationships (see Udry 2003 for exact question wording). Thus, we include both those who initially respond that they have had one or more special relationships and those who do not report a special relationship but have engaged in the three affectionate behaviors listed above.6 Of respondents who we ultimately determine to have had at least one romantic relationship, 85 percent are observed from their answer to the question about special The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

315



romantic relationships, and the remaining 15 percent are observed from their reporting of three affectionate behaviors. All respondents who are determined to have had a romantic relationship are asked a series of questions about that relationship, including its start and end date, and a limited set of questions regarding relationship activities. Based on number of relationships and duration, we create four categories of relationship experiences during the past 18 months at both time 1 and time 2: (1) no relationships; (2) one casual relationship;7 (3) multiple relationships; and (4) one steady relationship. Adolescent Relationship Patterns over Time To measure relationship patterning during adolescence, we use a cross-classification of the four categories of relationship type at time 1 and time 2 as defined above. This classification results in 16 cells, and we group these into six theoretically informed categories of common patterns: (1) no relationships reported at either time; (2) forward movement from none to one casual or multiple partners, or from one casual to multiple partners (or relationship initiation); (3) stability in the one casual or multiple partners categories; (4) regression or backward movement; (5) forward movement from none, one casual, or multiple partners to steady dating; and (6) stability in the steady category. We group the cells in this way to capture stability, change, and the direction of change.8 Among those in the stability categories, those in the stable no relationships, stable one or multiple relationships, and the stable steady categories have quite different relationship experiences. This is an idealized progression model, and not all relationships that fall into our categories are developmentally positive or negative as category labels of progression and regression suggest. Adolescent Romantic Relationship Qualities Add Health contains a few measures that describe the qualities of romantic relationships. While these measures are not as comprehensive as those used in many studies (e.g., attachment scales), they may at least hint at the content of these relationships. Consistent with propositions about the character of relationship progression from behavioral system and phase theories, we use three indicators of quality in respondents’ most recent relationship:9 dyadic mixing, sexual intercourse, and emotional intimacy. Dyadic mixing is the degree to which adolescents interact or go out exclusively with their partner and is used as an indicator of the affiliative system and the affiliative and intimate phases in the theoretical models. It is coded to 1 if respondents reply affirmatively to the statements: “I went out alone with my partner” or “I spent less time with my friends to spend more time with my partner.” Going out alone may indicate a more serious relationship than group dating and is hypothesized to be more prevalent among those who are further along in the relationship progression and/or older. Sexual intercourse indicates if a relationship included sex (1/0) and is used as an indicator of the sexual/reproductive system and the committed phase. While not all adolescent romantic relationships include sex, those that do are more likely to be serious. Sex is also more likely among older adolescents and those further in the idealized relationship progression. 316




Finally, if respondents answer affirmatively to at least three of the following statements, then their relationship is considered emotionally intimate (1/0): we have exchanged gifts, exchanged sentiments of love, thought of ourselves as a couple, and told others we were a couple. This is an indicator of the attachment system and the committed phase. Again, older adolescents and those with steady partners are more likely to have emotionally intimate relationships. Young-Adult Relationship Experience We consider three measures of relationship experience in young adulthood (ages 18 to 25 years): number of relationships in the six years prior to time 3 and their cohabitation and marriage histories at time 3. To determine the number of relationships in the prior six years, we use responses to a query asking respondents to list all romantic and sexual relationships they have had since the summer of 1995. With regard to cohabitation and marriage experience, we consider whether respondents have ever cohabited with a partner or ever married. Both are coded 1 if they have. Sociodemographic Measures Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all measures used in the analyses. We group adolescents into three age categories at time 1: younger (11–13 years), middle (14–15 years), and older (16–18 years). By time 3, these respondents are approximately 18 to 20 years, 21 to 22 years, and 23 to 25 years, respectively. Five race/ethnic categories are defined: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian, and other race. While we assess differences by race/ethnicity, we note here that this measure is only a rough proxy for factors and processes that are stratified by race/ethnicity in our society. We return to this point in the discussion. Low-income status is designated by whether the respondent’s family income is in the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution for the full sample. Family income was missing in approximately 20 percent of cases; we substituted the mean income and included an indicator for missing income in our models. Family structure is defined as biological or adoptive two-parent family, stepfamily, single-parent family, or other family types. Finally, we include two measures of religiosity at time 1. Public religiosity is the average of responses to questions regarding frequency of service and youth group attendance (1–4). Private religiosity is the average of responses to questions regarding frequency of prayer and importance of religion (1–4). Method In Table 2, we use a simple cross-tabulation of relationship types at time 1 and time 2 to assess the movement of adolescents into, and out of, relationship types across the one-year period. In Table 3, we test associations between relationship progression patterns and relationship qualities. We use logistic regression, and we report odds ratios. An odds ratio higher than 1.0 indicates increased odds, and an odds ratio lower than 1.0 indicates decreased odds, of the referenced relationship quality. In Table 4, we use sociodemographic measures to predict relationship progression using multinomial The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

317



TABLE 1. Weighted Descriptive Statistics for Analysis Measures Percent Adolescent relationship progression Stable, no relationships Progression to one or multiple Stability in one or multiple Regression Progression to steady Stable in steady Adolescent relationship quality Dyadic mixing High emotional intimacy Sexual intercourse Young-adult relationship history Average number of relationships last six years Ever cohabited Ever married Sociodemographic measures Female Male Time 1 age 11–13 years Time 1 age 14–15 years Time 1 age 16–18 years White Black Hispanic Asian American Other race Not low income Low income Two bio/adoptive parent family Stepfamily Single-parent family Other family structure Average public religiosity (1–4) Average private religiosity (1–4)

37.54 10.14 2.99 17.54 13.69 18.10 77.75 73.50 43.00 2.74 39.02 16.00 53.38 46.62 21.01 37.86 41.13 67.99 14.03 12.36 4.17 1.45 80.48 19.52 58.01 12.12 25.02 4.84 2.44 2.96

Notes: N = 8,949; weighted N = 12,235,995.

logistic regression. In the table we report relative risk ratios, which indicate the risk associated with being in a given category compared with being in our contrast category: those who have progressed from none to one casual or multiple relationships, or more simply, relationship initiation. Relative risk ratios center on 1.0, so a ratio higher than 1.0 indicates an elevated risk while a ratio lower than 1.0 indicates a decreased risk, compared with the contrast category. 318




In Table 5 we assess links between adolescent relationships and young-adult relationship experience. In predicting number of relationships between times 2 and 3, we use ordinary least squares regression and report unstandardized coefficients. In predicting cohabitation or marriage, we use logistic regression and report odds ratios. For all logistic and multinomial regression models, coefficients and standard errors are available upon request. In Tables 3 to 5 we include, but do not discuss, findings for sociodemographic measures for which we do not offer hypotheses.

RESULTS Table 2 documents the cross-tabulation of relationship types at times 1 and 2. The rightmost column gives the distribution of relationship types at time 1, and the bottom row gives the distribution of types at time 2. Across rows, the cells represent the percent in each time 1 type who moved to, or stayed in, each time 2 type. While all 16 cells are displayed, we denote the groupings that comprise the six categories of relationship patterns to be analyzed later: (1) no relationships at either time 1 or 2, (2) progression to one casual or multiple relationships (or relationship initiation), (3) stability in one casual or multiple relationships, (4) regression in relationship types, (5) progression to a steady relationship, and (6) stability in steady relationships. When considering the table as a whole, several general patterns are apparent. First, the diagonal shows a substantial amount of stability in relationship type across the one-year time span. The most stability is in the “no relationships” and the “steady relationship” types (groups 1 and 6). About 70 percent of those who report no relationship at time 1 maintain single status at time 2. Among those who are in a steady relationship at time 1, nearly 60 percent are in a steady relationship at time 2. In a second pattern, among those who change relationship types between times 1 and 2, forward movement is more prevalent than backward movement. Almost 60 percent (18 + 39 = 57 percent) of respondents with one casual relationship at time 1 progress to multiple relationships or to one steady relationship at time 2. Moreover, if we consider only respondents with one casual relationship at time 1 who changed types by time 2, then an even larger proportion (71 percent) progressed compared with regressed (29 percent).10 Likewise, 53 percent of all respondents with multiple relationships at time 1 progressed to a steady relationship at time 2. If we consider only those who changed types by the second time point, 77 percent of those with multiple relationships at time 1 progressed and 23 percent regressed. The regression category is interesting in that it represents those who moved backward in the idealized progression or may simply be experiencing a lull in dating. About half in the regression category are not dating anyone at time 2, and half of these respondents (25 percent of all who regress) had a steady relationship at time 1. So, while those who regress are not actively moving forward at the time of the second interview, on average they have a fair amount of prior relationship experience and may be experiencing a temporary abeyance (Cohen et al. 2003). The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

319

320

16.06

4,050 (46.18)

One, steady

N (percent)b

b

Percent of all time 1 relationship types. Percent of all time 2 relationship types. 1 No relationships at either time (38 percent of total). 2 Progression to one casual or multiple, initiation (10 percent). 3 Stability in one casual or multiple (3 percent). 4 Regression (18 percent). 5 Progression to a steady relationship (14 percent). 6 Stable in steady relationship (18 percent).

a

1 3.03

Multiple

1

23.61

71.38

No Relationships

One, casual

No relationships

Time 1 Relationship Type

Time 2 Relationship Type

907 (10.83)

8.9 0

6.65

18.85

9.96

One, Casual

56.45

4

6

5

3,014 (31.79)

53.17

39.06

14.31

One, Steady

3

2

978 (11.20)

18 .60

2 7. 16

18.49

4.36

Multiple

TABLE 2. Stability and Change in Relationship Types: Percent in Time 1 Types Who Move to/Stay in Time 2 Types

8,949 (100)

3,015 (34.01)

109 (1.23)

1,181 (13.44)

4,559 (51.43)

Total N (Percent)a

Young Adult Relationship Formation Ann Meier and Gina Allen




In Table 3, we examine associations between relationship patterns and qualities. Here we use relationship patterns to predict relationship quality in the most recent adolescent relationship while controlling for gender, age, race/ethnicity, income status, family structure, and religiosity. Because we are estimating qualities, we use only respondents who report a relationship at time 2 when qualities were measured (N = 4,843). Model 1 displays the odds of dyadic mixing. First, we see that those in the “stability in one or multiple” pattern are statistically indistinguishable from the reference group. Model 1 also shows that those who regressed, progressed to a steady relationship, or were in a steady relationship at both times are between 1.6 and 2.5 times more likely to report dyadic involvement in their most recent relationship. Girls, and middle and older adolescents are more likely, and black and low-income adolescents are less likely, to experience dyadic involvement in their relationships. Model 2 estimates the odds of sexual intercourse. Again, those who are stable in one or multiple short-term relationships are statistically indistinguishable from those who initiated relationship involvement. Adolescents who regressed, or who progressed, toward a steady relationship are more than two times as likely to have had sex in their most recent relationship. Furthermore, those in a steady relationship at both times are seven times more likely to have had sex. Girls, middle and older adolescents, and black and low-income youth are also more likely than others to have sex in their most recent relationship. Model 3 estimates the odds of high emotional intimacy given different relationship patterns. Similar to the first two models, those in stable steady relationships are especially likely to report high intimacy (odds ratio: 5.75). Those who have progressed to a steady relationship are about 3.5 times as likely, and those who regressed are twice as likely, to report high emotional intimacy in their most recent relationship compared with those initiating relationships. Black and Hispanic adolescents are less likely to have high emotional intimacy in their most recent relationship, but age and gender are not significantly related to the emotional intimacy net of relationship progression. Findings in Table 3 confirm our second hypothesis: As adolescents progress toward steady relationships, their relationships become more dyadic, and sexually and emotionally involved. Moreover, we find support for Hypothesis 3c that blacks will have more sexually intimate, but less emotionally intimate, relationships. Table 4 assesses sociodemographic attributes associated with adolescent relationship experience. The first contrast shows that females, and middle and older adolescents are more likely to have progressed to some relationship experience over the course of adolescence while black, Asian, and low-income adolescents are more likely to have had no relationship experience. The second contrast shows that relationship regression (or backward movement) is less likely only among females, and more likely among the oldest and black adolescents. However, the risk is substantial in the case of the oldest adolescents—they are more than twice as likely to regress as to initiate relationships. Perhaps this is because they already have experience from which to regress. The fourth contrast shows that older, black, and low-income adolescents are more likely to progress to a steady relationship by time 2. This contrast is interesting when The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

321



TABLE 3. Probability of Relationship Qualities (Odds Ratios) Dependent Variables Model 1a

Model 2a

Model 3b

Dyadic Mixing

Sexual Intercourse

High Emotional Intimacy

1.43 1.58** 1.57* 2.65***

1.58 2.73*** 2.70*** 6.84***

1.26 2.19*** 3.55*** 5.75***

1.36**

1.39***

1.18

2.85*** 4.87***

2.07*** 5.63***

1.03 0.99

Two bio/adoptive parent family (reference) Stepfamily Single-parent family Other family type

1.09 1.09 0.80

1.16 1.28* 1.43

1.46* 1.08 1.17

White (reference) Black Hispanic Asian Other race

0.57*** 0.84 0.76 1.66

1.54** 0.86 1.00 0.65

0.62*** 0.71* 1.06 1.01

Not low income (reference) Low income Flag for missing income Public religiosity Private religiosity

0.70* 0.75 0.99 0.90

1.43* 0.90 0.74*** 0.84*

0.99 0.77* 1.10 0.93

Independent variables Progression to one, multiple (reference) Stability in one, multiple Regression Progression to steady Stable steady Male (reference) Female Age 11–13 years (reference) Age 14–15 years Age 16–18 years

Regress and progress to steady categories are statistically different from stable steady (p < 0.05) but not statistically different from each other. b All patterns statistically different from each other (p < 0.05). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Notes: Total N = 3,916. All models account for complex sampling design using Stata’s svy commands. a

juxtaposed with the first contrast that shows that black and low-income adolescents are more likely to have no relationships. These findings indicate that while overall black and low-income adolescents are more likely to have no relationships, if they are romantically involved, then they are more likely to progress to steady relationships. The fifth and final contrast shows that females, and middle and older adolescents are more likely to have 322


1.31 2.27***

0.74** 0.59*

0.53*** 0.86 0.55**

1.81* 1.11 2.35* 1.86

1.87*** 1.01 0.97 1.09

Two-parent family (reference) Stepfamily Single-parent family Other family type

White (reference) Black Hispanic Asian Other race

Not low income (reference) Low income Flag for missing income Public religiosity Private religiosity


1.37 1.25 0.84 1.31

0.49 0.47 0.77 0.26

0.98 1.52 0.72

1.49 1.52

0.89

Stable One/Multiple versus Progress to One or Multiple

1.67* 1.04 1.08 0.99

1.43** 1.13 0.78 1.28

1.01 1.32 0.87

1.46 2.04***

0.99

Progress Steady versus Progress to One or Multiple

1.25 1.04 0.90 1.13

1.38 0.96 0.58 1.34

0.97 1.54* 1.37

3.22*** 10.32***

1.64***

Stable Steady versus Progress to One or Multiple

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Notes: N = 7,236; F (70, 59) = 8.77 Probability >F = 0.0000. All models account for complex sampling design using Stata’s svy commands.

1.30 0.96 0.98 1.06

1.48** 1.26 0.72 1.64

0.95 1.39 0.72

0.74**

0.71*

Regress versus Progress to One or Multiple

Male (reference) Female Age 11–13 years (reference) Age 14–16 years Age 17–18 years

Demographic variables

No Romantic Relationships versus Progress to One or Multiple

TABLE 4. Multinomial Logistic Model of Adolescent Relationship Progression (Relative Risk Ratios)

Ann Meier and Gina Allen Young Adult Relationship Formation

323



steady relationships across the course of adolescence. Middle adolescents are more than 3 times as likely to report stable steady relationships, and older adolescents are more than 10 times as likely to do so. These findings offer support for our first hypothesis that early adolescents are more likely to have no relationships or to be initiating relationships for the first time, whereas older adolescents are more likely to progress to, or remain in, steady relationships. Many of the propositions in our third set of hypotheses regarding the sociodemographic correlates of relationship progression are also supported. Adolescent girls are less likely to have no relationships and more likely to have steady relationships across the one-year span (Hypothesis 3a). Asian adolescents are more likely to have no relationships (Hypothesis 3b). Compared with whites, black adolescents are more likely to have no relationships, but if they are romantically involved, then they are more likely to progress to steady relationships versus initiating or remaining in short-term relationships (Hypothesis 3c). Perhaps their relatively quicker progression to steady relationships can partially explain their earlier age at first sex (Upchurch et al. 1998). To summarize our findings regarding adolescent relationships, many adolescents remain in the same relationship state over the course of one year, but those who experience change are more likely to move forward in the idealized relationship progression. Girls and older adolescents are generally further along in the relationship progression, and black and low-income adolescents are more likely to have no relationships. However, if they do have relationship experience, blacks and those from lowincome families are more likely to move quickly to steady relationships. Being further along in the relationship progression is associated with more dyadic, sexual, and emotionally intimate relationships. Black and low-income adolescents report less dyadic mixing and emotional intimacy but more sexual intercourse with their partners. Looking now at later relationships in young adulthood, we turn to Table 5 to examine associations between adolescent relationship experiences and young-adult relationship history. We estimate the number of relationships in the six years prior to time 3, and the odds of ever cohabiting outside of marriage and ever marrying by time 3. To retain participants who reported no romantic relationships in adolescence, we changed the sexual intercourse measure slightly to indicate whether the respondent ever had sex based on their time 1 and 2 reports rather than whether they had sex in their most recent relationship at time 2. This change allows us to include the sexual experience of those who did not report a relationship at time 2 but may still have had sex in an earlier relationship or outside of the context of a romantic relationship. For the same reason, we drop the measures of dyadic mixing and emotional intimacy. Unfortunately, we do not have measures of these constructs that are not tied to the most recent relationship at time 2. In ancillary analyses, we tested models that included the three quality measures among the subsample of those who reported a relationship at time 2, and only the sexual intercourse variable was significant. Finally, because we found interesting patterns for black and low-income adolescents regarding adolescent relationship experience in Table 3—they were less likely to have any experience, but if they did, they were more likely to progress toward steady 324




TABLE 5. Adolescent Relationships and Young-Adult Relationship Experience

Adolescent Relationships Pattern Progression to one/ multiple (reference) Stability in one, multiple Regress Progression to steady Stability in steady No adolescent relationships Qualities Adolescent intercourse Black ⴱ stable steadya Demographic variables Male (reference) Female Age 18–20 years(ref) Age 21–22 yearsa Age 23–25 yearsa White (reference) Black Hispanic Asian Other race Not low income (reference) Low income Flag for missing income Two bio/adopt parent family (reference) Stepfamily Single-parent family Other family type Public religiosity Private religiosity Constant Total N

Ordinary least squares

Logistic

Logistic

Number of Relationships

Ever Cohabited

Ever Marry

UnStd Coeffs.

Odds Ratios

Odds Ratios

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

A

B

A

B

A

B

-0.17 0.19 -0.41* -0.43* -1.28***

-0.13 0.16 -0.35 -0.38 -1.18***

1.06 0.90 0.93 1.13 0.58***

1.09 0.87 0.91 0.98 0.61***

1.46 1.50 1.56* 2.29*** 0.78

1.44 1.46 1.44 2.02*** 0.88

0.49*** —

0.67*** —

3.24***

2.72*** 1.58**

2.02***

1.84*** 0.41***

3.18*** 7,236

0.01

1.50***

1.85***

-0.09 -0.30*

1.50*** 1.52***

1.81*** 3.17***

-0.30** -0.60*** -0.35 -0.22

0.58*** 0.79* 0.69 0.97

0.51*** 1.24 0.75 0.63

-0.46*** -0.26*

1.51*** 1.16

1.91*** 1.38**

0.11 0.18 -0.30 0.10 -0.14* 3.62***

1.92*** 1.71*** 2.06*** 0.96 0.81*** —

1.46** 0.89 1.99*** 1.05 1.18* —

— 7,210

— 7,196

a

Interaction between being black and in the “stability in steady” pattern. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Note: All models account for complex sampling design using Stata’s svy commands.


325



relationships—we tested interactions between the stable steady pattern and being black and having low-income. Perhaps black and low-income teens who gain adolescent relationship experience move more quickly into cohabitation or marriage. Only the interaction between black and the stable steady pattern was significant so we show that term in Table 5. We show two models for each time 3 outcome. The first is without sociodemographic controls, and the second is added with our control variables. Model 1A estimates the influence of adolescent relationship patterns on the number of relationships the respondent had in the six years prior to time 3 without controls. Here we see that those whose adolescent pattern was “progress to steady” or “stable steady” have fewer relationships on average. Perhaps their more serious adolescent relationships transitioned more quickly into monogamous, long-term commitments, so they were less likely to gain experience with multiple partners. However, we also find that those with no adolescent relationships have substantially fewer relationships in the six years prior to time 3 (coefficient = -1.28). Those who were sexually active in adolescence have more relationships by time 3. When controls are entered in model 1B, there are no statistically significant differences between the relationship progression patterns for those who reported any type of relationship in adolescence. However, those reporting no relationships in adolescence still have on average one less relationship by time 3 (coefficient = -1.18). Regarding sociodemographic variables, the oldest, black, Hispanic, and low-income respondents have fewer relationships by time 3 than their younger, white, and higher-income counterparts. Model 2A estimates the odds of ever cohabiting with a romantic partner by time 3 without controls. The model shows that only those who had no relationships in adolescence are at reduced odds of cohabitation (odds ratio: 0.58). Those with any relationship experience in adolescence are not statistically different in their odds of cohabitation. Adolescent sex triples the odds of cohabitation, perhaps signifying less restrictive attitudes toward relationships in general. When controls are added in model 2B, the findings for adolescent relationship patterns and sex remain. Many of the controls are significant as well. Females, middle and older respondents, and those from low-income families are also more likely to have cohabited. Only blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have cohabited. However, in model 2B, the interaction between being black and having steady relationship experience in adolescence is significant and positive. This finding suggests that while blacks are significantly less likely to have cohabited in young adulthood, if they have steady relationship experience in adolescence, then they are more likely to do so. Model 3A estimates the odds of having married by time 3 without controls. Here we see that those who have progressed to, or sustained, steady involvement in adolescence are more likely to have married by time 3. Those who report intercourse in adolescence are also more likely to have married. When controls are added in model 3B, only those in the stable steady adolescent relationship pattern remain more likely to have married by time 3 (odds ratio: 2.02). Much like the findings for cohabitation in model 2B, females, middle and older respondents, and those from low-income families are more likely to be married by time 3. Only blacks are less likely to be 326




married. Again, the interaction term between black and stable steady adolescent relationship experience is significant, however, it operates in the opposite direction than it did for cohabitation. Whereas blacks who have steady adolescent relationships are more likely to cohabit, indicating that an earlier steady relationship propels blacks into cohabitation in adulthood, blacks with steady adolescent relationships are less likely to marry. Based on theories of relationship development, Hypothesis 4a–c suggests that individuals who report any adolescent relationship experience will accumulate more relationships and will be more likely to cohabit or marry by time 3 compared with those with no adolescent relationship experience. Our findings indicate that those with any relationship experience (vs. none) accumulate more relationships and are more likely to cohabit by early adulthood. However, we find that only those who have progressed to steady relationships in adolescence are more likely to have married by early adulthood. This finding is consistent with Hypothesis 4d, that those with steady relationship experience in adolescence are more likely than others to marry by time 3. Also, we find that those who were sexually active in adolescence accumulate more relationships and are more likely to cohabit and/or marry by time 3. Although we did not formally hypothesize about the influence of adolescent sexual experience, we might have suspected that those who had sex in adolescence are more relationally oriented in general and therefore would report more relationship experience by time 3. Because our sample ranges from 18 to 25 years at time 3, many respondents are quite young for having cohabitation, and especially marriage, experience. However, the lack of such experience probably does not indicate a lack of relationship experience altogether. To get some insight into other types of young-adult romantic relationships, we tested the associations between adolescent relationship experiences and current relationship status (single, dating exclusively, dating nonexclusively, cohabiting but not engaged, engaged, and married) at the time of the third interview (not shown). We did not find significant associations between adolescent relationships and current status. Our lack of findings in this regard may be because the current status captures experience at only one point in time. Following respondents in the next wave of the Add Health data currently being collected will allow us to assess more time-normative young-adult relationship experiences. DISCUSSION Theories on romantic relationship development in adolescence posit a progression of involvement and a change in relationship quality to more emotional and sexual intensity, and more dyadic mixing with age, relationship duration, and experience in romantic relationships. In addition, theory suggests that adolescent romantic relationships should be an integral part of the social scaffolding on which young-adult romantic relationships rest. Furthermore, as the age at union formation increases in the United States and elsewhere, adolescent and young-adult relationships become ever more important, as they fill a longer span of time during which many people are not formally The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

327



partnered—10 to 12 years or about half of a young adult’s life span. In this study, we set out to integrate new theories and empirical studies on the development of romantic experiences during the transition to adulthood. To test these theories, we empirically assessed the types, qualities, and patterns of romantic relationships with a large, longitudinal, and representative data set that follows adolescents into early adulthood. Our research makes three primary contributions to our knowledge of adolescent relationship development into adulthood. First, our study is the first to use a large, nationally representative sample to test the progression of relationships from adolescence to adulthood. We confirm the theoretically suggested normative pattern of relationship development. Specifically, with regard to relationship patterning over time, we confirm on a national level the prior findings with age-limited and localized data that progression is more prevalent than regression in relationship experience (Connolly et al. 2004); that younger adolescents are more likely to have limited or no relationship experience, but with age they gain more serious relationship experience (Brown 1999; Connolly and Goldberg 1999); and that steady relationships are more dyadic, and sexually and emotionally intimate (Furman and Wehner 1994; Brown 1999; Connolly and Goldberg 1999). We are encouraged to have replicated the general contours of relationship development suggested by new theories and a few empirical studies using small, age-limited, and nonrepresentative samples. These findings indicate that as the field of adolescent relationship research develops, researchers are likely headed down the right path in understanding the developmental course of adolescent relationships. Because adolescent relationship research is in its infancy, rigorous testing of its foundational theories is critical to advancing the field. Second, our study contributes to the growing literature on race and relationship formation. Other studies have found, as we do, that blacks are less likely to marry than whites (Lichter et al. 1992; Rendall 1999; Chandra et al. 2005). Where our study departs from other studies, however, is in our ability to trace race differences in romantic relationships further back into adolescence. We find that blacks are also less likely to experience romantic involvement in adolescence. However, when they do, they are more likely than whites to be in steady relationships. Moreover, black youths who have steady relationship experience are more likely to cohabit with a partner in young adulthood, whereas black youths without steady dating experience are less likely to cohabit. Perhaps adolescent steady dating launches black youths more quickly into cohabitation. However, black youths with steady dating experience in adolescence are less likely to marry. Thus, while adolescent romantic experience may be a primer for cohabitation, the barriers to marriage, whatever they might be, still remain too great. Some studies suggest that it is really poverty status, not race, that creates a barrier to marriage among blacks (Edin and Kefalas 2005). However, controlling for low-income status, we find that black young adults are still significantly less likely than whites to marry by young adulthood. Others attribute low marriage rates among blacks to a lack of “marriageable men” in the black community because of poor economic prospects, high levels of incarceration (Wilson 1987), and the out-marriage of high-achieving black men (Crowder and Tolnay 2000). 328




Perhaps the idea that there are too few “marriageable men” could be extended back to include “datable men” in adolescence, which would explain blacks’ low levels of romantic involvement in adolescence. Nevertheless, our results suggest that even among blacks who find steady partners and are more likely to cohabit, marriage remains in some way unattainable or undesirable. These findings cannot resolve the debate about what accounts for the low marriage rates among blacks, but they do add a piece to the puzzle. The fact that blacks are less likely to be romantically involved in adolescence squares with the idea that there are no good relationship options for black adolescent girls—the “datable men” problem. However, those blacks who have found a serious romantic partner in adolescence seem to maintain that pattern of serious relationships in young adulthood in cohabiting unions. Thus, the lack of a partner cannot explain low rates of early marriage among these blacks; other barriers may be responsible. While we have added to the literature by tracing race differences in affiliative patterns back to adolescence, it is important to be clear that our findings are patterns of association and not causal effects of race. Immediately above we speculate about potential explanations for these patterns; most explanations have something to do with other social factors that are associated with race in our society: economic or educational stratification or incarceration. We do not directly assess these factors in our study because we do not have good measures of these sociocultural factors. Additionally, our sample is relatively young, and many have not yet achieved their ultimate economic or educational attainment. We urge readers to interpret race in our study as a proxy for unmeasured social processes that are strongly stratified by race in our society rather than as a fundamental cause of difference (Zuberi 2000). Future researchers should design studies with better measures of the factors and processes that generate differential associations between relationship experience and race, and then should use those measures to understand racial differences. Finally, we show that adolescent relationship experience is more than trivial puppy love. Instead, having some romantic experience in adolescence is associated with the likelihood of cohabitation in early adulthood, and steady experience in adolescence is predictive of marriage in early adulthood. Thus, the recent policy and program efforts to promote healthy marriages may be well served by widening the scope of intervention to consider what is learned in adolescent romantic relationships. Most adolescents transition to adulthood with some experience in intimate relationships. Teaching important relationship skills such as communication and reciprocity to adolescents who are still in school may be much more efficient and productive than trying to assemble a class of betrothed young adults. CONCLUSIONS A primary reason for recent scholarly interest in the transition to adulthood is the great shift in the timing and order of major events in the life course. Family formation activities are central to the transition to adulthood, and it is precisely these life events that have changed the most in recent decades. The average age at first marriage has The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

329



increased substantially, cohabitation is on the rise, and childbearing is increasingly detached from marriage. Perhaps more than any time in history, the American family has taken center stage in domestic policy issues in the United States. Nonprofit groups, states, and the federal government have created a set of initiatives characterized as the marriage movement (e.g., Oklahoma Marriage Initiative), with goals of strengthening young-adult relationships (Nock 2005; Ooms 2007; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2008). These initiatives need to recognize that most youth enter adulthood not as blank relationship slates but with significant romantic relationship experience. Our work extends what is known about the course of relationship development over adolescence and its influence on relationship formation in adulthood by including measures that capture multiple aspects of relationships (e.g., duration, number, quality) and using data that are representative of all U.S. adolescents in school. Additionally, we consider the experiences of young people across a wide age range that spans adolescence and extends into adulthood. Importantly, we show that adolescent relationship progression can be empirically characterized as developmental theorists have suggested in a nationally representative sample. Moreover, rather than being trivial or ephemeral, we find that having any relationship experience in adolescence is consequential for young-adult partnerships. Our findings suggest that if we are serious in our concern about youngadult relationships, scholars and policymakers must step back in the life course to more fully consider adolescent relationship experiences as social and developmental precursors to adult relationships. Theory building and empirical research have begun to reveal patterns of relationship progression, yet we recognize three limitations in the broader field of adolescent relationship research. First, existing theories of relationship development during this life stage are relatively simplistic; they do not offer much in the way of hypothesizing about variation in adolescents’ relationship experiences. Second, empirical studies on the topic are sparse, and those that exist suffer from important weaknesses: restricted age ranges, samples that are too homogeneous, and limited generalizability. These limitations in theory and research are likely because of the recency with which the topic has gained credibility in the scholarly community. Finally, where large and representative data with measures of adolescent relationships exist, the measures are not well suited to testing theories about relationship development. For example, we wish we had better measures of the qualities of adolescent and young-adult relationships. Large studies are usually designed with other research questions in mind and/or a limited amount of space to explore any one issue in sufficient depth. Unfortunately, these limitations often result in an incomplete accounting of relationship development. In addition, the social landscape of adolescence is always changing, making it a moving target for investigators. The first interview for Add Health was conducted over 12 years ago, and the most recent interview occurred nearly 7 years ago. Perhaps things are not as they used to be. Future studies should assess relationship patterns in recent cohorts of adolescents. Despite these limitations, our study is able to test whether theorists are on the right track with regard to understanding the process of romantic 330




relationship development during adolescence and into young adulthood. Our findings suggest that, in general, they are. Yet, our investigation of the multiple aspects of relationships and differences based on adolescents’ ascribed characteristics hints at interesting nuances in the process of relationship development that should motivate future research on the topic. Our findings help us to understand how adolescents negotiate the domain of romantic relationships and why it is so developmentally critical for them to do so. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and is funded by a grant (P01-HD31921) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is attributed to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for their assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth@ unc.edu). The first author received funding from a Grant-in-Aid from the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota and grant number K01-HD49571 from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences, for this research. We would like to thank Andy Collins for his advice, Derek Burk for his assistance in research, and Christina Falci for her earlier work that advanced this project. NOTES 1

A number of studies suggest reasons for this paucity of research, including skepticism regarding the importance of relationships perceived as short-lived or trivial, research and funding focusing on sexual (not romantic) relationships, difficulties measuring adolescent romance, and problems accounting for romantic relationships using existing theories of development (Brown, Feiring, and Furman 1999; Collins 2003). 2 Brown (1999) and Connolly and Goldberg (1999) use different labels, but the phases are conceptually very similar. We use the Connolly and Goldberg terminology here. 3 There are several reasons for missing sample weights. First, if the case was not in the original sampling frame, but was added in the field, then it does not have a weight. Second, if the case was selected as part of a pair (twins, half-siblings), and both were not interviewed, then it does not have a weight. Finally, if the case did not have a sample flag to indicate whether it is part of a special oversample, then it does not have a weight (J. Tabor, Add Health Data Manager, personal communication, January 17, 2003). Adolescents who were high school seniors at time 1 and graduated before time 2 were not included in the Add Health follow-up. 4 Teen pregnancy and childbirth may also affect relationship progression, cohabitation, and marriage. We tested the robustness of our results to a sample of only those who do not report a teen pregnancy or birth (this reduces our sample by about 14 percent). Our primary results remain unchanged. We do not include these measures because there is a substantial degree of missing The Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009) 308–335 © 2009 Midwest Sociological Society

331



data, and data quality for males on issues of pregnancy and childbirth is notoriously poor. We are working on another study that examines the role of childbearing in relationship formation. 5 Sexual identity is determined from time 3 self-reports. Respondents may have had adolescent same-sex relationships or experience but will still be included in our sample if they identify as heterosexual at time 3. We tested the robustness of our models to the inclusion of sexual minority respondents, and results remained unchanged. Future research should investigate relationship development among sexual minority youth. 6 Some have suggested that the Add Health definition of a romantic relationship is too narrow because it excludes relationships that adolescents do not deem special (Furman and Hand 2006). The inclusion of relationships defined on the basis of affectionate behaviors should partially mitigate against this limitation. In addition, we are interested in those relationships that are most important for the development of young-adult romantic relationships. We acknowledge that less special relationships are likely to provide some developmental currency, yet we believe those defined as special and their relationship counterparts defined by multiple affectionate behaviors together represent the most developmentally significant adolescent romantic relationships. Still, we note that our analyses may overestimate the effects of adolescent romantic relationships in general if this definition captures only the most serious ones. 7 We define “casual” as lasting less than three months. Connolly and Johnson (1996) use four months as a cutoff for short relationships while Zimmer-Gembeck, Siebenbruner, and Collins (2001) use two months. 8 We chose to group the 16 cells of the cross-tabulation into six categories for several reasons. First, ours is a theoretically driven and intuitive grouping that captures both stability and change, and the direction of change over time. Second, we reduced the groups to just six because we found the 16 groups analytically unwieldy. Finally, we have tried different combinations of the 16 groups that also seem logical. These other groupings did not change our substantive results. 9 At time 1, approximately one-third of participants had difficulty using the Audio ComputerAssisted Self-Interview program to answer questions regarding the activities in their relationships (Carver et al. 2003). Therefore, we restrict our analysis of adolescent relationship quality to time 2 reports. While we cannot prospectively assess relationship quality measures from time 1 to time 2, we can get some empirical leverage on relationship qualities in the most recent relationship at time 2 for adolescents at various phases of relationship progression. 10 This percentage is derived by adding the number of cases in the time 2 “no relationships,” “multiple,” and “one, steady” cells of the time 1 “one casual” row. This summation serves as the denominator. The sum of those in the same row, but only “multiple” and “one steady” columns, serves as the numerator for forward movement. The number of cases for each cell is not shown but can be derived by multiplying the row N by the percentage in each row ⴱ column cell.

REFERENCES Arnett, Jeffrey J. 2004. Emerging Adulthood. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, B. Bradford. 1999. “ ‘You’re Going Out with Who?!’: Peer Group Influences on Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Pp. 291–329 in The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence, edited by W. Furman, B. B. Brown, and C. Feiring. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, B. Bradford, Candice Feiring, and Wyndol Furman. 1999. “Missing the Love Boat: Why Researchers Have Shied Away from Adolescent Romance.” Pp. 1–17 in The Development of 332




Romantic Relationships in Adolescence, edited by W. Furman, B. B. Brown, and C. Feiring. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carver, Karen, Kara Joyner, and J. Richard Udry. 2003. “National Estimates of Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Pp. 23–56 in Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Sexual Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practical Implications, edited by P. Florsheim. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chandra, Anjani, Gladys M. Martinez, William D. Mosher, Joyce C. Abma, and Jo Jones. 2005. “Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U. S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 23:25. Chantala, Kim and Joyce Tabor. 1999. Strategies to Perform a Design-Based Analysis Using the Add Health Data. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina. Cohen, Patricia, Stephanie Kasen, Henian Chen, Claudia Hartmark, and Kathy Gordon. 2003. “Variations in Patterns of Developmental Transitions in the Emerging Adulthood Period.” Developmental Psychology 39:657–69. Collins, W. Andrew. 2003. “More than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic Relationships during Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 13:1–24. Connolly, Jennifer, Wendy Craig, Adele Goldberg, and Debra Pepler. 2004. “Mixed-Gender Groups, Dating, and Romantic Relationships in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14:185–207. Connolly, Jennifer and Adele Goldberg. 1999. “Romantic Relationships in Adolescence: The Role of Friends and Peers in Their Emergence and Development.” Pp. 266–90 in The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence, edited by W. Furman, B. B. Brown, and C. Feiring. New York: Cambridge University Press. Connolly, Jennifer A. and Anne M. Johnson. 1996. “Adolescents’ Romantic Relationships and the Structure and Quality of Their Close Interpersonal Ties.” Personal Relationships 3:185–95. Crowder, Kyle D. and Stewart E. Tolnay. 2000. “A New Marriage Squeeze for Black Women: The Role of Racial Intermarriage by Black Men.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:792– 807. Davies, Patrick T. and Michael Windle. 2000. “Middle Adolescents’ Dating Pathways and Psychosocial Adjustment.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 46:90–118. Dornbusch, Sanford M. 1989. “The Sociology of Adolescence.” Annual Review of Sociology 15:233– 59. Dunphy, Dexter C. 1963. “The Social Structure of Urban Adolescent Peer Groups.” Sociometry 26:230–46. Edin, Kathryn and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1998. “The Life Course as Developmental Theory.” Child Development 69(1):1– 12. Erikson, Erik H. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton. Furman, Wyndol and Laura Schaffer Hand. 2006. “The Slippery Nature of Romantic Relationships: Issues in Definition and Differentiation.” Pp. 171–8 in Romance and Sex in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood, edited by A. C. Crouter and A. Booth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Furman, Wyndol and Elizabeth A. Wehner. 1994. “Romantic Views: Toward a Theory of Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Pp. 168–95 in Personal Relationships during Adolescence, edited by R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, and T. P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


333



Furstenberg, Frank. 2003. “Reflections on the Future of the Life Course.” Pp. 661–70 in Handbook of the Life Course, edited by J. T. Mortimer and M. J. Shanahan. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Giordano, Peggy C. 2003. “Relationships in Adolescence.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:257–81. Giordano, Peggy C., Wendy D. Manning, and Monica A. Longmore. 2005. “The Romantic Relationships of African-American and White Adolescents.” The Sociological Quarterly 46:545–68. Hazan, Cindy and Phillip Shaver. 1987. “Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:511–24. Joyner, Kara and Richard J. Udry. 2000. “You Don’t Bring Me Anything but Down: Adolescent Romance and Depression.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41:369–91. Lichter, Daniel T., George Kephart, Diane K. McLaughlin, and David J. Landry. 1992. “Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?” American Sociological Review 57:781–99. Meier, Ann and Gina Allen. 2008. “Intimate Relationship Development during the Transition to Adulthood: Differences by Social Class.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 119:25–40. Miller, Judi Beinstein and Tova Hoicowitz. 2004. “Attachment Contexts for Adolescent Friendship and Romance.” Journal of Adolescence 27:191–206. Neeman, Amy, John Hubbard, and Ann S. Masten. 1995. “The Changing Importance of Romantic Relationship Involvement to Competence from Late Childhood to Late Adolescence.” Development and Psychopathology 7:727–50. Nock, Steven L. 2005. “Marriage as a Public Issue.” Future of Children 15:13–32. Ooms, Theodora. 2007. “Adapting Healthy Marriage Programs for Disadvantaged and Culturally Diverse Populations: What Are the Issues?” Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved February 23, 2009. (http://www.clasp.org/publications/couplesmarriage_ brief_10.pdf). Raley, R. Kelly, Sarah Crissy, and Chandra Muller. 2007. “Of Sex and Romance: Late Adolescent Relationships and Young Adult Union Formation.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69:1210– 26. Rendall, Michael S. 1999. “Entry or Exit? A Transition Probability Approach to Explaining the High Prevalence of Single Motherhood among Black Women.” Demography 36:369–76. Schoen, Robert, Nancy S. Landale, and Kimberly Daniels. 2007. “Family Transitions in Young Adulthood.” Demography 44:807–20. Seiffge-Krenke, Inge. 2003. “Testing Theories of Romantic Development from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Evidence of Developmental Sequence.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 27:519–31. Settersten, Richard. 2003. “Age Structuring and the Rhythm of the Life Course.” Pp. 81–102 in Handbook of the Life Course, edited by J. T. Mortimer and M. J. Shanahan. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Settersten, Richard A., Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2005. On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shanahan, Michael J. 2000. “Pathways to Adulthood in Changing Societies: Variability and Mechanisms in Life Course Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:667–92. Sullivan, Harry S. 1953. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.

334




Thornton, Arland, William G. Axinn, and Jay D. Teachman. 1995. “The Influence of Educational Aspirations and Experiences on Entrances into Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Sociological Review 60:762–74. Udry, J. Richard. 2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Waves I & II, 1994–1996; Wave III, 2001–2002 [MRDF and documentation]. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Indicators of Marriage and Fertility in the United States from the American Community Survey: 2000 to 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Healthy Marriage Initiative—General Information. Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved February 23, 2009 (http:// www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html). Upchurch, Dawn, Lene Levy-Storms, Lea A. Sucoff, and Carol S. Anshensel. 1998. “Gender & Ethnic Differences in Timing of First Sexual Intercourse.” Family Planning Perspectives 30:121–7. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zimmer-Gembeck, Melanie, Jessica Siebenbruner, and W. Andrew Collins. 2001. “Diverse Aspects of Dating: Associations with Psychosocial Functioning from Early to Middle Adolescence.” Journal of Adolescence 24:313–36. Zuberi, Tukufu. 2000. “Deracializing Social Statistics: Problems in the Quantification of Race.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 568:172–85.


335

Longitudinal trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence to young adulthood.

Differences in cigarette use behaviors by age at the time of diagnosis with diabetes from young adulthood to adulthood: results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Volunteering in adolescence and young adulthood crime involvement: a longitudinal analysis from the add health study.

Accuracy of self-reported versus measured weight over adolescence and young adulthood: findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health, 1996-2008.

Developmental trajectories of disordered eating from early adolescence to young adulthood: a longitudinal study.

Growth Trajectories of Health Behaviors from Adolescence through Young Adulthood.

Links Between Sibling Experiences and Romantic Competence from Adolescence Through Young Adulthood.

Pathways from problems in adolescent family relationships to midlife mental health via early adulthood disadvantages - a 26-year longitudinal study.

Cannabis Use in Adolescence and Young Adulthood: A Review of Findings from the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study.

A national Swedish longitudinal twin-sibling study of criminal convictions from adolescence through early adulthood.

Adolescent risk factors for purging in young women: findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health.

The influence of childhood welfare participation on adulthood substance use: evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

Stability and Instability of Subjective Well-Being in the Transition from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Longitudinal Evidence from 20991 Young Australians.

Nicotine Dependence and Alcohol Problems from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.

Prosociality from early adolescence to young adulthood: A longitudinal study of individuals with a history of language impairment.

Cortical thickness in adolescent marijuana and alcohol users: A three-year prospective study from adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental health trajectories from adolescence to adulthood: Language disorder and other childhood and adolescent risk factors.

Pathways of Peer Relationships from Childhood to Young Adulthood.

Health-related quality of life may deteriorate from adolescence to young adulthood after extremely preterm birth.

Symptoms of Depression and Difficulty Initiating Sleep from Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study.

Do Executive Functions Predict Binge-Drinking Patterns? Evidence from a Longitudinal Study in Young Adulthood.

Developmental trends in sleep duration in adolescence and young adulthood: evidence from a national United States sample.

Mental health problems among individuals with persistent health challenges from adolescence to young adulthood: a population-based longitudinal study in Norway.

Predicted long-term cardiovascular risk among young adults in the national longitudinal study of adolescent health.