NIH Public Access Author Manuscript OF /Marriage Fam.Author manuscript,available in PMC 2012 July 18 Published in final edited form as: NIH-PA J Marriage Fam.2010June;72(3):557-575.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x Author Partnering Across the Life Course:Sex,Relationships,and Mate Selection Manuscript Sharon Sassler Department of Policy Analysis Management,Cornell University,120 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall,Ithaca,NY 14853(SS589@Cornell.edu). Abstract Marital delay,relationship dissolution and churning,and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time individuals in search of romantic relationships spend outside of marital unions. The scope of research on intimate partnering now includes studies of"hooking up,"Internet dating,visiting relationships,cohabitation,marriage following childbirth,and serial partnering,as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage.Collectively,we know much more NIH-PA about relationship formation and development,but research often remains balkanized among scholars employing different theoretical approaches,methodologies,or disciplinary perspectives. The study of relationship behavior is also segmented into particular life stages,with little attention given to linkages between stages over the life course.Recommendations for future research are Author Manuscript offered. Keywords cohabitation;dating;marriage;mate selection;relationship processes The nature and process of forming intimate relationships has changed in important ways over the past few decades.Previous"Decade in Review"articles focused on various aspects of relationship formation,ranging from adolescent pregnancy,premarital relationships,and mate selection to sexuality in relationships and families formed outside of marriage.These reviews dichotomized relationship behavior into romantic attachments preceding marriage and partnering that produced children.But dramatic changes in the timing and sequencing of relationship stages have made the study of intimate partnering more complex today than in the past.The scope of research has expanded to include studies of hookups and Internet dating,visiting relationships,cohabitation,marriage following childbirth,and serial NIH-PA Author Manuscript partnering as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. A unique challenge of reviewing research on partnering arises from changes in the marital behavior of Americans.Marital delay,relationship dissolution and churning,and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time substantial proportions of adults spend outside of formal marriage.Individuals select from a veritable smorgasbord of romantic options,including entering into casual,short-term sexual relationships;dating as an end toward finding a long-term partner,entering into shared living with a romantic partner (cohabitation)as an alternative to living alone;forming a cohabiting union as a precursor to marriage;or living with a partner as a substitute for formal marriage.Even though marriage remains among the most venerated of options(Cherlin,2004;Edin,Kefalas,Reed,2004; I express my appreciation to Daniel Lichter and Peggy Giordano for their encouragement and constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript
Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection Sharon Sassler Department of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University, 120 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 (SS589@Cornell.edu). Abstract Marital delay, relationship dissolution and churning, and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time individuals in search of romantic relationships spend outside of marital unions. The scope of research on intimate partnering now includes studies of “hooking up,” Internet dating, visiting relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial partnering, as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. Collectively, we know much more about relationship formation and development, but research often remains balkanized among scholars employing different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or disciplinary perspectives. The study of relationship behavior is also segmented into particular life stages, with little attention given to linkages between stages over the life course. Recommendations for future research are offered. Keywords cohabitation; dating; marriage; mate selection; relationship processes The nature and process of forming intimate relationships has changed in important ways over the past few decades. Previous “Decade in Review” articles focused on various aspects of relationship formation, ranging from adolescent pregnancy, premarital relationships, and mate selection to sexuality in relationships and families formed outside of marriage. These reviews dichotomized relationship behavior into romantic attachments preceding marriage and partnering that produced children. But dramatic changes in the timing and sequencing of relationship stages have made the study of intimate partnering more complex today than in the past. The scope of research has expanded to include studies of hookups and Internet dating, visiting relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial partnering as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. A unique challenge of reviewing research on partnering arises from changes in the marital behavior of Americans. Marital delay, relationship dissolution and churning, and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time substantial proportions of adults spend outside of formal marriage. Individuals select from a veritable smorgasbord of romantic options, including entering into casual, short-term sexual relationships; dating as an end toward finding a long-term partner; entering into shared living with a romantic partner (cohabitation) as an alternative to living alone; forming a cohabiting union as a precursor to marriage; or living with a partner as a substitute for formal marriage. Even though marriage remains among the most venerated of options (Cherlin, 2004; Edin, Kefalas, & Reed, 2004; I express my appreciation to Daniel Lichter and Peggy Giordano for their encouragement and constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2010 June ; 72(3): 557–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 2 Lichter,Batson,Brown,2004;Smock,2004),it increasingly serves as a relationship capstone that takes place well after sexual involvement,shared living,and even childbearing and parenting(Carlson,McLanahan,England,2004)and may not even be a desired goal (Byrne Carr,2005;DePaulo Morris,2005). NIH-PA Author Manuscript A common thread unifying all relationships is a desire for intimacy-whether emotional or sexual.Involvement in romantic relationships,as a spouse,a cohabiting partner,or in a steady dating partnership,is beneficial to mental and physical health and sense of well-being (Kamp Dush Amato,2005;Williams Umberson,2004),though the benefits vary by race,gender,social class,parental status,and union type.Partnering behaviors change over the life course,both for structural(e.g.,economic barriers or limited marriage market opportunities)and behavioral reasons(e.g.,changing marital aspirations).Research published in social science journals over the last decade suggests that the behaviors and goals of emerging and young adults are widely divergent from older single adults.The topics studied differ dramatically,as does the frequency of coverage and how partnering behavior is framed as problematic or beneficial.Scholars from many different disciplines study partnering and parenting,but seldom is the research truly interdisciplinary,synergistic, or even complementary.This disciplinary balkanization is reflected in the theoretical approaches utilized,the data sources employed,and ultimately the knowledge produced. This review identifies,synthesizes,and critiques the theoretical,methodological,and substantive research on heterosexual partnering.It examines the research on the formation and development of voluntary romantic relationships marked by expressions of affection, NIH-PA Author Manuscript including physical intimacy and the expectation or experience of sexual relations(though see Donnelly Burgess,2008,for a study of celibacy in committed relationships). Following the major tropes introduced by the research,this review covers various life course stages.Like previous"Reviews,"it highlights recent research on relationship formation among adolescents and emerging (or young)adulthood,but it also examines changing patterns among midlife and older adults.Given the scope of the topic,it is not possible to review all forms of partnering behavior.This review therefore is limited to heterosexual partnering in the United States.Country-specific policies regarding union formation and parenting often differentiate relationship processes and outcomes,and other reviews in this issue cover same-sex partnerships and postmarital relationships. Partnering:Examining Couple Formation From the Perspective of the Individual Though seldom addressed from a dyadic perspective,research on the process of how two individuals become a couple is a central focus of much research on premarital relationships, sexuality,and mate selection.The bulk of research on Americans'relationship formation behavior relies on data and analysis of individuals,though sometimes partners are examined NIH-PA Author Manuscript in tandem,as when marital communication is observed or both partners are surveyed. Studies of partnering behavior may take the form of examining the traits preferred in partners(Stewart,Stinnett,Rosenfeld,2000),the behaviors engaged in during the preliminary stages of getting to know someone(O'Sullivan,Cheng,Harris,Brooks-Gunn, 2007),what causes respondents to be more or less happy or satisfied in relationships (Arriaga,2001;Sprecher,2001),or the factors leading up to the decision to become sexually intimate,live together,or marry(Guzzo,2006;Manning Smock,2002;Meier,2007; Sassler,2004;Uecker,2008). People imbue relationships with different meanings and approach them with varying goals. Individuals may desire particular attributes in a partner and actively seek them,without success,whereas not all physical intimacy between two individuals results in the JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
Lichter, Batson, & Brown, 2004; Smock, 2004), it increasingly serves as a relationship capstone that takes place well after sexual involvement, shared living, and even childbearing and parenting (Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004) and may not even be a desired goal (Byrne & Carr, 2005; DePaulo & Morris, 2005). A common thread unifying all relationships is a desire for intimacy—whether emotional or sexual. Involvement in romantic relationships, as a spouse, a cohabiting partner, or in a steady dating partnership, is beneficial to mental and physical health and sense of well-being (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Williams & Umberson, 2004), though the benefits vary by race, gender, social class, parental status, and union type. Partnering behaviors change over the life course, both for structural (e.g., economic barriers or limited marriage market opportunities) and behavioral reasons (e.g., changing marital aspirations). Research published in social science journals over the last decade suggests that the behaviors and goals of emerging and young adults are widely divergent from older single adults. The topics studied differ dramatically, as does the frequency of coverage and how partnering behavior is framed as problematic or beneficial. Scholars from many different disciplines study partnering and parenting, but seldom is the research truly interdisciplinary, synergistic, or even complementary. This disciplinary balkanization is reflected in the theoretical approaches utilized, the data sources employed, and ultimately the knowledge produced. This review identifies, synthesizes, and critiques the theoretical, methodological, and substantive research on heterosexual partnering. It examines the research on the formation and development of voluntary romantic relationships marked by expressions of affection, including physical intimacy and the expectation or experience of sexual relations (though see Donnelly & Burgess, 2008, for a study of celibacy in committed relationships). Following the major tropes introduced by the research, this review covers various life course stages. Like previous “Reviews,” it highlights recent research on relationship formation among adolescents and emerging (or young) adulthood, but it also examines changing patterns among midlife and older adults. Given the scope of the topic, it is not possible to review all forms of partnering behavior. This review therefore is limited to heterosexual partnering in the United States. Country-specific policies regarding union formation and parenting often differentiate relationship processes and outcomes, and other reviews in this issue cover same-sex partnerships and postmarital relationships. Partnering: Examining Couple Formation From the Perspective of the Individual Though seldom addressed from a dyadic perspective, research on the process of how two individuals become a couple is a central focus of much research on premarital relationships, sexuality, and mate selection. The bulk of research on Americans’ relationship formation behavior relies on data and analysis of individuals, though sometimes partners are examined in tandem, as when marital communication is observed or both partners are surveyed. Studies of partnering behavior may take the form of examining the traits preferred in partners (Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000), the behaviors engaged in during the preliminary stages of getting to know someone (O’Sullivan, Cheng, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007), what causes respondents to be more or less happy or satisfied in relationships (Arriaga, 2001; Sprecher, 2001), or the factors leading up to the decision to become sexually intimate, live together, or marry (Guzzo, 2006; Manning & Smock, 2002; Meier, 2007; Sassler, 2004; Uecker, 2008). People imbue relationships with different meanings and approach them with varying goals. Individuals may desire particular attributes in a partner and actively seek them, without success, whereas not all physical intimacy between two individuals results in the Sassler Page 2 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 3 establishment of a romantic relationship.Defining what constitutes partnering behavior is challenging,the unit of analysis can shift depending upon the research question.Studies of relationship quality,for example,often combine cohabitors and marrieds,even as research on transitions to marriage frequently groups cohabitors with singles who may or may not be in dating relationships(Surra,Gray,Cottle,Boettcher,2004).For the purpose of this NIH-PA Author Manuscript review,I focus on partnering among unmarried adults,defining partnering as the formation and development of intimate relationships,which may be short in duration or lead to a stable marriage.This perspective encompasses the behaviors engaged in pursuit of that goal,the processes that enhance or impede the development of intimate relationships,and factors differentiating the union types entered. Methodological Advances Several advances characterize the research on partnering in the first decade of the 21st century.Large data collections,including longitudinal panel data,have reshaped conventional theoretical approaches to partnering behaviors.Many scholars have also gathered their own data and conducted smaller scale experiments.Even as the release of new nationally representative data has greatly expanded what is known about relationship formation and development,the study of relationship behavior has become increasingly balkanized into particular life stages,with certain behaviors studied for one population but not another Research on adolescents and emerging adults(spanning the early teens through the mid-20s) NIH-PA Author Manuscript has proliferated in the past decade,abetted by the supplementation of several longitudinal data collections.The third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).released in 2002,in conjunction with the earlier waves(1995 and 1996). allows researchers to examine the partnering behaviors of youth from middle-school (beginning with Grade 7)through their mid-20s.The 10th round of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997(NLSY97),which was gathered in 2006-2007, provides detailed information on a similarly aged cohort(those born between 1980 and 1984).Wave 3 of the National Survey of Families and Households(NSFH),gathered in 2002,permits the study of the focal children of householders from the initial wave of the NSFH.Focusing on a particular age cohort,Cycle 6(2002)of the National Survey of Family Growth(NSFG)provides detailed information on the sexual partnering and fertility experiences of respondents age 15 to 45,for the first time including data on men as well as women. Several of these data sets,such as the NSFG and NSFH,are also useful for examining the partnering processes for adults in their 20s through midlife.Another widely used data source,the NLSY79,which follows men and women who were age 14 to 22 in 1979,has also been supplemented with new waves of data;as of Round 22(2006),respondents were NIH-PA Author Manuscript age 40 or older.Though many of these studies also contain information on important relationship dates,they are more often limited to cohabiting and marital unions and parenting. What of those who have aged out of the reproductive years?Although their population share is projected to increase dramatically over the next few decades,information on partnering behavior is most limited for adults 45 years and older.The NSFH includes data on older respondents,as does the General Social Survey.But these sources include far less detail on the formation of sexual relationships than do data collections targeted at younger populations.Though it has not yet been extensively mined,the National Social Life,Health, and Aging Project(NSHAP),which explores the health and well-being of American men JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
establishment of a romantic relationship. Defining what constitutes partnering behavior is challenging; the unit of analysis can shift depending upon the research question. Studies of relationship quality, for example, often combine cohabitors and marrieds, even as research on transitions to marriage frequently groups cohabitors with singles who may or may not be in dating relationships (Surra, Gray, Cottle, & Boettcher, 2004). For the purpose of this review, I focus on partnering among unmarried adults, defining partnering as the formation and development of intimate relationships, which may be short in duration or lead to a stable marriage. This perspective encompasses the behaviors engaged in pursuit of that goal, the processes that enhance or impede the development of intimate relationships, and factors differentiating the union types entered. Methodological Advances Several advances characterize the research on partnering in the first decade of the 21st century. Large data collections, including longitudinal panel data, have reshaped conventional theoretical approaches to partnering behaviors. Many scholars have also gathered their own data and conducted smaller scale experiments. Even as the release of new nationally representative data has greatly expanded what is known about relationship formation and development, the study of relationship behavior has become increasingly balkanized into particular life stages, with certain behaviors studied for one population but not another. Research on adolescents and emerging adults (spanning the early teens through the mid-20s) has proliferated in the past decade, abetted by the supplementation of several longitudinal data collections. The third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), released in 2002, in conjunction with the earlier waves (1995 and 1996), allows researchers to examine the partnering behaviors of youth from middle-school (beginning with Grade 7) through their mid-20s. The 10th round of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), which was gathered in 2006 – 2007, provides detailed information on a similarly aged cohort (those born between 1980 and 1984). Wave 3 of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), gathered in 2002, permits the study of the focal children of householders from the initial wave of the NSFH. Focusing on a particular age cohort, Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) provides detailed information on the sexual partnering and fertility experiences of respondents age 15 to 45, for the first time including data on men as well as women. Several of these data sets, such as the NSFG and NSFH, are also useful for examining the partnering processes for adults in their 20s through midlife. Another widely used data source, the NLSY79, which follows men and women who were age 14 to 22 in 1979, has also been supplemented with new waves of data; as of Round 22 (2006), respondents were age 40 or older. Though many of these studies also contain information on important relationship dates, they are more often limited to cohabiting and marital unions and parenting. What of those who have aged out of the reproductive years? Although their population share is projected to increase dramatically over the next few decades, information on partnering behavior is most limited for adults 45 years and older. The NSFH includes data on older respondents, as does the General Social Survey. But these sources include far less detail on the formation of sexual relationships than do data collections targeted at younger populations. Though it has not yet been extensively mined, the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), which explores the health and well-being of American men Sassler Page 3 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page4 and women age 57 to 84,allows for the study of intimacy and sexuality among older adults. These data should be used to expand research on the partnering behavior of mature adults. Family scholars have also turned to well-designed longitudinal data collections-including quantitative and qualitative components-focused on particular populations.Two large- NIH-PA Author Manuscript scale multisite surveys have been the source of numerous studies of the partnering behavior of low-income and single parents.The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study followed a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S.cities between 1998 and 2000 through the 5th year of life and included information on the relationship processes of the mothers and fathers of these children.It also included a qualitative component(Time,Love, and Cash in Couples with Children)consisting of four waves of individual and couple interviews with a parent who experienced a birth in 2000(cf.England Edin,2007).The Three-City Study focused on the well-being of low-income children and their families in Boston,Chicago,and San Antonio,including surveys conducted in 1999,2001,and 2005, and an ethnographic study of 256 children and families living in the same neighborhoods as the survey sample.Regional data collections have also increased.Scholars have been prolific in their use of the four-wave Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS), collected between 2001 and 2007 and including both survey and qualitative components. Several large qualitative data collections,such as that funded by the MacArthur Network on Transitions to Adulthood(cf.Settersten,Furstenberg,Rumbaut,2005)and the collaboration between scholars at the University of Michigan and Bowling Green State University on the meaning of cohabitation(cf.Manning Smock,2005),have also provided new sources for understanding the interpersonal processes involved in young NIH-PA Author Manuscript adults'partnering behaviors. Advances in the analytical approaches utilized to assess the partnering behavior of adults across the life course have unfortunately not kept pace with the increased availability of rich data sources.The expansion of multiwave longitudinal data collections has extended the use of repeat pooled time-series analyses.Utilization of newer analytic advances designed to account for time-invariant sources of heterogeneity (fixed effects analysis),selection (propensity score matching,difference-in-difference models),or changes in trajectories of repeated measures(latent class analysis or growth curve models)are,however,underutilized in the extant research.This is surprising because these new data sources include sufficient detail on sexual and coresidential history to at least account for within-person change that might reduce omitted variable bias,to consider the potential bias introduced by differential selection into (or out of)particular behaviors or union statuses(Meier,2007),or to assess varied pathways into partnerships and parenthood(Amato et al.,2008).Even though increased utilization of technical "fixes"risks further reifying disciplinary boundaries,their broader dissemination could also lower such barriers by simulating experimental approaches,enabling cross-disciplinary discussion,and better approximating causal processes NIH-PA Author Manuscript Theoretical Frameworks A number of scholarly theories are dominant among those who explore the processes underlying heterosexual attraction,partnering,and mate selection.Close relationship or interpersonal process models of heterosexual partnering provide theoretical guidance to many.They are popular because they acknowledge the diverse contexts in which relationships develop(see Cate,Levin,Richmond,2002;Conger,Cui,Bryant,Elder, 2000).For example,family scholars have utilized attachment theory to examine various behavioral and affective phenomena in relationship formation,with an emphasis on dating and the selection of marital partners(e.g.,Eastwick&Finkel,2008a;Steinberg,Davila,& Fincham,2006).Several comprehensive reviews have suggested that these studies are often JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
and women age 57 to 84, allows for the study of intimacy and sexuality among older adults. These data should be used to expand research on the partnering behavior of mature adults. Family scholars have also turned to well-designed longitudinal data collections—including quantitative and qualitative components— focused on particular populations. Two largescale multisite surveys have been the source of numerous studies of the partnering behavior of low-income and single parents. The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study followed a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 through the 5th year of life and included information on the relationship processes of the mothers and fathers of these children. It also included a qualitative component (Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with Children) consisting of four waves of individual and couple interviews with a parent who experienced a birth in 2000 (cf. England & Edin, 2007). The Three-City Study focused on the well-being of low-income children and their families in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, including surveys conducted in 1999, 2001, and 2005, and an ethnographic study of 256 children and families living in the same neighborhoods as the survey sample. Regional data collections have also increased. Scholars have been prolific in their use of the four-wave Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS), collected between 2001 and 2007 and including both survey and qualitative components. Several large qualitative data collections, such as that funded by the MacArthur Network on Transitions to Adulthood (cf. Settersten, Furstenberg, & Rumbaut, 2005) and the collaboration between scholars at the University of Michigan and Bowling Green State University on the meaning of cohabitation (cf. Manning & Smock, 2005), have also provided new sources for understanding the interpersonal processes involved in young adults’ partnering behaviors. Advances in the analytical approaches utilized to assess the partnering behavior of adults across the life course have unfortunately not kept pace with the increased availability of rich data sources. The expansion of multiwave longitudinal data collections has extended the use of repeat pooled time-series analyses. Utilization of newer analytic advances designed to account for time-invariant sources of heterogeneity (fixed effects analysis), selection (propensity score matching, difference-in-difference models), or changes in trajectories of repeated measures (latent class analysis or growth curve models) are, however, underutilized in the extant research. This is surprising because these new data sources include sufficient detail on sexual and coresidential history to at least account for within-person change that might reduce omitted variable bias, to consider the potential bias introduced by differential selection into (or out of) particular behaviors or union statuses (Meier, 2007), or to assess varied pathways into partnerships and parenthood (Amato et al., 2008). Even though increased utilization of technical “fixes” risks further reifying disciplinary boundaries, their broader dissemination could also lower such barriers by simulating experimental approaches, enabling cross-disciplinary discussion, and better approximating causal processes. Theoretical Frameworks A number of scholarly theories are dominant among those who explore the processes underlying heterosexual attraction, partnering, and mate selection. Close relationship or interpersonal process models of heterosexual partnering provide theoretical guidance to many. They are popular because they acknowledge the diverse contexts in which relationships develop (see Cate, Levin, & Richmond, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). For example, family scholars have utilized attachment theory to examine various behavioral and affective phenomena in relationship formation, with an emphasis on dating and the selection of marital partners (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008a; Steinberg, Davila, & Fincham, 2006). Several comprehensive reviews have suggested that these studies are often Sassler Page 4 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 5 intellectually segregated,however;scholars seldom reference research from outside their own disciplinary specialties(Surra et al.,2004). Other established approaches such as exchange theory are most often the purview of sociologists and demographers.A social exchange perspective is based on the premise that NIH-PA Author Manuscript relationship development and advancement is based on the satisfactory trade of rewards between partners,costs associated with involvement,and alternative possibilities.Much of the research on relationships that cross racial boundaries,for example,relies on an exchange perspective(e.g.,Qian Lichter,2007).But variants such as equity theory are increasingly utilized by other disciplines to examine relationship progression,satisfaction,commitment, and stability (e.g.,Rhoades,Stanley,Markman,2006;Sprecher,2001). More recently,theoretical approaches to assessing relationship formation have incorporated life course and feminist perspectives.The life course framework examines how individuals' transitions and trajectories are linked across the age span and has been applied to topics such as how the race of initial romantic partners affects subsequent mate choice(King Bratter, 2007)and the impact of prior marital and parenting experiences on entrance into postmarital unions(Lichter Qian,2008;Waller Peters,2008).Feminist theory,which studies how gender is reproduced through individual socialization and interpersonal actions,has also emerged as an approach to assessing the establishment and progression of intimate relationships(e.g.,Bentley,Galliher,&Ferguson,2007;Smiler,2008).And sociobiological theory,which emphasizes the ways that evolutionary factors govern sexual and romantic preferences in mate selection,continues to emerge in studies of partner preferences(Buunk, NIH-PA Author Manuscript Dijkstra,Fetchenhauer,Kenrick,2002;Stewart et al.,2000),though psychologists using experimental designs are challenging the very premises central to the approach(e.g., Eastwick Finkel,2008b).Collectively,these contributions have deepened and expanded the research literature on partnering.Other theoretical perspectives are utilized to study partnering behavior,of course,but are often specific to particular disciplines and as a result are not reviewed here. Partnering Across the Life Course The decision to enter into a romantic relationship,preferences for partner attributes,and goals for relationships vary widely across the life course.Adolescents and emerging adults pursue partnerships with different goals than do older single adults or previously married middle-age individuals;time horizons and desired ends also shape relationship behaviors among individuals of similar ages.For example,both women and men are less selective when asked about desired attributes for short-term versus long-term relationship partners; more minimal levels of relationship involvement yield stated preferences for lower levels of education,physical attractiveness,and(among men)relative intelligence(Buunk et al., 2002;Stewart et al.,2000).Emerging adults who desire marriage in their early 20s engage NIH-PA Author Manuscript in different relationship patterns than do those whose marital horizons are later;not only do they express more conservative sexual attitudes and engage in fewer risky behaviors(binge drinking,cigarette smoking,and use of illegal drugs;Carroll et al.,2007),but they are less likely to engage in premarital sexual activity(Gaughan,2002;Uecker,2008).Finally, because the marriage market changes with age,preferences for desired partner attributes and methods of finding romantic partners shift.Adults who are parents or previously married are more tolerant of prospective mates who are divorced or have children(Goldscheider, Kaufman,Sassler,2009).Individuals are less likely to find romantic partners at school, and the workplace is often gender segregated.New approaches to finding romantic partners include Internet dating and speed-dating events(Eastwick Finkel,2008b;Feliciano, Robnett,Komaie,2009). JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
intellectually segregated, however; scholars seldom reference research from outside their own disciplinary specialties (Surra et al., 2004). Other established approaches such as exchange theory are most often the purview of sociologists and demographers. A social exchange perspective is based on the premise that relationship development and advancement is based on the satisfactory trade of rewards between partners, costs associated with involvement, and alternative possibilities. Much of the research on relationships that cross racial boundaries, for example, relies on an exchange perspective (e.g., Qian & Lichter, 2007). But variants such as equity theory are increasingly utilized by other disciplines to examine relationship progression, satisfaction, commitment, and stability (e.g., Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006; Sprecher, 2001). More recently, theoretical approaches to assessing relationship formation have incorporated life course and feminist perspectives. The life course framework examines how individuals’ transitions and trajectories are linked across the age span and has been applied to topics such as how the race of initial romantic partners affects subsequent mate choice (King & Bratter, 2007) and the impact of prior marital and parenting experiences on entrance into postmarital unions (Lichter & Qian, 2008; Waller & Peters, 2008). Feminist theory, which studies how gender is reproduced through individual socialization and interpersonal actions, has also emerged as an approach to assessing the establishment and progression of intimate relationships (e.g., Bentley, Galliher, &Ferguson, 2007; Smiler, 2008). And sociobiological theory, which emphasizes the ways that evolutionary factors govern sexual and romantic preferences in mate selection, continues to emerge in studies of partner preferences (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Stewart et al., 2000), though psychologists using experimental designs are challenging the very premises central to the approach (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b). Collectively, these contributions have deepened and expanded the research literature on partnering. Other theoretical perspectives are utilized to study partnering behavior, of course, but are often specific to particular disciplines and as a result are not reviewed here. Partnering Across the Life Course The decision to enter into a romantic relationship, preferences for partner attributes, and goals for relationships vary widely across the life course. Adolescents and emerging adults pursue partnerships with different goals than do older single adults or previously married middle-age individuals; time horizons and desired ends also shape relationship behaviors among individuals of similar ages. For example, both women and men are less selective when asked about desired attributes for short-term versus long-term relationship partners; more minimal levels of relationship involvement yield stated preferences for lower levels of education, physical attractiveness, and (among men) relative intelligence (Buunk et al., 2002; Stewart et al., 2000). Emerging adults who desire marriage in their early 20s engage in different relationship patterns than do those whose marital horizons are later; not only do they express more conservative sexual attitudes and engage in fewer risky behaviors (binge drinking, cigarette smoking, and use of illegal drugs; Carroll et al., 2007), but they are less likely to engage in premarital sexual activity (Gaughan, 2002; Uecker, 2008). Finally, because the marriage market changes with age, preferences for desired partner attributes and methods of finding romantic partners shift. Adults who are parents or previously married are more tolerant of prospective mates who are divorced or have children (Goldscheider, Kaufman, & Sassler, 2009). Individuals are less likely to find romantic partners at school, and the workplace is often gender segregated. New approaches to finding romantic partners include Internet dating and speed-dating events (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b; Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009). Sassler Page 5 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript