Sassler Page 6 Along with disciplinary differences in how and what partnering behavior is studied,the availability of information from varying data sources has conditioned the production of the last decade's research among those utilizing large nationally representative surveys.The cumulative results of research on the patterns and progression of adolescents'partnering behaviors provide a far more comprehensive portrait of sexual progression than is available NIH-PA Author Manuscript for older adults,including data on intimate fondling(touching partners under or without clothes or touching genitals),talking about birth control or sexually transmitted infections (STIs),and experiences with oral,anal,as well as vaginal intercourse(Brewster Tillman, 2008:O'Sullivan et al.,2007).This influences what is studied at different life stages,with an(over)emphasis on sexual partnering among younger adults(those in their teens through mid-20s)in comparison to the transitions into shared living,whether cohabitation or marriage,and relationship quality among slightly older Americans.Current research also has given short shrift to(re)partnering at older ages.There is,therefore,much room to even out what is studied across the life course. Partnering in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood The increase in the median age at first marriage in the United States means that most young adults will form romantic relationships-perhaps many relationships-well before they wed. Scholarly research on partnering in the last decade found that forming romantic relationships and selecting mates for the long term were central preoccupations for adolescents and emerging adults(Crissey,2005;Nieder Seiffge-Krenke,2001).By age 15,nearly half of adolescents reported having engaged in a romantic relationship within the past 18 months,a NIH-PA Author Manuscript figure that increased to nearly 70%by age 18(Carver,Joyner,Udry,2003).Although learning how to be in a relationship is a normative developmental task of adolescents(those younger than age 18),the research suggests that this learning period extends to those who are emerging adults(those 18 to 25 years;Raley,Crissey,Muller,2007).Psychologists have documented how the emphasis of relationships shifts from companionship and affiliation among adolescents to trust and support in young adulthood(Collins,2003. Furman,2002:Shulman Kipnis,2001). There has been a resurgence of interest in the trajectory of involvement within adolescent relationships,as scholars reject the premise that such relationships are developmentally insignificant or"trivial and transitory"(Collins.2003.p.4:Furman,2002).More is known about the extent to which adolescents and emerging adults date,how dating behavior evolves over time,and relationship formation and progression(Carver et al.,2003; Mongeau,Jacobsen,Donnerstein,2007).As they age,adolescents'growing involvement with mixed-gender friendship groups facilitates increased dating activity(Connolly,Furman, Konarski,2000).Social and romantic activities are important components of the relationship development sequence for the majority of adolescents.Hanging out with their partner and friends,meeting a partner's parents,holding hands,and telling others they were NIH-PA Author Manuscript in a relationship generally preceded sexual involvement(O'Sullivan et al.,2007),though the content of adolescent relationships varied by race and ethnicity.White adolescents were significantly more likely than Black,Asian,and Hispanic youth to report being introduced to their partner's parent,holding hands,and informing friends that they were part of a couple, whereas Asian and Hispanic adolescents did not engage in precursor sexual events,such as intimate fondling,to the same extent as their White and Black counterparts(O'Sullivan et al.).Black youth also reported less interaction and disclosure with romantic partners and were less likely to be exclusive than their White counterparts(Giordano,Manning,& Longmore,2005).Further justifying this growing emphasis on earlier stages of the life course are several studies whose findings document continuity between adolescent and young adult relationship experiences.Participation in serious romantic relationships in adolescence increase White youths'marital expectations(Crissey,2005);they also affect JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
Along with disciplinary differences in how and what partnering behavior is studied, the availability of information from varying data sources has conditioned the production of the last decade’s research among those utilizing large nationally representative surveys. The cumulative results of research on the patterns and progression of adolescents’ partnering behaviors provide a far more comprehensive portrait of sexual progression than is available for older adults, including data on intimate fondling (touching partners under or without clothes or touching genitals), talking about birth control or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and experiences with oral, anal, as well as vaginal intercourse (Brewster & Tillman, 2008; O’Sullivan et al., 2007). This influences what is studied at different life stages, with an (over)emphasis on sexual partnering among younger adults (those in their teens through mid-20s) in comparison to the transitions into shared living, whether cohabitation or marriage, and relationship quality among slightly older Americans. Current research also has given short shrift to (re)partnering at older ages. There is, therefore, much room to even out what is studied across the life course. Partnering in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood The increase in the median age at first marriage in the United States means that most young adults will form romantic relationships—perhaps many relationships—well before they wed. Scholarly research on partnering in the last decade found that forming romantic relationships and selecting mates for the long term were central preoccupations for adolescents and emerging adults (Crissey, 2005; Nieder & Seiffge-Krenke, 2001). By age 15, nearly half of adolescents reported having engaged in a romantic relationship within the past 18 months, a figure that increased to nearly 70% by age 18 (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). Although learning how to be in a relationship is a normative developmental task of adolescents (those younger than age 18), the research suggests that this learning period extends to those who are emerging adults (those 18 to 25 years; Raley, Crissey, & Muller, 2007). Psychologists have documented how the emphasis of relationships shifts from companionship and affiliation among adolescents to trust and support in young adulthood (Collins, 2003; Furman, 2002; Shulman & Kipnis, 2001). There has been a resurgence of interest in the trajectory of involvement within adolescent relationships, as scholars reject the premise that such relationships are developmentally insignificant or “trivial and transitory” (Collins, 2003, p. 4; Furman, 2002). More is known about the extent to which adolescents and emerging adults date, how dating behavior evolves over time, and relationship formation and progression (Carver et al., 2003; Mongeau, Jacobsen, & Donnerstein, 2007). As they age, adolescents’ growing involvement with mixed-gender friendship groups facilitates increased dating activity (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). Social and romantic activities are important components of the relationship development sequence for the majority of adolescents. Hanging out with their partner and friends, meeting a partner’s parents, holding hands, and telling others they were in a relationship generally preceded sexual involvement (O’Sullivan et al., 2007), though the content of adolescent relationships varied by race and ethnicity. White adolescents were significantly more likely than Black, Asian, and Hispanic youth to report being introduced to their partner’s parent, holding hands, and informing friends that they were part of a couple, whereas Asian and Hispanic adolescents did not engage in precursor sexual events, such as intimate fondling, to the same extent as their White and Black counterparts (O’Sullivan et al.). Black youth also reported less interaction and disclosure with romantic partners and were less likely to be exclusive than their White counterparts (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2005). Further justifying this growing emphasis on earlier stages of the life course are several studies whose findings document continuity between adolescent and young adult relationship experiences. Participation in serious romantic relationships in adolescence increase White youths’ marital expectations (Crissey, 2005); they also affect Sassler Page 6 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 7 subsequent partnering behavior because those involved in romantic and sexual relationships during high school have an increased likelihood of forming cohabiting and marital unions by their early 20s(Gassanov,Nicholson,Koch-Turner,2008;Raley et al.,2007;Uecker Stockes,2008) NIH-PA Author Manuscript The past decade has also experienced a surge of interest in the attributes of partners selected and the impact this has on relationship acceptance,stability,and quality.Adolescents generally select romantic partners who are similar to themselves in terms of academic achievement,popularity,and attractiveness,which is important for subsequent developmental trajectories.Involvement with a partner who demonstrates delinquent behavior is significantly associated with self-reports of deviant behavior,and this finding is particularly salient for girls(Haynie,Giordano,Manning,Longmore,2005).On a more positive note,adolescents who date high-functioning partners tended to change more over the course of their relationship than those with low-functioning partners,such as gaining in popularity over time or exhibiting lower levels of depression or sadness(Simon,Aikins, Prinstein,2008).Giordano,Phelps.Manning,and Longmore (2008)also highlighted the reinforcing as well as motivating impact romantic partners can exert,particularly for boys, whereas some teens looked for a partying partner,others talked about the role their significant other played in encouraging them to do well in school. Although romantic relationships among adolescents,like those of older adults,tend to be racially homogamous(Blackwell&Lichter,2004),younger adults are the most likely to participate in relationships that cross racial lines (Joyner Kao,2005).Involvement in NIH-PA Author Manuscript interracial relationships may have long-lasting effects.Young adults in interracial relationships received less social support from families and friends than did those in racially homogamous unions,and their relationships were more likely to dissolve (Vaquera Kao, 2005;Wang,Kao,Joyner,2006).Interracial involvement also influences subsequent partner choice,as women whose first sexual experience was with a partner of a different race were significantly more likely to be in interracial marriages as adults(King Bratter, 2007),though some groups of interracial couples also experience more marital instability (Bratter King,2008;Zhang Van Hook,2009). Perhaps nowhere has the growth in research on partnering among adolescents and emerging adults been more evident than in studies of their sexual behaviors.This emphasis on adolescent sexuality,though generally concerned about adverse outcomes such as STIs and pregnancy,too often relies on a problem behavior perspective rather than viewing sexual engagement as a normative and appropriate developmental progression(Giordano et al., 2008).Although teen pregnancy and sexual coercion are critical social issues and the funding priorities of government agencies are problem oriented,it is important to ensure that research on adolescent behavior not neglect the more normative components of partnering. Though the sequencing of stages in intimate relationships does not always proceed in the NIH-PA Author Manuscript expected order-from the formation of relationships that develop in intimacy and disclosure over time to sexual involvement-the normative pattern among teenagers is to date before engaging in sexual intimacy (Cooksey,Mott,Neubauer,2003;Longmore,Eng,Giordano, Manning,2009;O'Sullivan et al.,2007)and to share their first sexual experience with someone with whom they were"going steady"(Abma,Martinez,Mosher,Dawson, 2004).Nonrelationship sexual partnering is practiced by a sizable minority of young adults, however,both for first sexual experiences and subsequently(Grello,Welsh,Harper, 2006:Paul,McManus,Hayes,2000).Nonetheless,various studies utilizing different data sources reported that the most common pattern for teens who report sexual encounters outside of dating relationships is to choose friends or former significant others(Grello et al.; Manning,Giordano,Longmore,2006),with a subset harboring desires to kindle(or rekindle)a romance. JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
subsequent partnering behavior because those involved in romantic and sexual relationships during high school have an increased likelihood of forming cohabiting and marital unions by their early 20s (Gassanov, Nicholson, & Koch-Turner, 2008; Raley et al., 2007; Uecker & Stockes, 2008). The past decade has also experienced a surge of interest in the attributes of partners selected and the impact this has on relationship acceptance, stability, and quality. Adolescents generally select romantic partners who are similar to themselves in terms of academic achievement, popularity, and attractiveness, which is important for subsequent developmental trajectories. Involvement with a partner who demonstrates delinquent behavior is significantly associated with self-reports of deviant behavior, and this finding is particularly salient for girls (Haynie, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2005). On a more positive note, adolescents who date high-functioning partners tended to change more over the course of their relationship than those with low-functioning partners, such as gaining in popularity over time or exhibiting lower levels of depression or sadness (Simon, Aikins, & Prinstein, 2008). Giordano, Phelps, Manning, and Longmore (2008) also highlighted the reinforcing as well as motivating impact romantic partners can exert, particularly for boys; whereas some teens looked for a partying partner, others talked about the role their significant other played in encouraging them to do well in school. Although romantic relationships among adolescents, like those of older adults, tend to be racially homogamous (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004), younger adults are the most likely to participate in relationships that cross racial lines (Joyner & Kao, 2005). Involvement in interracial relationships may have long-lasting effects. Young adults in interracial relationships received less social support from families and friends than did those in racially homogamous unions, and their relationships were more likely to dissolve (Vaquera & Kao, 2005; Wang, Kao, & Joyner, 2006). Interracial involvement also influences subsequent partner choice, as women whose first sexual experience was with a partner of a different race were significantly more likely to be in interracial marriages as adults (King & Bratter, 2007), though some groups of interracial couples also experience more marital instability (Bratter & King, 2008; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). Perhaps nowhere has the growth in research on partnering among adolescents and emerging adults been more evident than in studies of their sexual behaviors. This emphasis on adolescent sexuality, though generally concerned about adverse outcomes such as STIs and pregnancy, too often relies on a problem behavior perspective rather than viewing sexual engagement as a normative and appropriate developmental progression (Giordano et al., 2008). Although teen pregnancy and sexual coercion are critical social issues and the funding priorities of government agencies are problem oriented, it is important to ensure that research on adolescent behavior not neglect the more normative components of partnering. Though the sequencing of stages in intimate relationships does not always proceed in the expected order—from the formation of relationships that develop in intimacy and disclosure over time to sexual involvement—the normative pattern among teenagers is to date before engaging in sexual intimacy (Cooksey, Mott, & Neubauer, 2003; Longmore, Eng, Giordano, & Manning, 2009; O’Sullivan et al., 2007) and to share their first sexual experience with someone with whom they were “going steady” (Abma, Martinez, Mosher, & Dawson, 2004). Nonrelationship sexual partnering is practiced by a sizable minority of young adults, however, both for first sexual experiences and subsequently (Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Nonetheless, various studies utilizing different data sources reported that the most common pattern for teens who report sexual encounters outside of dating relationships is to choose friends or former significant others (Grello et al.; Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006), with a subset harboring desires to kindle (or rekindle) a romance. Sassler Page 7 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page8 Notwithstanding the research evidence,the popular press frequently depicts contemporary young adults as engaging in partnering behavior that differs dramatically from previous generations-with more sexual activity and less desire for emotional connection(e.g.,Stepp, 2007).The growing media coverage of hookups-casual sexual encounters that occur outside the context of a dating relationship and which can range from kissing to intercourse NIH-PA Author Manuscript -is one manifestation of this belief.A closer look at hooking up behavior reveals its place on a broader continuum of sexual behaviors.Hookups are often thought to involve sexual intercourse,but several studies show otherwise.Paul et al.(2000)reported that though more than three fourths of their study participants had experienced at least one hookup during their college years,fewer than a third of their respondents had engaged in sexual intercourse with that partner-a result also found by Eshbaugh and Cute(2008),England and Thomas (2006).and others.Furthermore,as with first sexual experiences,casual sex occurred more often between friends than with strangers(Grello et al.,2006;Manning et al.,2006).Those whose hookup experience included sexual intercourse were more likely to be men,to report alcohol intoxication,and to adhere to a game-playing(i.e.,ludic)love style(Grello et al.; Paul et al.).Casual sexual exploration was not without drawbacks;women who engaged in one-night stands expressed greater regret than did men(Campbell,2008;Eshbaugh Cute), and participants often engaged in behavior that exposed them to risks of STIs and pregnancy.Sexual encounters sometimes evolved into romantic attachments,though this is generally not the expected ordering of events(Manning et al.,2006),and the preferences of male partners more often ultimately determined whether sexual encounters led to serious romantic relationships(England Thomas) NIH-PA Author Manuscript Of course,researchers continue to explore emerging adults'transitions into marriage,though they increasingly include indicators of whether couples cohabited first(e.g.,McGinnis, 2003).Most young Americans have positive attitudes about marriage,believe it will be in their futures,and see it as an important life achievement(Crissey,2005;Gassanov et al., 2008;Manning,Longmore,Giordano,2007).In fact,only 5%of adolescents interviewed in 2000 for the Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS)did not expect to marry in the future,indicating that adolescents are not rejecting marriage as a future union formation experience(Manning et al.,2007).But recent studies have documented growing disparities in marital expectations by race,gender,and social class.Scholars utilizing data on unmarried young adults from the 1980s found few racial or ethnic differences in expectations for marriage once family background and social class variables were accounted for(e.g.,McGinnis;Umana-Taylor Fine,2003).Research based on more recent data, however,found young Blacks reporting significantly lower expectations to wed than their White counterparts(Crissey;Gassanov et al.;Manning et al.).One study of African American adolescents,for example,found that they placed greater emphasis on their future careers than their romantic relationships,and felt they had more control over the former (McCabe Barnett,2000).The results for Hispanics are more mixed,though several studies find that they also articulate lower expectations of forming marital unions(Gassanov NIH-PA Author Manuscript et al.;Manning et al.).Gender differentiates expectations for relationship behavior,with heterosexual women assigning greater value to lifelong commitment and faithfulness within marriage than do their male counterparts(Meier,Hull,Ortyl,2009).Personal experiences during childhood also shape marital expectations;individuals with divorced parents report more negative attitudes toward marriage(Riggio Weiser,2008),as do women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse(Larson LaMont,2005).Of note is that young adults with higher educational aspirations articulate the greatest expectations to marry(Manning et al.),suggesting that the growing educational disparities in marriage documented by demographers(e.g.,Goldstein Kenney,2001)will continue to widen. Research on union formation has changed in response to Americans'delayed entrance into marriage.Studies of marriage among emerging adults often self-identifies as focusing on JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
Notwithstanding the research evidence, the popular press frequently depicts contemporary young adults as engaging in partnering behavior that differs dramatically from previous generations—with more sexual activity and less desire for emotional connection (e.g., Stepp, 2007). The growing media coverage of hookups—casual sexual encounters that occur outside the context of a dating relationship and which can range from kissing to intercourse —is one manifestation of this belief. A closer look at hooking up behavior reveals its place on a broader continuum of sexual behaviors. Hookups are often thought to involve sexual intercourse, but several studies show otherwise. Paul et al. (2000) reported that though more than three fourths of their study participants had experienced at least one hookup during their college years, fewer than a third of their respondents had engaged in sexual intercourse with that partner—a result also found by Eshbaugh and Cute (2008), England and Thomas (2006), and others. Furthermore, as with first sexual experiences, casual sex occurred more often between friends than with strangers (Grello et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2006). Those whose hookup experience included sexual intercourse were more likely to be men, to report alcohol intoxication, and to adhere to a game-playing (i.e., ludic) love style (Grello et al.; Paul et al.). Casual sexual exploration was not without drawbacks; women who engaged in one-night stands expressed greater regret than did men (Campbell, 2008; Eshbaugh & Cute), and participants often engaged in behavior that exposed them to risks of STIs and pregnancy. Sexual encounters sometimes evolved into romantic attachments, though this is generally not the expected ordering of events (Manning et al., 2006), and the preferences of male partners more often ultimately determined whether sexual encounters led to serious romantic relationships (England & Thomas). Of course, researchers continue to explore emerging adults’ transitions into marriage, though they increasingly include indicators of whether couples cohabited first (e.g., McGinnis, 2003). Most young Americans have positive attitudes about marriage, believe it will be in their futures, and see it as an important life achievement (Crissey, 2005; Gassanov et al., 2008; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007). In fact, only 5% of adolescents interviewed in 2000 for the Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS) did not expect to marry in the future, indicating that adolescents are not rejecting marriage as a future union formation experience (Manning et al., 2007). But recent studies have documented growing disparities in marital expectations by race, gender, and social class. Scholars utilizing data on unmarried young adults from the 1980s found few racial or ethnic differences in expectations for marriage once family background and social class variables were accounted for (e.g., McGinnis; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2003). Research based on more recent data, however, found young Blacks reporting significantly lower expectations to wed than their White counterparts (Crissey; Gassanov et al.; Manning et al.). One study of African American adolescents, for example, found that they placed greater emphasis on their future careers than their romantic relationships, and felt they had more control over the former (McCabe & Barnett, 2000). The results for Hispanics are more mixed, though several studies find that they also articulate lower expectations of forming marital unions (Gassanov et al.; Manning et al.). Gender differentiates expectations for relationship behavior, with heterosexual women assigning greater value to lifelong commitment and faithfulness within marriage than do their male counterparts (Meier, Hull, & Ortyl, 2009). Personal experiences during childhood also shape marital expectations; individuals with divorced parents report more negative attitudes toward marriage (Riggio & Weiser, 2008), as do women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse (Larson & LaMont, 2005). Of note is that young adults with higher educational aspirations articulate the greatest expectations to marry (Manning et al.), suggesting that the growing educational disparities in marriage documented by demographers (e.g., Goldstein & Kenney, 2001) will continue to widen. Research on union formation has changed in response to Americans’ delayed entrance into marriage. Studies of marriage among emerging adults often self-identifies as focusing on Sassler Page 8 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript