Variations in family life and intimate relationships dating

variations in family life and intimate relationships dating

Contemporary changes in families and their structure. Impacts on the . Harmful Dating Relationships: Power, Control, and Sexual Aggression. Differences were also found across all three groups for dating behaviors and relationship attitudes. Participants from cohabiting unions were the youngest at. intimate relationships, and writing this thesis, but also for being a role model and life and vow to love their partner for better or worse; however, about half of them get gratified by alternative dating partners, friends, or family), and (3) high gender differences in the associations with commitment or the prediction of.

Marriages and Families : Changes, Choices and Constraints: International Edition :

variations in family life and intimate relationships dating

If there is not a parent-child relationship or if niicant differences in participants from intact, termi- there is an unstable parent-child relationship, it is logi- nated parental cohabiting unions, and divorced homes cal that children would have more dificulty forming in terms of dating behaviors and relationship attitudes? For example, though Meier and Allen provided evidence for a normative romantic sequence in adolescence, their findings suggest romantic relationships are rather diverse. Partici- age at irst crush were marginal.

  • Top Authors
  • Downloading prezi...
  • Who can edit:

Variations in family life and intimate relationships dating - Romantic Relationship Development in Young Adulthood

Partici- age at irst crush were marginal. There were no signii- pants were irst asked general demographic questions cant differences for current relationship satisfaction.

Participants from parental co- growing up. Participants from parental cohab- race, and gender distributions. MANOVA family income followed by subjects who came from di- results for dating behaviors can be found in table 3.

Table 1 shows demographic char- participants from continuously intact homes, parental acteristics by group. There were no signiicant differences about out-of-wedlock births, and attitudes toward mar- for attitudes toward divorce. Post hoc analysis indi- riage. Models were not tested for current relationship cated signiicant mean differences between groups. Results for MANOVA for relationship identiication was predictive of age at irst crush and attitudes can be found in table 4. For participants from divorced homes the and parental divorced group independently.

Regression only predictor variable that was found to be signiicant analyses were run with each group with gender, racial was racial identiication. Here, racial identiication was identiication, length of father absence, and amount of predictive of attitudes regarding cohabitation.

None of father involvement as the predictors. Models were ran the other predictor variables were signiicant for any of for age at irst crush, number of dating partners, number the outcome variables for participants from divorced WRIGHT homes. Tables 5 and 6 provide results from regression the experiences from these two family structures show analyses for dating behaviors and relationship attitudes.

It is possible for children to experience father ab- Discussion sence for reasons other than parental divorce or to ex- perience parental divorce without experiencing father The present study demonstrates the differences be- absence. While it has previously been speculated that tween terminated parental cohabiting unions and pa- children born out-of-wedlock do not fare any different- rental divorce and the impact of these circumstances ly than children of divorce and that the effects of father on dating behaviors and relationship attitudes of par- absence are similar for both groups of children Coney ticipants from these family structures.

The majority of studies unions reporting the lowest income. This was not sur- that examine parental cohabitation group this experi- prising considering that Manning and Brown ence with that of parental divorce, not recognizing that estimated that two-ifths of children in cohabiting Table 4. This reduction in family thers are less committed to their children, reduced fa- income may explain why these parents chose cohabita- ther involvement would be expected.

Participants from terminated parental cohabiting Differences were found between subjects from unions also reported more cohabiting unions by their divorced homes and terminated parental cohabiting custodial parent than participants from divorced homes. While This may because the parent found cohabitation to be both groups experienced father absence at some point, a suitable alternative to marriage Amato, It is important to distinguish couples who cohabited due to the inancial costs of ob- between terminated parental cohabiting unions and taining a divorce.

It is much easier inancially for couples for both groups of children. Results conirmed that while This decline in father-child contact appears to participants from father absent homes e. Terminated parental cohabiting age, less dating partners, less favorable attitudes re- unions may have similar explanations as divorce for garding cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, and more reduced father involvement e.

This was not surprising considering or they may have unique reasons for the occur- that the literature on intact families is favorable regard- rence. This may also be because they lack parental divorce when examining the effects of father long-term commitment Duran-Aydintug, Duran-Aydintug, ; Thornton, or the repart- Participants from terminated parental cohabiting nering behaviors of their parents following termination unions and divorced homes had more positive attitudes of parental cohabitation Ellis et al.

Participants from divorced homes relationship attitudes. The goal was to ind out what it reported more favorable attitudes toward cohabitation was about the parental separation that differed and how than participants from intact homes; however, subjects those differences impacted the intimate relationships from intact homes reported having more cohabiting of participants.

The predictors chosen i. Surprisingly of father involvement applied more to subjects from the number of reported cohabiting relationships of sub- terminated parental cohabiting unions than subjects jects from intact families was similar to subjects from from divorced homes.

This is interesting considering divorced homes, with participants from intact homes the predictors were selected based on research that ex- reporting slightly more cohabiting relationships.

If the overall view of cohabitation ters who experienced father absence Grainger, ; is changing, it is possible that subjects who experi- Thornton, due to parental divorce. The current enced continuously intact homes as children would be study recognizes that father absence can be caused by more likely to form their intimate relationships through reasons other than parental divorce by examining pa- cohabitation than subjects from divorced homes and rental cohabiting unions that had separated.

Race was a predictor of age at irst crush for subjects The current study examined parental cohabitation as a from terminated parental cohabiting unions and atti- cause of father absence instead of being limited to pa- tudes toward cohabitation for both father-absent groups rental divorce. Also, while previous research consid- i. It is unknown why racial discrepancies existed parental cohabiting unions but not participants from for these outcomes.

It may be that other factors asso- divorced homes. Amount of father involvement was ciated with race may be more inluential, such as so- a signiicant predictor for number of dating partners, cioeconomic status and neighborhood context.

Future attitudes regarding out-of-wedlock births, and attitudes research needs to examine these differences in more toward marriage. Subjects who reported more father in- detail. Participants maintain a relationship with their father have a stronger who experienced father absence for 6 months or longer ability to establish and maintain romantic relationships reported having their irst crush at an earlier age, more as adults Lamb, than children who do not.

Find- favorable attitudes toward cohabitation, and more fa- ings from the current study suggest that father involve- vorable attitudes regarding out-of-wedlock births than ment is vital for children from terminated parental co- participants who did not experience prolonged father habiting unions as well.

It is interesting to note, that absence e. This may have interfered how par- ; Thornton, ; however, how factors related to ticipants responded to answers. They may not have father absence mediate these relationship behaviors re- been completely honest in their responses.

Because the regression models selected for the current study included noncontributing factors Implications for Future Research for the cohabiting and divorced groups, the power of The current study provided evidence that the cause the statistical test was reduced along with its predic- for father absence inluences the future intimate rela- tive qualities.

Results from the current study shed some tionships of children who grow up with this experience. While parental cohabit- participants, but did little to explain the experience of ing unions may terminate resulting in a situation simi- parental divorce. Further divorce and the timing of parental separation as the research needs to address this issue.

The current study used a time period Additionally, while the present study examined of six months to implicate prolonged father absence to terminated parental cohabiting unions in terms of its take into account the possibility of temporary father ab- impact on dating behaviors and relationship attitudes sence. This study has demonstrated that father absence of the children who grew up with this experience, ques- can occur for reasons other than divorce and that the tions remain unanswered regarding the reduction in experience of father absence differs based on the rea- father involvement post parental relationship dissolu- son for absence.

Future research needs to recognize tion, connection between reduced father involvement that father absence can occur for reasons other than pa- and attitudes toward marriage, reduction in current re- rental divorce and parental divorce can occur without lationship satisfaction, inluence of terminated parental prolonged father absence.

The cur- rent study did not perform post hoc analyses on these outcomes and suggests that further research needs to be conducted.

Future research also needs to examine how fac- tors related to father absence predict characteristics of the intimate relationships of adults who experienced father absence as children more extensively. Does father absence place daughters at Amato, P. Parental divorce and attitudes to- special risk for early sexual activity and ward marriage and family life. Journal of Mar- teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74, riage and Family, 50, Explaining the intergenerational Fox, G. Noncustodial fa- transmission of divorce.

Journal of Marriage and thers following divorce. Journal of Family, 58, Marriage and Family, 20, The consequences of Gabardi, L. Differences be- divorce for attitudes toward divorce and tween college students from divorced and gender roles. Journal of Family Issues, 12, intact families. Journal of Divorce and Remar- The transmis- Gabardi, L. Intimate relation- sion of marital instability across ships: College students from divorced and generations: Relationship skills or commitment to intact families.

Journal of Divorce and Remar- marriage? Journal of Marriage and the riage, 18, Family background and female Artis, J. Marital Cohabitation and Child sexual behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, Engle- and individual well-being among wood Cliffs, NJ: Journal of Family Issues, 28 7 , The impact of parental divorce on Heuveline, P.

The Role of courtship. 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. 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.

Social and romantic activities are important components of the relationship development sequence for the majority of adolescents. 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.

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. Giordano, Phelps, Manning, and Longmore 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.

Involvement in interracial relationships may have long-lasting effects. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Furthermore, as with first sexual experiences, casual sex occurred more often between friends than with strangers Grello et al. 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. Sexual encounters sometimes evolved into romantic attachments, though this is generally not the expected ordering of events Manning et al.

Most young Americans have positive attitudes about marriage, believe it will be in their futures, and see it as an important life achievement Crissey, ; Gassanov et al. 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 s found few racial or ethnic differences in expectations for marriage once family background and social class variables were accounted for e. Research based on more recent data, however, found young Blacks reporting significantly lower expectations to wed than their White counterparts Crissey; Gassanov et al. The results for Hispanics are more mixed, though several studies find that they also articulate lower expectations of forming marital unions Gassanov et al.

Of note is that young adults with higher educational aspirations articulate the greatest expectations to marry Manning et al. Fewer than one quarter of Americans now wed prior to the age of 25, in sharp contrast to previous generations. Those who choose to form early marital unions are more religious, are disproportionately drawn from disadvantaged families, have lower educational trajectories, and are more sexually conservative than those who defer marriage Carroll et al.

Cohabitation has become the more normative step among contemporary emerging adults, though these unions are often short-lived, with the majority not ending in marriage Schoen et al.

Adolescents, in fact, often foresee cohabitation as part of their future life trajectory and view living together as a means to assess compatibility for marriage Manning et al. Adult Transitions Into Coresidential Unions: Cohabitation and Marriage If most research on adolescents and emerging adults focuses on dating and sexual exploration, the preponderance of studies on adults in their mids through 40s concentrates on the formation of coresidential unions, how relationship commitment differs by the type of union formed, and relationship quality in coresidential unions.

Even though sizable shares of adults in their 20s and beyond are not living with a partner, there is little scholarly attention to where this population meets dating partners or how relationships progress to coresidence.

The growing prevalence of cohabitation is well documented. The presumption that living together serves as a precursor to marriage remains a dominant perspective in the literature. But a growing body of new, mainly qualitative, research has challenged this premise.

Nonetheless, cohabiting adults express greater expectations of marrying their partner than do single adults who are not cohabiting with a romantic partner Lichter et al. Attempts to understand the factors contributing to the decline in marriage among cohabitors has become a key focus of research, with researchers increasingly questioning whether standard economic explanations are adequate given marital delays across the social class spectrum. Qualitative studies based on low-income and working-class populations reported that a lack of money is frequently proffered as reason for not yet marrying, even among couples who live together and share parenting responsibilities Edin et al.

Questions still to be answered include what level or combination of resources predict transitions to marriage as well as why fiscal barriers to childbearing are that much lower. Using marital expectations reported by both partners, Sassler and McNally found that fewer than one third of cohabiting respondents concurred that they had definite plans to marry their partner; not surprisingly, couples who disagreed regarding their marriage plans were significantly less likely to wed. Unintended pregnancies—higher among cohabitors than singles—both prolonged and destabilized unions Reed, ; Sassler et al.

Concern with marital delay and the quality of current relationships is also reflected in an increasingly interdisciplinary body of research contrasting cohabiting and marital unions and assessing the impact of premarital cohabitation on marital quality. Scholars have sought to better understand to what extent such differences are the result of selection into cohabitation or what ensues after couples begin living together without marriage or marriage plans; see Brown, Psychologists studying the impact of cohabitation on various aspects of relationship quality, including dedication, interaction, interpersonal commitment, relationship quality, and relationship confidence, found that cohabitors who were not engaged upon first moving in together were at significantly greater risk for poorer marital outcomes than were those who did not live together until after becoming engaged or getting married Kline et al.

They attribute these findings to the inertia of cohabitation or the momentum that living together exerts on the likelihood of getting married, even in poor-quality relationships Stanley et al. As cohabitation prior to marriage becomes the normative experience among married couples, additional testing of this association is warranted. Intimate Relationships in Later Life As a result of divorce and rising proportions of those who have not married, in recent decades a large proportion of older adults are single.

In part this is a vestige of data availability; nationally representative data sets that examine relationships tend to focus on younger adults at risk of childbearing. The partner market differs dramatically for men and women.

Divorced and widowed men are more likely to remarry than their female counterparts Ahrons, , further diminishing the pool of mates available for unattached older women. Studies of the sexual activity of older adults also reported that unmarried women are less likely than men to have an intimate relationship Lindau et al. Older adults—particularly widows—may eschew the demands of marriage.

For these and other reasons, remarriage is uncommon in later life Carr, The dearth of data on the romantic aspirations and behaviors of older adults poses challenges to exploring their partnering behavior. Researchers have utilized disparate age ranges in their attempts to obtain adequate sample sizes of older individuals. Exploring whether older unmarried adults were even interested in forming new romantic attachments, Mahay and Lewin found that older single men and women were less desirous of marriage than their younger counterparts—though they are not rejecting relationships outright; as a sizable proportion were romantically involved.

Gender differences emerged in the pace at which older bereaved adults are ready to reenter the partner market; within 6 months of bereavement, men were significantly more likely to express interest in either dating or marrying than were widowed women. As with younger Americans, the proportion of older adults who live with their romantic partner without being legally married has increased over the past few decades Brown et al.

Cohabitation among the older population is most heavily concentrated among those age 51 to 59 and the previously married Brown et al. Yet, as the population ages and more of those for whom cohabitation has become normative reenter the partner market following divorce or the dissolution of cohabiting or dating relationships, the proportion of older cohabiting adults should increase.

Cohabitation serves different functions for older respondents than for younger adults Brown et al. Though older cohabitors fare better than their single counterparts, they nevertheless remain disadvantaged relative to remarried peers, for example, reporting significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms Brown et al. More research on partnering among older adults is needed, especially as the baby boom generation matures into retirement. To be sure, remarriage rates will remain low among this population, but various factors—increased life expectancy, good health, changing sexual attitudes, the growing acceptance of pharmaceutical sexual interventions such as Viagra targeted at older adults predominantly men , the graying of baby boomer women used to expressing their sexual agency, and the rise in Internet dating and retirement communities—will undoubtedly change the romantic options available to older adults.

Repartnering Following the Dissolution of Cohabiting and Marital Unions Because of high rates of union instability, many individuals reenter the partner market with prior cohabiting or marital experience. A separate article in this issue is addressing remarriage Sweeney, Nonetheless, previous relationship experience has emerged as salient in the research on repartnering in several ways. A small but expanding body of research has begun to assess the impact that living with multiple nonmarital partners exerts on subsequent union stability.

One underlying premise of such work is that exposure to shared living experiences that end without marriage enforces the notion that unions are impermanent; a second is that individuals who live with multiple partners, termed serial cohabitation, may be selectively different from those who do not live with partners prior to marriage or only reside with the person who subsequently becomes their spouse.

Support for the first premise has been found in several studies. They also found support for the notion that serial cohabitation was selective, in that those who had lived with multiple partners were overrepresented among the economically disadvantaged, especially those with low income and education. Such change suggests the further uncoupling of cohabitation and marriage. Another factor affecting those interested in forming relationships is the growing presence of parents among prospective partners, given high levels of divorce and nonmarital childbearing.

Children have long been presumed to pose barriers to remarriage; men in particular are significantly less likely than women to express willingness to marry a partner who is a parent Goldscheider et al. But when single fathers live with their children, they are substantially more likely to marry than are their female counterparts—even though mothers with coresidential children far outnumber their male counterparts.

Recent studies have also tried to better reflect the myriad forms parenting now takes and how that shapes repartnering. Future Directions Notwithstanding tremendous growth in studies of partnering behavior, the need for additional work is clear, especially research that is integrative and transcends disciplinary boundaries. This review has emphasized the scholarly balkanization of research on partnering; different family science disciplines have their own conceptual and theoretical lenses, distinct approaches to data collection, and favored topics.

The past decade has brought progress, but more work needs to be done to unify what is known about partnering behaviors across the life course. To conclude this review, I propose several avenues for future research. The Processes Behind Relationship Formation and Progression Each relationship has its own unique trajectory, and relationships at one stage of the life course undoubtedly shape those at other stages in ways large and small. Yet relatively little is known about how early components of relationship progression shape subsequent union transitions.

How do relationships progress from friendship to romance, and in what ways are relationships shaped by sexual involvement or coresidence? Measures of equity, sexual satisfaction, and commitment frequently utilized in psychological studies e. Additional research is also needed to clarify how earlier relationships affect subsequent ones e.

Even though scholars have begun to explore prior relationship experience and marital stability in subsequent unions, these studies focused on the impact of cohabitation. The majority of Americans have engaged in sexual relations with someone other than their spouse, even if they have not lived with that partner. Variation in Partnering by Race, Ethnicity, Nativity, Social Class, and Gender A reader unfamiliar with American society could easily conclude, on the basis of a cursory review of current literature, that this is a largely homogeneous country.

The youthful age new immigrant populations and racial minorities means that they will account for a growing share of young adults forming intimate relationships over the next few decades. Their presence, however, is not adequately represented in research on partnering. How might the relationship behaviors of immigrant and minority youth influence the behaviors of the native-born population? One promising area requiring additional attention is how generational status affects relationship processes.

What research has been done suggests that American partnering patterns are learned behaviors. King and Harris found that foreign-born first generation youth were significantly less likely as adolescents to form romantic relationships than their third generation counterparts; second generation adolescents were still less likely than their third or higher generation counterparts to form romantic relationships, though such differences were not statistically significant.

Brown, Van Hook, and Glick reported that the likelihood of cohabiting increases with each generation in the United States, particularly among men; a unique contribution of this research is its presentation of results across various Hispanic groups between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, for example.

Social class disparities in relationship behavior also deserve more attention, especially as inequality in the family formation behaviors of Americans has accelerated McLanahan, The heavy reliance of psychologists conducting experiments on college-based samples provides an incomplete and possibly misleading view of relationship quality, particularly for the large numbers of youth not enrolled in postsecondary schools.

Nor do studies of the sexual behavior of college students—including the research on hooking up—shed light on the sexual experimentation of youth who do not attend college, or at least not 4-year residential schools. Whereas quantitative studies can shed light on some of the partnering behaviors of these populations, more experimental and qualitative study of young adults who do not pursue postsecondary schooling or who attend community colleges is needed.

Finally, there has to date been an overemphasis on the romantic experiences of young women, which further reifies the belief that romance is less important or central to boys.

The Importance of Parental Status and Type on Partnering Just as extant research obscures the growing ethnic and racial diversity of American society, it also often fails to acknowledge that a sizable proportion of adults currently in the marriage market are parents from a previous relationship. Although a sizable body of research has shown that parenthood is a deterrent in the marriage market, trends in divorce and childbearing outside of marriage have led to a partner market increasingly filled with parents.

Few studies have explored how being a parent influences relationship development and progression or how this varies by whether children are residential. Studies have, of course, included controls for the presence of children to determine their impact on remarriage and, increasingly, cohabitation; the evidence suggests that increases in the prevalence of being a single parent have reduced the negative effect of children on union formation.

More than ever before, we need to know how children affect the earlier stages of relationships—such as decisions to enter into a dating relationship, the tempo of relationship progression to sexual involvement and coresidence, the form such unions take marriage, cohabitation, or cohabitation that transitions to marriage , as well as the amount of time dating parents spend with new romantic partners and associations with quality, satisfaction, and commitment.

Do parents engage in different relationship behaviors than do childless adults? In what ways does the partnering behavior of fathers with residential children differ from their more normative counterparts, men who do not live with their children, or women who have coresidential children?

Answering these questions will require new data collection, as few large-scale studies include much information on nonresidential children or do not enquire about the child ren of a cohabiting partner if they are not coresident; data on the offspring of individuals who are dating are even thinner, particularly if the children do not reside with that parent.

The growing body of research on multipartner fertility among fragile families has highlighted the salience of children to marriage and cohabitation. But there is room for more study of the impact children have on early partnering processes across the social class spectrum. Grounding Research in a Historical Framework Research over the past decade has been largely ahistorical.

The popular press often portrays the romantic and sexual behavior among adolescents and emerging adults as different from that engaged in by previous generations, though there is little empirical foundation for such claims.

In fact, teens in recent years have deferred sexual debut longer than did their counterparts in the previous decade Abma et al. Such shifts highlight the need to deepen what is known about relationship processes during adolescence and emerging adulthood of earlier cohorts, such as the graying baby boomers and those who came of age in the more conservative Reagan years.

Are relationships progressing—to sexual involvement, coresidence, and marriage—more rapidly now than in the past?