Advertisement

Challenges in Charting the Course of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

  • Frank D. FinchamEmail author
Chapter
Part of the National Symposium on Family Issues book series (NSFI, volume 2)

Abstract

The emergence of research on romantic relationships in adolescence and in emerging adulthood raises the question of how these relationships are similar/different across the two developmental periods. Giordano and colleagues (Chap. 9) provide useful information on this question. This commentary elaborates on the two contexts that inform their work, the prevalence of cohabitation, and casual sex. It is argued that contemporary romantic relationships lack the clear, universal progression of previous generations and data are provided to show that many contemporary relationships begin with a physical encounter or hook up. Several challenges in understanding romantic relationship development are also discussed. These include the need for dyadic research, the use of appropriate analytic tools to deal with interdependence in the data, and attention to the issue of measurement invariance to show that measures are functioning in the same way for males and females and across people in different phases of development.

Keywords

Romantic Relationship Item Response Theory Partner Effect Friend With Benefit Friend With Benefit Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging adulthood: specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips. In F. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 67–98). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, S., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, S., Lambert, N., Fincham, F. D., & Pasley, K. (2010). Does college based relationship education decrease extradyadic involvement in relationships? Journal of Family Psychology., 24, 740–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: the developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2000). Adolescent relationships: the art of fugue. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: a sourcebook (pp. 58–69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connolly, J. A., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Romantic relationships in adolescence. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 104–151). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Eichelsheim, V. I., Dekovic, M., Buist, K. L., & Cook, W. L. (2009). The social relations model in family studies: a systematic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1052–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1985). Life course dynamics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fincham, F. D., & Cui, M. (2011). Emerging adulthood and romantic relationships: an introduction. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 3–12). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.Google Scholar
  15. Kashy, D. A., & Donnellan, B. (2008). Comparing MLM and SEM approaches to analyzing developmental dyadic data: Growth curve models of hostility in families. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 165–190). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Methodological issues in growth curve analyses with married couples. Personal Relationships, 10, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Lindsay, J. M. (2000). An ambiguous commitment: moving into a cohabiting relationship. Journal of Family Studies, 6, 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: new perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 989–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newsom, J. T. (2002). A multilevel structural equation model for dyadic data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Owen, J., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Hooking up: relationship differences and psychological correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reise, S. P., Ainsworth, A. T., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item response theory: fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Understanding romantic relationships among emerging adults: the significant roles of cohabitation and ambiguity. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 234–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiederman, M., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family InstituteFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations