Why are adolescent romantic relationships important?

TOPICS

• HIV, Sexual & Reproductive Health
• Equity & Inclusion in STEM
• School-Based Health & and Wellness
• Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs

• Professional Development & Training
• Product Development & Dissemination
• Research
• Evaluation

ABOUT US

• Our Mission & Values
• Our Staff
• Our Projects
• Blog
• Newsroom
• Board of Directors
• Selected Clients, Funders and Partners
• Contract with Us
• Careers
• Videos
• Contact Us
• Health Equity Framework
• Dr. Doug Kirby's Legacy

STORE

• Catalog
• Latest Products
• Shop By...

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Use of Cookies
• Permissions Request Form
• Financial Conflict of Interest policy

CONTACT US

• Account Management Team

• 5619 Scotts Valley Drive
  Suite 140
  Scotts Valley, CA 95066
• Email Support: customerservice@etr.org

• 1630 San Pablo Avenue
  Suite 500
  Oakland, CA 94612

• 333 University Avenue
  Suite 130
  Sacramento, CA 95825

ETR is a 501 [c] 3    EIN #94-2760764
© 1981-2022 ETR.

*Direct all correspondence to Ann Meier, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 267 19th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55455; ude.nmu@nnareiem

Contact Information: Ann Meier, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 1127 Social Sciences, Minneapolis, MN 55455 [ude.nmu@nnareiem]. Gina Allen, Department of Sociology, 1127 Social Sciences, Minneapolis, MN 55455 [ude.nmu@724nella].

Copyright notice

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available free at Sociol Q

Abstract

Theories on romantic relationship development posit a progression of involvement and intensity with age, relationship duration, and experience in romantic relationships. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, this study tests these propositions by considering relationship type and patterns of relationships over the course of adolescence and their influence on relationship formation in young adulthood. Findings indicate that relationships become more exclusive, dyadic, of longer duration, and more emotionally and sexually intimate over the course of adolescence. Moreover, relationship experience in adolescence is associated with an increased likelihood of cohabitation and marriage in young adulthood. These findings indicate that instead of being trivial or fleeting, adolescent romantic relationships are an integral part of the social scaffolding on which young adult romantic relationships rest.

Keywords: adolescence, romantic relationships

Much of the literature on social development during the transition to adulthood has focused on the role of key earlier relationships with parents and peers in constructing the social landscape on which young adult relationships will develop. Prior to the mid-1990s virtually no research considered the developmental currency provided by adolescent romantic relationships. The paucity of research in this area can be attributed to several factors including skepticism regarding the importance of perceived short-lived or trivial relationships, research and funding focus on sexual [not romantic] relationships, and difficulty of both measuring adolescent romance and accounting for romantic relationships using existing theories of social or interpersonal development [Brown, Feiring, and Furman 1999; Collins 2003].

The past decade has seen a marked increase in studies on adolescent romantic relationships. This increase is driven by a number of factors. First, romantic relationships have been implicated both in negative behaviors [Neeman, Hubbard and Masten 1995] and psychosocial well-being [Joyner and Udry 2000; Davies and Windle 2000] and cited as imperative for development [Giordano 2003; Giordano, Longmore, and Manning 2001; Erikson 1968]. Thus, researchers have aimed to identify the age, stage, and social conditions under which such relationships are pro-social or maladaptive.

Second, the transition to adulthood has become elongated and less orderly such that young people take longer to “become” adults and they do so by passing various markers of adulthood out of the standard sequence common to prior generations [Settersten, Furstenberg, and Rumbaut 2005]. Especially relevant for the study of social development, young people are delaying marriage so that the average age at first marriage is 25 for women and 27 for men [U.S. Census Bureau 2001]. At the same time, half of all adolescents report romantic involvement by the age of 15 [Carver, Joyner, and Udry 2003]. This means that on average, adolescents have ten to twelve years of romantic experience prior to marriage. Not only is this a significant span of time, it is also dense with regard to individual and interpersonal development [Dornbusch 1989].

Finally, theories have developed and adapted to more fully account for romantic experience in adolescence [Furman and Wehner 1994; Brown 1999; Connolly and Goldberg 1999; Allen and Land 1999; Collins 1997; Collins and Sroufe 1999; Giordano 2003; Giordano et al. 2001 & 2005]. Empirical research to test new theoretical propositions has begun to appear in the literature, yet gaps remain in the evidentiary base. Thus, understanding adolescent romantic relationships becomes a timely and compelling research objective.

In this paper we review and integrate existing theories on the development of romantic experience through adolescence and into adulthood. We then review findings from empirical forays into the romantic lives of adolescents. Next, guided by theory we conduct prospective empirical analyses that describe patterns of relationship involvement, assess their correlates, and estimate the associations between relationship progression and both qualitative aspects of adolescent relationships and the formation of young adult relationships. Our analyses use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health [Add Health], data that has proven useful in other studies of adolescent romance [Joyner and Udry 2000; Giordano et al. 2005; Carver et al. 2003; Raley, Crissy and Muller 2006]. Our contribution with these data is unique because we test developmental theories and empirically follow adolescents into young adulthood by utilizing all three waves of the data. Finally, we integrate our findings with those of other studies and assess future research needs.

Several important theoretical schemas have emerged to help make sense of how adolescent romantic relationships fit into the existing social relationship order and how they develop over time. While these schemas are relatively new, they have roots in earlier theories of development. Furman and Wehner [1994] offer a behavioral systems approach to understand the various developmental tasks accomplished by adolescent romance. The four systems invoked in adolescent romantic relationships are affiliative, sexual/reproductive, attachment, and care giving. Furman and Wehner arrive at this conceptualization of adolescent romantic relationships by merging ideas from attachment theory [e.g. Hazen and Shaver 1987] and Sullivan’s [1953] theory of social needs in key relationships from infancy through adolescence.

According to the behavioral systems approach, the affiliative function of adolescent romantic relationships offers companionship, reciprocity and cooperation. The sexual/reproductive system includes physical intimacy and the potential for procreation. The attachment system is characterized by love, closeness, bonding, and feelings of security, and the care giving system is represented by support and assistance between partners. Furman and Wehner [1994] suggest that the affiliative and sexual/reproductive systems are active in adolescent romance before the attachment and care giving systems develop. In fact, these latter two systems may not manifest until early adulthood. The behavioral systems model suggests that systems are engaged in a cumulative fashion, rather than a progression where one system gives way to another. For example, when the attachment system is active in a relationship, the sexual/reproductive and affiliative systems are also likely to be active in that relationship.

While Furman and Wehner describe behavioral systems in adolescent romantic relationships, Brown [1999] and Connolly and Goldberg [1999] introduce phase- or stage-based models of the progression of romantic experience during adolescence. Similarities between the progression models of Brown and Connolly and Goldberg allow for the identification of four distinct phases: initiation, affiliation, intimate, and committed [1]. Both of these models are rooted in early work by Dunphy [1963] on the progression of adolescent romantic relationships from crowds to heterosexual dyads. In the initiation phase, attraction and desire are key feelings, but actual contact between potential partners is limited. In the affiliation phase, opposite-sex individuals interact in group settings. This provides opportunities to learn how to interact with the opposite sex and to meet potential partners. In the intimate phase, couples form and begin to distance themselves from the peer group to focus emotional energies on the dyadic relationship. In the committed phase, couples share emotional and physical intimacy, exhibit care giving behavior, and serve as attachment figures.

When assessed as partially overlapping and complementary perspectives, the system and phase conceptualizations lead to similar hypotheses regarding adolescent romantic relationships. Together, these theories suggest that the normative adolescent relationship experience would start in early adolescence with a short-lived relationship that is characterized by group dating. Then in middle adolescence one would progress to multiple short-lived relationships that are decreasingly group focused and increasingly characterized by both sexual and, to a lesser extent, emotional intimacy. Finally, in late adolescence or early adulthood, one would progress to a single committed, sexual, and exclusive relationship of longer duration [see too Seiffge-Krenke 2003]. Of course this is only a normative experience, and individuals are expected to deviate from this idealized progression model due to individual factors as well as social and cultural conditions [Cohen, Kasen, Chen, Hartmark, and Gordon 2003]. As such, it should be considered a “soft-stage” model where the tempo and direction of movement can vary [although mostly progression rather than regression], rather than a “hard-stage” model where sequential progression is compulsory [Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, and Pepler 2004].

The theory-building of the last decade has motivated an encouraging amount of high quality empirical work to test these theories. This research has touched on the number, duration, and quality of romantic relationships. Most often, researchers investigate how the number of partners and average relationship duration vary with age and gender, and how relationship quality varies with the duration of the relationship. Below we highlight some key empirical findings from many studies on discrete dimensions of romantic relationships and three relatively new studies on the theoretical model of relationship progression outlined above.

Number of partners and relationship duration

First, with regard to the accumulation of romantic experience, data from Add Health indicate that while about one-quarter of 12-year-olds report romantic involvement, nearly 75 percent of all 18-year-olds report such involvement [Carver et al. 2003]. Shulman and Scharf [2000] also show that older adolescents have a higher likelihood of currently being in a romantic relationship. Boys are more likely to be involved in relationships until age 15, at which time girls surpass boys in the prevalence of romantic involvement [Carver et al 2003]. Similarly, Davies and Windle [2000] find that among 15- and 16-year-olds, a higher percentage of females than males report being in a steady relationship, and a higher percentage of males than females report no relationship or only a single, casual partner. This finding suggests that relationship type [steady v. casual] may differ by gender as well.

Regarding duration, older adolescents report longer relationships than younger adolescents [Carver et al. 2003; Connolly and Johnson 1996; Shulman and Scharf 2000]. In addition, girls report longer relationships than boys [Carver et al 2003; Shulman and Scharf 2000]. Contrary to conventional beliefs about the ephemeral nature of adolescent romance, Carver and colleagues [2003] find the median relationship duration to be 14 months, with wide variation by age. They find the average duration among 12- to 13-year-olds is 5 months, among 14- to 15-year-olds it is 8 months, and among those 16- to 18-years-old it is 20 months [2].

Most studies consider age and gender differences in relationship experience, but few studies consider other aspects of adolescents’ social addresses like race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status [3] [for exceptions regarding race see Giordano et al 2005; and Connolly et al 2004]. However, we know that adolescents of different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups differ with regard to relationship-related behaviors like sexual activity in adolescence [Upchurch, Levy-Storms, Sucoff and Anshensel 1998] and cohabitation, childbearing and marriage in adulthood [Sandefur, Martin, Eggerling-Boeck, Mannon and Meier 2000]. While it is likely that adolescent romantic relationship experiences also differ by these factors, the evidence is thin.

In general, most research findings are consistent with the idea that relationship qualities vary with age such that early adolescents have more affiliative, companionate relationships while older adolescents have more committed, loving, and supportive relationships [Shulman and Kipnis 2001; Shulman and Scharf 2000]. Older adolescents rate support from their romantic partners as more important than support from their best friends and parents compared to younger adolescents who rate parents or peers higher [Seiffge-Krenke 2003] or do not differentiate support from parents, peers, and partners [Connolly and Johnson 1996]. Regarding relationship behaviors, Carver and colleagues [2003] find that with age, partners engage in behaviors that suggest higher levels of relationship commitment and intensity [e.g. meeting partner’s parents or going out alone with partner]. In addition to age, relationship duration impacts on quality such that longer relationships are characterized by more attachment-like characteristics [Miller and Hoicowitz 2004]; this may be the case at any age. However as relationships age, so too do the partners in them. Therefore, relationship duration and age are inextricably tied to one another.

Regarding gender differences in relationship qualities, empirical investigations invariably find that females are more relationship-focused than males [Galliher, Welsh, Rostosky, and Kawaguchi 2004]. Girls value relationships more for interpersonal qualities while boys value them for physical attraction [Feiring 1996]. However, recent research offers a portrait of gender differences in relationships that is somewhat different than suggested by past research. Using evidence from the Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study, Giordano and colleagues [2006] show that boys have less confidence than, and similar levels of emotional engagement to girls in relationships. Furthermore, boys report that their partners have greater power and influence in relationships. Perhaps adolescent gender norms are changing [see Risman and Schwartz 2002].

Empirical investigations are beginning to test the idea of a progression model of romantic relationship development. A recent prospective study by Connolly and colleagues [2004] uses a sample of Canadian 5th through 8th graders to test whether early adolescents move through romantic involvement phases as predicted by theory – sequentially and progressively as opposed to out of order or regressively. They also test whether adolescents are more likely to stay in one stage rather than move to another over the course of a year. They find that adolescents progress rather than regress through stages of romantic relationships, that they do so mostly sequentially rather than by skipping a stage, and that there is a fair amount of stage stability over the course of one year. This study is unique in its investigation of race/ethnic differences in relationship progression [4]. When comparing adolescents of European, Caribbean, and Asian descent, the authors find that European and Caribbean adolescents followed the expected progression while Asian adolescents did not progress in their relationship formation at all over the one-year period.

A second empirical study by Davies and Windle [2000] examines dating pathways over a one year interval among middle adolescents [15- and 16-year-olds] in a local sample. In this study, respondents are classified into four relationship patterns defined at two points in time over one year: 1] no dating relationships; 2] a single, casual dating relationship; 3] multiple, casual relationships; and 4] steady dating relationships. The cross-classification of these four patterns of dating at times 1 and 2 reveals several patterns consistent with the relationship progression idea. Common transitions between the two time points are: 1] from no dating to a single, casual relationship; 2] from a single casual relationship to multiple casual relationships; 3] from a single casual relationship to a steady dating relationship; and 4] from multiple casual relationships to a steady dating relationship. In this study, most respondents experienced transitions between these types of dating experiences, and most transitions followed the orderly patterns predicted by theory – forward progress from fewer short and less intense relationships to more relationships overall, often to a single committed steady relationship.

Finally, a recent study by Seiffge-Krenke [2003] uses a prospective sample of 103 West German subjects to assess the individual and relationship precursors to and developmental sequence of adolescent to young adult relationships. Results confirm that with age adolescents gain more experience, maintain relationships for longer durations, and give higher ratings of partner support. Moreover, adolescent romantic relationships exhibit stronger effects on young adult relationship quality than peer relationships or conceptions of the self. Thus, while other studies have examined the influence of earlier relationships in other domains, it appears that relationships in the same domain [romantic] hold more sway over young adult relationships.

While the prior empirical research is instructive, several limitations remain. First, most studies examine one or a few discrete aspects of relationships like number of partners or duration or qualities of relationships. While most studies examine age and gender differences in one of the aforementioned aspects, few studies examine the influence of other demographic characteristics, and rarely do studies examine relationship and individual characteristics together.

Two of the aforementioned studies are ground-breaking in their use of prospective data to confirm propositions about how adolescents enter and progress in romantic relationships during early [Connolly et al 2004] and middle [Davies and Windle 2000] adolescence. However, these studies do not cover a wide age range or span of time. Seiffge-Krenke [2003] accounts for relationships over a wider age range, but because the analysis ends at age 21, it may miss the bulk of the transition to adulthood which some suggests stretches into the 30s [Arnett 2004].

In addition, because of sample limitations, Davies and Windle [2000] and Seiffge-Krenke [2003] do not examine race/ethnic differences in progression, Davies and Windle do not test for gender differences, and Connolly and colleagues [2004] tested for, but did not find gender differences in their particularly young adolescent sample. Finally, all three of these studies of romantic relationship patterns over time are based on relatively small and/or select samples of subjects from one school, city, or region. A primary disadvantage of such samples is their homogeneity compared to the experience of all adolescents. Local norms probably condition the process of romantic relationship development as much as age or gender does. Therefore, considering homogeneous subjects in a single or several schools in a geographically limited area substantially restricts generalizability.

While several high quality studies have described adolescent romantic relationships using the Add Health data, they have used only one [Carver et al 2003] or two [Joyner and Udry 2000; Giordano et al 2005] waves of these data. This means that observations end at about age 18 and miss young adult relationships. One new study by Raley and colleagues [2006] uses Add Health data to examine the influence of time 1 relationships on duration to cohabitation and marriage at time 3 among only the oldest sample members. To date, none of these studies explicitly test developmental theories of relationship progression over time.

The present study describes relationship patterns over the course of approximately seven years by considering both relationship type and quality among a nationally representative sample of adolescents during the transition to adulthood. The sample consists of adolescents ages 11-18 at time 1 [1995], 13-20 at time 2 [1996] and 18-25 at time 3 [2001-2002], allowing us to test the idea of relationship progression across a wider age range than has been possible in past studies. In addition, at each interview, respondents report retrospectively on multiple recent romantic relationships, allowing us to capture more than current relationship experience. Although there are not rich measures on romantic relationship qualities, we include a few available measures to give us some sense of how relationships change qualitatively across adolescence. Finally, the sample is heterogeneous on several key dimensions: gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family structure, and age. With these data we investigate four research questions:

1. What are the patterns of relationship involvement across time during adolescence?

2. What are the socio-demographic correlates of relationship patterns?

3. How are relationship qualities different for those with different patterns of involvement?

4. How do adolescent relationship patterns correlate with young adult relationship formation?

METHOD

Data

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health includes respondents in grades 7-12 in 1995 who are followed-up in a second interview approximately one year later in 1996 and a third interview in 2001-2002. The first stage of analysis uses respondents who completed interviews at times 1 and 2, had complete romantic relationship information, age, gender, and race/ethnicity data, and had valid sample weights [N=8949] [5]. In these analyses, we describe relationships in adolescence by pattern of involvement and relationship qualities for those with relationships. The second stage of analysis uses respondents who completed all three interviews and who have complete information on romantic relationships at time 1 and 2 and relationship history at time 3 [N=7258]. In these analyses, we investigate the influence of adolescent relationships on young adult relationship involvement. All multivariate analyses are weighted to adjust for differences in selection probabilities and response rates [Chantala and Tabor 1999; Tourangeau and Shin 1998]. Questions on romantic relationships were administered by Audio Computer Assisted Self-Interview [ACASI]. This means that respondents hear questions through head phones and see them on a computer screen. They enter responses into the computer without assistance or interference from an interviewer. This method is used to get the most honest answers possible on potentially sensitive matters.

Measures

Adolescent Romantic Relationship Type

We define an adolescent romantic relationship using two sets of questions. First, at times 1 and 2, respondents are asked to report on up to three special romantic relationships in the past 18 months. Second, if respondents do not identify any special romantic relationships, they are asked whether they have held hands with, hugged, or kissed anyone [not family members] in the past 18 months. If they respond affirmatively to all three questions, they are asked whether they did these things with the same person. If they respond “yes,” the relationship is considered romantic and the respondent is routed back into the series of questions that asks for details about their romantic relationships. Thus, we include both those who initially respond that they have had one or more special romantic relationship and those who do not report a special romantic relationship but have engaged in the three affectionate behaviors listed above. Add Health calls the later ‘liked relationships.’ Of respondents who we ultimately determine to have had at least one romantic relationship, 85 percent are observed from their answer to the question about special romantic relationships and the remaining 15 percent are observed from their reporting of a liked relationship. From these definitions, we create four categories of relationship experiences at time 1 and time 2: 1] no relationships; 2] one, casual relationship; 3] multiple relationships; and 4] one, steady relationship [6].

Some have suggested that the Add Health definition of a romantic relationship is too narrow because it excludes relationships that adolescents do not consider special [Furman and Hand 2006]. The inclusion of liked relationships should partially mitigate against this limitation. In addition, we are interested in those relationships that are most important for the development of young adult romantic relationships. We acknowledge that less special relationships are likely to provide some developmental currency, yet we believe those defined as special and their liked relationship counterparts together represent the most developmentally significant adolescent romantic relationships. Still, we note that our analyses may over estimate the effects of adolescent romantic relationships in general if this definition captures only the most serious ones.

Adolescent Relationship Patterns Over Time

To measure relationship patterning during adolescence, we use a cross-classification of the four categories of relationship type at time 1 and time 2 as defined above. This classification results in sixteen cells and we group these into six theoretically informed categories of common patterns in our data: 1] no relationships reported at either time point; 2] forward movement from none to one casual or multiple partners or from one casual partner to multiple partners; 3] stability in either the one casual or multiple partners categories; 4] regression or backward movement; 5] forward movement from none, one casual, or multiple partners to steady dating; and 6] stability in the steady dating category [7].

Adolescent Romantic Relationship Qualities

Add Health contains a few measures that describe the qualities of romantic relationships. While these measures are not as comprehensive as those used in many studies [e.g. attachment scales], they may at least hint at the content of these relationships. Consistent with propositions about the character of relationship progression from phase and stage theories, we use three indicators of quality in respondents’ most recent relationship [8]: dyadic mixing, sexual intercourse, and emotional intimacy. Dyadic mixing indicates the degree to which adolescents interact or go out exclusively with their partner. It is coded to 1 if respondents reply affirmatively to the statements: ‘I went out alone with my partner’ or ‘I spent less time with my friends to spend more time with my partner.’ Sexual intercourse indicates whether the relationship included sex [1/0]. Finally, if respondents answer affirmatively to at least three of the following statements, their relationship is considered emotionally intimate [1/0]: we have exchanged gifts, exchanged sentiments of love, thought of ourselves as a couple, and told others we were a couple. We expect that relationships will become more dyadic and more sexually and emotionally intimate over the course of adolescence.

Young Adult Relationship Experience

We consider three measures of relationship experience in young adulthood—ages 18 to 25 at time 3. We consider the number of relationships respondents have had in the past six years and their cohabitation and marriage histories. To determine the number of relationships in the past six years, we use responses to a query asking respondents to list all romantic and sexual relationships since the summer of 1995. With regard to cohabitation and marriage experience, we consider whether respondents have ever cohabited with a partner or ever married. Both are coded 1 if they have.

Socio-Demographic Measures

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all measures used in the analyses. Participants’ ages range from 11 to 18 at time 1. For our purposes, we group adolescents into three age categories at time 1: younger [11-13], middle [14-15] and older [16-18]. By time 3, these respondents are approximately 18-20, 21-22, and 23-25 respectively. Five race/ethnic categories are defined: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian and other race. In addition, we indicate low-income status by designating whether the respondent’s family income is in the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution for the full sample. Family income was missing in approximately 20 percent of cases. For these cases we substituted the mean level of family income, and included an indicator for missing income in our models. Family structure is grouped into four categories: biological or adoptive two-parent family, step-family, single-parent family and other family types.

Table 1

Weighted Descriptive Statistics

Adolescent Relationship ProgressionPercent stable no relationships37.54 progression to one or multiple10.14 stability in one or multiple2.99 regression17.54 progression to steady13.69 stable in steady18.10Adolescent Relationship Quality dyadic mixing77.75 high emotional intimacy73.50 sexual intercourse43.00Young Adult Relationship History ave # of relationships last 6 years2.74 ever cohabited39.02 ever married16.00Socio-Demographic Measures female53.38 male46.62 t1 age 11-1321.01 t1 age 14-1537.86 t1 age 16-1841.13 two bio/adoptive parent family58.01 step-family12.12 single-parent family25.02 other family structure4.84 NH-white67.99 NH- black14.03 Hispanic12.36 NH-Asian4.17 NH-other race1.45 not low-income80.48 low-income19.52

Open in a separate window

RESULTS

What are the patterns of relationship involvement across time during adolescence?

Table 2 documents the cross tabulation of relationship types at times 1 and 2. The right-most column gives the distribution of relationship types at time 1, and the bottom row gives the distribution of types at time 2. Across rows, the cells represent the percent in each time 1 relationship type who moved to or stayed in each time 2 relationship type. When considering the table as a whole, several general patterns are apparent. First, the diagonal shows a substantial amount of stability in relationship type across the one-year time span. The most stability is in the ‘no relationships’ and the ‘steady relationship’ types [Groups 1 and 6]. About 70 percent of those who report no relationship at time 1 maintain single status at time 2. Among those who are in a steady relationship at time 1, nearly 60 percent are in a steady relationship at time 2.

Table 2

Stability and Change in Relationship Types: % in Time 1 Types who Move to/Stay in Time 2 Types

Open in a separate window

Open in a separate window

In a second pattern, among those who change relationship types between times 1 and 2, forward movement is more prevalent than backward movement. Almost 60 percent of all respondents with one casual relationship at time 1 progress to multiple relationships or to one steady relationship at time 2. Moreover, if we consider only respondents with one causal relationship at time 1 who changed types by time 2, an even larger proportion [71%] progressed compared to regressed [29%] [9]. Likewise, 53 percent of all respondents with multiple relationships at time 1 progress to a steady relationship at time 2. If we consider only those who changed types by the second time point, 77 percent progressed and 23 percent regressed.

While all sixteen cells are displayed, we denote the groupings that comprise the six categories of relationship patterns to be analyzed later: 1] no relationships at either time 1 or 2; 2] progression to one casual or multiple relationships; 3] stability in one casual or multiple relationships; 4] regression in relationship types; 5] progression to a steady relationship; and 6] stable in steady relationships. We group in this way to capture stability, change, and the direction of change. Among those in the stability categories [1, 3, and 6], those in the stable no relationships, stable one or multiple relationships, and the stable steady categories have quite different relationship experiences. Likewise, moving forward to one or multiple relationships denotes relationship up-take, whereas moving forward to a steady relationship probably represents an individual who is further along in the relationship progression.

The regression category is interesting in that it represents respondents who have moved backwards in the idealized progression, or may simply be experiencing a lull in dating when interviewed. In fact, about half in the regression category are not dating anyone at time 2, and half of these respondents [25% of all who regress] had a steady relationship at time 1. So, while those who regress are not actively moving forward in their relationship progression at the time of the second interview, on average they have a fair amount of prior relationship experience and may be experiencing a temporary abeyance in their relationship progression [Cohen et al 2003].

What are the socio-demographic correlates of relationship patterns?

To assess socio-demographic attributes associated with adolescent relationship experience, we use multinomial logistic regression to estimate relative risk ratios. In Table 3, each progression pattern is compared to those with the least common pattern in our sample: those who have progressed from none to one casual or multiple relationships, or more simply, relationship up-take. The first contrast shows that females, middle and older adolescents, and those from step or other family structures are less likely to have no relationships over the course of adolescence, while black, Asian, and low-income adolescents are more likely to have no relationships. The second contrast shows that relationship regression [or backward movement] is more likely only among the oldest and black adolescents. However, the risk is substantial in the case of the oldest adolescents – they are more than twice as likely to regress as to take-up relationships [because they already have experience]. The third contrast shows no statistically significant socio-demographic differences between relationship uptake and stable low-levels of involvement in one casual or multiple relationships.

Table 3

Multinomial Logistic Model of Adolescent Relationship Progression [Relative Risk Ratios]

No RRs v. Progress to one or mult.Regress v. Progress to one or mult.Stable 1/mult v. Progress one or mult.Progress St. v. Progress to one or mult.Stable St. v. Progress to one or mult.Demographic Variables Male [ref] Female0.74 **0.810.891.101.74 *** Age 11-13 [ref] Age 14-160.74 *1.331.651.42 *3.03 *** Age 17-180.59 ***2.20 ***1.532.06 ***8.92 *** two parent fam [ref] step-family0.56 ***0.950.890.981.06 single-parent family0.781.311.491.191.51 ** other family type0.55 *1.000.490.691.36 White [ref] Black1.90 ***1.58 *0.571.40 *1.35 Hispanic1.251.290.571.220.94 Asian2.25 ***0.610.590.650.47 * Other Race2.491.990.251.661.55 Not Low-Income [ref] Low Income1.83 ***1.191.381.58 **1.11 Flag for missing inc1.070.941.261.001.03

Open in a separate window

*p