NIH Public Access Author Manuscript OF /Marriage Fam.Author manuscript,available in PMC 2012 July 18 Published in final edited form as: NIH-PA J Marriage Fam.2010June;72(3):557-575.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x Author Partnering Across the Life Course:Sex,Relationships,and Mate Selection Manuscript Sharon Sassler Department of Policy Analysis Management,Cornell University,120 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall,Ithaca,NY 14853(SS589@Cornell.edu). Abstract Marital delay,relationship dissolution and churning,and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time individuals in search of romantic relationships spend outside of marital unions. The scope of research on intimate partnering now includes studies of"hooking up,"Internet dating,visiting relationships,cohabitation,marriage following childbirth,and serial partnering,as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage.Collectively,we know much more NIH-PA about relationship formation and development,but research often remains balkanized among scholars employing different theoretical approaches,methodologies,or disciplinary perspectives. The study of relationship behavior is also segmented into particular life stages,with little attention given to linkages between stages over the life course.Recommendations for future research are Author Manuscript offered. Keywords cohabitation;dating;marriage;mate selection;relationship processes The nature and process of forming intimate relationships has changed in important ways over the past few decades.Previous"Decade in Review"articles focused on various aspects of relationship formation,ranging from adolescent pregnancy,premarital relationships,and mate selection to sexuality in relationships and families formed outside of marriage.These reviews dichotomized relationship behavior into romantic attachments preceding marriage and partnering that produced children.But dramatic changes in the timing and sequencing of relationship stages have made the study of intimate partnering more complex today than in the past.The scope of research has expanded to include studies of hookups and Internet dating,visiting relationships,cohabitation,marriage following childbirth,and serial NIH-PA Author Manuscript partnering as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. A unique challenge of reviewing research on partnering arises from changes in the marital behavior of Americans.Marital delay,relationship dissolution and churning,and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time substantial proportions of adults spend outside of formal marriage.Individuals select from a veritable smorgasbord of romantic options,including entering into casual,short-term sexual relationships;dating as an end toward finding a long-term partner,entering into shared living with a romantic partner (cohabitation)as an alternative to living alone;forming a cohabiting union as a precursor to marriage;or living with a partner as a substitute for formal marriage.Even though marriage remains among the most venerated of options(Cherlin,2004;Edin,Kefalas,Reed,2004; I express my appreciation to Daniel Lichter and Peggy Giordano for their encouragement and constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript
Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection Sharon Sassler Department of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University, 120 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 (SS589@Cornell.edu). Abstract Marital delay, relationship dissolution and churning, and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time individuals in search of romantic relationships spend outside of marital unions. The scope of research on intimate partnering now includes studies of “hooking up,” Internet dating, visiting relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial partnering, as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. Collectively, we know much more about relationship formation and development, but research often remains balkanized among scholars employing different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or disciplinary perspectives. The study of relationship behavior is also segmented into particular life stages, with little attention given to linkages between stages over the life course. Recommendations for future research are offered. Keywords cohabitation; dating; marriage; mate selection; relationship processes The nature and process of forming intimate relationships has changed in important ways over the past few decades. Previous “Decade in Review” articles focused on various aspects of relationship formation, ranging from adolescent pregnancy, premarital relationships, and mate selection to sexuality in relationships and families formed outside of marriage. These reviews dichotomized relationship behavior into romantic attachments preceding marriage and partnering that produced children. But dramatic changes in the timing and sequencing of relationship stages have made the study of intimate partnering more complex today than in the past. The scope of research has expanded to include studies of hookups and Internet dating, visiting relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial partnering as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage. A unique challenge of reviewing research on partnering arises from changes in the marital behavior of Americans. Marital delay, relationship dissolution and churning, and high divorce rates have extended the amount of time substantial proportions of adults spend outside of formal marriage. Individuals select from a veritable smorgasbord of romantic options, including entering into casual, short-term sexual relationships; dating as an end toward finding a long-term partner; entering into shared living with a romantic partner (cohabitation) as an alternative to living alone; forming a cohabiting union as a precursor to marriage; or living with a partner as a substitute for formal marriage. Even though marriage remains among the most venerated of options (Cherlin, 2004; Edin, Kefalas, & Reed, 2004; I express my appreciation to Daniel Lichter and Peggy Giordano for their encouragement and constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2010 June ; 72(3): 557–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 2 Lichter,Batson,Brown,2004;Smock,2004),it increasingly serves as a relationship capstone that takes place well after sexual involvement,shared living,and even childbearing and parenting(Carlson,McLanahan,England,2004)and may not even be a desired goal (Byrne Carr,2005;DePaulo Morris,2005). NIH-PA Author Manuscript A common thread unifying all relationships is a desire for intimacy-whether emotional or sexual.Involvement in romantic relationships,as a spouse,a cohabiting partner,or in a steady dating partnership,is beneficial to mental and physical health and sense of well-being (Kamp Dush Amato,2005;Williams Umberson,2004),though the benefits vary by race,gender,social class,parental status,and union type.Partnering behaviors change over the life course,both for structural(e.g.,economic barriers or limited marriage market opportunities)and behavioral reasons(e.g.,changing marital aspirations).Research published in social science journals over the last decade suggests that the behaviors and goals of emerging and young adults are widely divergent from older single adults.The topics studied differ dramatically,as does the frequency of coverage and how partnering behavior is framed as problematic or beneficial.Scholars from many different disciplines study partnering and parenting,but seldom is the research truly interdisciplinary,synergistic, or even complementary.This disciplinary balkanization is reflected in the theoretical approaches utilized,the data sources employed,and ultimately the knowledge produced. This review identifies,synthesizes,and critiques the theoretical,methodological,and substantive research on heterosexual partnering.It examines the research on the formation and development of voluntary romantic relationships marked by expressions of affection, NIH-PA Author Manuscript including physical intimacy and the expectation or experience of sexual relations(though see Donnelly Burgess,2008,for a study of celibacy in committed relationships). Following the major tropes introduced by the research,this review covers various life course stages.Like previous"Reviews,"it highlights recent research on relationship formation among adolescents and emerging (or young)adulthood,but it also examines changing patterns among midlife and older adults.Given the scope of the topic,it is not possible to review all forms of partnering behavior.This review therefore is limited to heterosexual partnering in the United States.Country-specific policies regarding union formation and parenting often differentiate relationship processes and outcomes,and other reviews in this issue cover same-sex partnerships and postmarital relationships. Partnering:Examining Couple Formation From the Perspective of the Individual Though seldom addressed from a dyadic perspective,research on the process of how two individuals become a couple is a central focus of much research on premarital relationships, sexuality,and mate selection.The bulk of research on Americans'relationship formation behavior relies on data and analysis of individuals,though sometimes partners are examined NIH-PA Author Manuscript in tandem,as when marital communication is observed or both partners are surveyed. Studies of partnering behavior may take the form of examining the traits preferred in partners(Stewart,Stinnett,Rosenfeld,2000),the behaviors engaged in during the preliminary stages of getting to know someone(O'Sullivan,Cheng,Harris,Brooks-Gunn, 2007),what causes respondents to be more or less happy or satisfied in relationships (Arriaga,2001;Sprecher,2001),or the factors leading up to the decision to become sexually intimate,live together,or marry(Guzzo,2006;Manning Smock,2002;Meier,2007; Sassler,2004;Uecker,2008). People imbue relationships with different meanings and approach them with varying goals. Individuals may desire particular attributes in a partner and actively seek them,without success,whereas not all physical intimacy between two individuals results in the JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
Lichter, Batson, & Brown, 2004; Smock, 2004), it increasingly serves as a relationship capstone that takes place well after sexual involvement, shared living, and even childbearing and parenting (Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004) and may not even be a desired goal (Byrne & Carr, 2005; DePaulo & Morris, 2005). A common thread unifying all relationships is a desire for intimacy—whether emotional or sexual. Involvement in romantic relationships, as a spouse, a cohabiting partner, or in a steady dating partnership, is beneficial to mental and physical health and sense of well-being (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Williams & Umberson, 2004), though the benefits vary by race, gender, social class, parental status, and union type. Partnering behaviors change over the life course, both for structural (e.g., economic barriers or limited marriage market opportunities) and behavioral reasons (e.g., changing marital aspirations). Research published in social science journals over the last decade suggests that the behaviors and goals of emerging and young adults are widely divergent from older single adults. The topics studied differ dramatically, as does the frequency of coverage and how partnering behavior is framed as problematic or beneficial. Scholars from many different disciplines study partnering and parenting, but seldom is the research truly interdisciplinary, synergistic, or even complementary. This disciplinary balkanization is reflected in the theoretical approaches utilized, the data sources employed, and ultimately the knowledge produced. This review identifies, synthesizes, and critiques the theoretical, methodological, and substantive research on heterosexual partnering. It examines the research on the formation and development of voluntary romantic relationships marked by expressions of affection, including physical intimacy and the expectation or experience of sexual relations (though see Donnelly & Burgess, 2008, for a study of celibacy in committed relationships). Following the major tropes introduced by the research, this review covers various life course stages. Like previous “Reviews,” it highlights recent research on relationship formation among adolescents and emerging (or young) adulthood, but it also examines changing patterns among midlife and older adults. Given the scope of the topic, it is not possible to review all forms of partnering behavior. This review therefore is limited to heterosexual partnering in the United States. Country-specific policies regarding union formation and parenting often differentiate relationship processes and outcomes, and other reviews in this issue cover same-sex partnerships and postmarital relationships. Partnering: Examining Couple Formation From the Perspective of the Individual Though seldom addressed from a dyadic perspective, research on the process of how two individuals become a couple is a central focus of much research on premarital relationships, sexuality, and mate selection. The bulk of research on Americans’ relationship formation behavior relies on data and analysis of individuals, though sometimes partners are examined in tandem, as when marital communication is observed or both partners are surveyed. Studies of partnering behavior may take the form of examining the traits preferred in partners (Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000), the behaviors engaged in during the preliminary stages of getting to know someone (O’Sullivan, Cheng, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007), what causes respondents to be more or less happy or satisfied in relationships (Arriaga, 2001; Sprecher, 2001), or the factors leading up to the decision to become sexually intimate, live together, or marry (Guzzo, 2006; Manning & Smock, 2002; Meier, 2007; Sassler, 2004; Uecker, 2008). People imbue relationships with different meanings and approach them with varying goals. Individuals may desire particular attributes in a partner and actively seek them, without success, whereas not all physical intimacy between two individuals results in the Sassler Page 2 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 3 establishment of a romantic relationship.Defining what constitutes partnering behavior is challenging,the unit of analysis can shift depending upon the research question.Studies of relationship quality,for example,often combine cohabitors and marrieds,even as research on transitions to marriage frequently groups cohabitors with singles who may or may not be in dating relationships(Surra,Gray,Cottle,Boettcher,2004).For the purpose of this NIH-PA Author Manuscript review,I focus on partnering among unmarried adults,defining partnering as the formation and development of intimate relationships,which may be short in duration or lead to a stable marriage.This perspective encompasses the behaviors engaged in pursuit of that goal,the processes that enhance or impede the development of intimate relationships,and factors differentiating the union types entered. Methodological Advances Several advances characterize the research on partnering in the first decade of the 21st century.Large data collections,including longitudinal panel data,have reshaped conventional theoretical approaches to partnering behaviors.Many scholars have also gathered their own data and conducted smaller scale experiments.Even as the release of new nationally representative data has greatly expanded what is known about relationship formation and development,the study of relationship behavior has become increasingly balkanized into particular life stages,with certain behaviors studied for one population but not another Research on adolescents and emerging adults(spanning the early teens through the mid-20s) NIH-PA Author Manuscript has proliferated in the past decade,abetted by the supplementation of several longitudinal data collections.The third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).released in 2002,in conjunction with the earlier waves(1995 and 1996). allows researchers to examine the partnering behaviors of youth from middle-school (beginning with Grade 7)through their mid-20s.The 10th round of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997(NLSY97),which was gathered in 2006-2007, provides detailed information on a similarly aged cohort(those born between 1980 and 1984).Wave 3 of the National Survey of Families and Households(NSFH),gathered in 2002,permits the study of the focal children of householders from the initial wave of the NSFH.Focusing on a particular age cohort,Cycle 6(2002)of the National Survey of Family Growth(NSFG)provides detailed information on the sexual partnering and fertility experiences of respondents age 15 to 45,for the first time including data on men as well as women. Several of these data sets,such as the NSFG and NSFH,are also useful for examining the partnering processes for adults in their 20s through midlife.Another widely used data source,the NLSY79,which follows men and women who were age 14 to 22 in 1979,has also been supplemented with new waves of data;as of Round 22(2006),respondents were NIH-PA Author Manuscript age 40 or older.Though many of these studies also contain information on important relationship dates,they are more often limited to cohabiting and marital unions and parenting. What of those who have aged out of the reproductive years?Although their population share is projected to increase dramatically over the next few decades,information on partnering behavior is most limited for adults 45 years and older.The NSFH includes data on older respondents,as does the General Social Survey.But these sources include far less detail on the formation of sexual relationships than do data collections targeted at younger populations.Though it has not yet been extensively mined,the National Social Life,Health, and Aging Project(NSHAP),which explores the health and well-being of American men JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
establishment of a romantic relationship. Defining what constitutes partnering behavior is challenging; the unit of analysis can shift depending upon the research question. Studies of relationship quality, for example, often combine cohabitors and marrieds, even as research on transitions to marriage frequently groups cohabitors with singles who may or may not be in dating relationships (Surra, Gray, Cottle, & Boettcher, 2004). For the purpose of this review, I focus on partnering among unmarried adults, defining partnering as the formation and development of intimate relationships, which may be short in duration or lead to a stable marriage. This perspective encompasses the behaviors engaged in pursuit of that goal, the processes that enhance or impede the development of intimate relationships, and factors differentiating the union types entered. Methodological Advances Several advances characterize the research on partnering in the first decade of the 21st century. Large data collections, including longitudinal panel data, have reshaped conventional theoretical approaches to partnering behaviors. Many scholars have also gathered their own data and conducted smaller scale experiments. Even as the release of new nationally representative data has greatly expanded what is known about relationship formation and development, the study of relationship behavior has become increasingly balkanized into particular life stages, with certain behaviors studied for one population but not another. Research on adolescents and emerging adults (spanning the early teens through the mid-20s) has proliferated in the past decade, abetted by the supplementation of several longitudinal data collections. The third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), released in 2002, in conjunction with the earlier waves (1995 and 1996), allows researchers to examine the partnering behaviors of youth from middle-school (beginning with Grade 7) through their mid-20s. The 10th round of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), which was gathered in 2006 – 2007, provides detailed information on a similarly aged cohort (those born between 1980 and 1984). Wave 3 of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), gathered in 2002, permits the study of the focal children of householders from the initial wave of the NSFH. Focusing on a particular age cohort, Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) provides detailed information on the sexual partnering and fertility experiences of respondents age 15 to 45, for the first time including data on men as well as women. Several of these data sets, such as the NSFG and NSFH, are also useful for examining the partnering processes for adults in their 20s through midlife. Another widely used data source, the NLSY79, which follows men and women who were age 14 to 22 in 1979, has also been supplemented with new waves of data; as of Round 22 (2006), respondents were age 40 or older. Though many of these studies also contain information on important relationship dates, they are more often limited to cohabiting and marital unions and parenting. What of those who have aged out of the reproductive years? Although their population share is projected to increase dramatically over the next few decades, information on partnering behavior is most limited for adults 45 years and older. The NSFH includes data on older respondents, as does the General Social Survey. But these sources include far less detail on the formation of sexual relationships than do data collections targeted at younger populations. Though it has not yet been extensively mined, the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), which explores the health and well-being of American men Sassler Page 3 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page4 and women age 57 to 84,allows for the study of intimacy and sexuality among older adults. These data should be used to expand research on the partnering behavior of mature adults. Family scholars have also turned to well-designed longitudinal data collections-including quantitative and qualitative components-focused on particular populations.Two large- NIH-PA Author Manuscript scale multisite surveys have been the source of numerous studies of the partnering behavior of low-income and single parents.The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study followed a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S.cities between 1998 and 2000 through the 5th year of life and included information on the relationship processes of the mothers and fathers of these children.It also included a qualitative component(Time,Love, and Cash in Couples with Children)consisting of four waves of individual and couple interviews with a parent who experienced a birth in 2000(cf.England Edin,2007).The Three-City Study focused on the well-being of low-income children and their families in Boston,Chicago,and San Antonio,including surveys conducted in 1999,2001,and 2005, and an ethnographic study of 256 children and families living in the same neighborhoods as the survey sample.Regional data collections have also increased.Scholars have been prolific in their use of the four-wave Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS), collected between 2001 and 2007 and including both survey and qualitative components. Several large qualitative data collections,such as that funded by the MacArthur Network on Transitions to Adulthood(cf.Settersten,Furstenberg,Rumbaut,2005)and the collaboration between scholars at the University of Michigan and Bowling Green State University on the meaning of cohabitation(cf.Manning Smock,2005),have also provided new sources for understanding the interpersonal processes involved in young NIH-PA Author Manuscript adults'partnering behaviors. Advances in the analytical approaches utilized to assess the partnering behavior of adults across the life course have unfortunately not kept pace with the increased availability of rich data sources.The expansion of multiwave longitudinal data collections has extended the use of repeat pooled time-series analyses.Utilization of newer analytic advances designed to account for time-invariant sources of heterogeneity (fixed effects analysis),selection (propensity score matching,difference-in-difference models),or changes in trajectories of repeated measures(latent class analysis or growth curve models)are,however,underutilized in the extant research.This is surprising because these new data sources include sufficient detail on sexual and coresidential history to at least account for within-person change that might reduce omitted variable bias,to consider the potential bias introduced by differential selection into (or out of)particular behaviors or union statuses(Meier,2007),or to assess varied pathways into partnerships and parenthood(Amato et al.,2008).Even though increased utilization of technical "fixes"risks further reifying disciplinary boundaries,their broader dissemination could also lower such barriers by simulating experimental approaches,enabling cross-disciplinary discussion,and better approximating causal processes NIH-PA Author Manuscript Theoretical Frameworks A number of scholarly theories are dominant among those who explore the processes underlying heterosexual attraction,partnering,and mate selection.Close relationship or interpersonal process models of heterosexual partnering provide theoretical guidance to many.They are popular because they acknowledge the diverse contexts in which relationships develop(see Cate,Levin,Richmond,2002;Conger,Cui,Bryant,Elder, 2000).For example,family scholars have utilized attachment theory to examine various behavioral and affective phenomena in relationship formation,with an emphasis on dating and the selection of marital partners(e.g.,Eastwick&Finkel,2008a;Steinberg,Davila,& Fincham,2006).Several comprehensive reviews have suggested that these studies are often JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
and women age 57 to 84, allows for the study of intimacy and sexuality among older adults. These data should be used to expand research on the partnering behavior of mature adults. Family scholars have also turned to well-designed longitudinal data collections—including quantitative and qualitative components— focused on particular populations. Two largescale multisite surveys have been the source of numerous studies of the partnering behavior of low-income and single parents. The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study followed a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 through the 5th year of life and included information on the relationship processes of the mothers and fathers of these children. It also included a qualitative component (Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with Children) consisting of four waves of individual and couple interviews with a parent who experienced a birth in 2000 (cf. England & Edin, 2007). The Three-City Study focused on the well-being of low-income children and their families in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, including surveys conducted in 1999, 2001, and 2005, and an ethnographic study of 256 children and families living in the same neighborhoods as the survey sample. Regional data collections have also increased. Scholars have been prolific in their use of the four-wave Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study (TARS), collected between 2001 and 2007 and including both survey and qualitative components. Several large qualitative data collections, such as that funded by the MacArthur Network on Transitions to Adulthood (cf. Settersten, Furstenberg, & Rumbaut, 2005) and the collaboration between scholars at the University of Michigan and Bowling Green State University on the meaning of cohabitation (cf. Manning & Smock, 2005), have also provided new sources for understanding the interpersonal processes involved in young adults’ partnering behaviors. Advances in the analytical approaches utilized to assess the partnering behavior of adults across the life course have unfortunately not kept pace with the increased availability of rich data sources. The expansion of multiwave longitudinal data collections has extended the use of repeat pooled time-series analyses. Utilization of newer analytic advances designed to account for time-invariant sources of heterogeneity (fixed effects analysis), selection (propensity score matching, difference-in-difference models), or changes in trajectories of repeated measures (latent class analysis or growth curve models) are, however, underutilized in the extant research. This is surprising because these new data sources include sufficient detail on sexual and coresidential history to at least account for within-person change that might reduce omitted variable bias, to consider the potential bias introduced by differential selection into (or out of) particular behaviors or union statuses (Meier, 2007), or to assess varied pathways into partnerships and parenthood (Amato et al., 2008). Even though increased utilization of technical “fixes” risks further reifying disciplinary boundaries, their broader dissemination could also lower such barriers by simulating experimental approaches, enabling cross-disciplinary discussion, and better approximating causal processes. Theoretical Frameworks A number of scholarly theories are dominant among those who explore the processes underlying heterosexual attraction, partnering, and mate selection. Close relationship or interpersonal process models of heterosexual partnering provide theoretical guidance to many. They are popular because they acknowledge the diverse contexts in which relationships develop (see Cate, Levin, & Richmond, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). For example, family scholars have utilized attachment theory to examine various behavioral and affective phenomena in relationship formation, with an emphasis on dating and the selection of marital partners (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008a; Steinberg, Davila, & Fincham, 2006). Several comprehensive reviews have suggested that these studies are often Sassler Page 4 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sassler Page 5 intellectually segregated,however;scholars seldom reference research from outside their own disciplinary specialties(Surra et al.,2004). Other established approaches such as exchange theory are most often the purview of sociologists and demographers.A social exchange perspective is based on the premise that NIH-PA Author Manuscript relationship development and advancement is based on the satisfactory trade of rewards between partners,costs associated with involvement,and alternative possibilities.Much of the research on relationships that cross racial boundaries,for example,relies on an exchange perspective(e.g.,Qian Lichter,2007).But variants such as equity theory are increasingly utilized by other disciplines to examine relationship progression,satisfaction,commitment, and stability (e.g.,Rhoades,Stanley,Markman,2006;Sprecher,2001). More recently,theoretical approaches to assessing relationship formation have incorporated life course and feminist perspectives.The life course framework examines how individuals' transitions and trajectories are linked across the age span and has been applied to topics such as how the race of initial romantic partners affects subsequent mate choice(King Bratter, 2007)and the impact of prior marital and parenting experiences on entrance into postmarital unions(Lichter Qian,2008;Waller Peters,2008).Feminist theory,which studies how gender is reproduced through individual socialization and interpersonal actions,has also emerged as an approach to assessing the establishment and progression of intimate relationships(e.g.,Bentley,Galliher,&Ferguson,2007;Smiler,2008).And sociobiological theory,which emphasizes the ways that evolutionary factors govern sexual and romantic preferences in mate selection,continues to emerge in studies of partner preferences(Buunk, NIH-PA Author Manuscript Dijkstra,Fetchenhauer,Kenrick,2002;Stewart et al.,2000),though psychologists using experimental designs are challenging the very premises central to the approach(e.g., Eastwick Finkel,2008b).Collectively,these contributions have deepened and expanded the research literature on partnering.Other theoretical perspectives are utilized to study partnering behavior,of course,but are often specific to particular disciplines and as a result are not reviewed here. Partnering Across the Life Course The decision to enter into a romantic relationship,preferences for partner attributes,and goals for relationships vary widely across the life course.Adolescents and emerging adults pursue partnerships with different goals than do older single adults or previously married middle-age individuals;time horizons and desired ends also shape relationship behaviors among individuals of similar ages.For example,both women and men are less selective when asked about desired attributes for short-term versus long-term relationship partners; more minimal levels of relationship involvement yield stated preferences for lower levels of education,physical attractiveness,and(among men)relative intelligence(Buunk et al., 2002;Stewart et al.,2000).Emerging adults who desire marriage in their early 20s engage NIH-PA Author Manuscript in different relationship patterns than do those whose marital horizons are later;not only do they express more conservative sexual attitudes and engage in fewer risky behaviors(binge drinking,cigarette smoking,and use of illegal drugs;Carroll et al.,2007),but they are less likely to engage in premarital sexual activity(Gaughan,2002;Uecker,2008).Finally, because the marriage market changes with age,preferences for desired partner attributes and methods of finding romantic partners shift.Adults who are parents or previously married are more tolerant of prospective mates who are divorced or have children(Goldscheider, Kaufman,Sassler,2009).Individuals are less likely to find romantic partners at school, and the workplace is often gender segregated.New approaches to finding romantic partners include Internet dating and speed-dating events(Eastwick Finkel,2008b;Feliciano, Robnett,Komaie,2009). JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
intellectually segregated, however; scholars seldom reference research from outside their own disciplinary specialties (Surra et al., 2004). Other established approaches such as exchange theory are most often the purview of sociologists and demographers. A social exchange perspective is based on the premise that relationship development and advancement is based on the satisfactory trade of rewards between partners, costs associated with involvement, and alternative possibilities. Much of the research on relationships that cross racial boundaries, for example, relies on an exchange perspective (e.g., Qian & Lichter, 2007). But variants such as equity theory are increasingly utilized by other disciplines to examine relationship progression, satisfaction, commitment, and stability (e.g., Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006; Sprecher, 2001). More recently, theoretical approaches to assessing relationship formation have incorporated life course and feminist perspectives. The life course framework examines how individuals’ transitions and trajectories are linked across the age span and has been applied to topics such as how the race of initial romantic partners affects subsequent mate choice (King & Bratter, 2007) and the impact of prior marital and parenting experiences on entrance into postmarital unions (Lichter & Qian, 2008; Waller & Peters, 2008). Feminist theory, which studies how gender is reproduced through individual socialization and interpersonal actions, has also emerged as an approach to assessing the establishment and progression of intimate relationships (e.g., Bentley, Galliher, &Ferguson, 2007; Smiler, 2008). And sociobiological theory, which emphasizes the ways that evolutionary factors govern sexual and romantic preferences in mate selection, continues to emerge in studies of partner preferences (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Stewart et al., 2000), though psychologists using experimental designs are challenging the very premises central to the approach (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b). Collectively, these contributions have deepened and expanded the research literature on partnering. Other theoretical perspectives are utilized to study partnering behavior, of course, but are often specific to particular disciplines and as a result are not reviewed here. Partnering Across the Life Course The decision to enter into a romantic relationship, preferences for partner attributes, and goals for relationships vary widely across the life course. Adolescents and emerging adults pursue partnerships with different goals than do older single adults or previously married middle-age individuals; time horizons and desired ends also shape relationship behaviors among individuals of similar ages. For example, both women and men are less selective when asked about desired attributes for short-term versus long-term relationship partners; more minimal levels of relationship involvement yield stated preferences for lower levels of education, physical attractiveness, and (among men) relative intelligence (Buunk et al., 2002; Stewart et al., 2000). Emerging adults who desire marriage in their early 20s engage in different relationship patterns than do those whose marital horizons are later; not only do they express more conservative sexual attitudes and engage in fewer risky behaviors (binge drinking, cigarette smoking, and use of illegal drugs; Carroll et al., 2007), but they are less likely to engage in premarital sexual activity (Gaughan, 2002; Uecker, 2008). Finally, because the marriage market changes with age, preferences for desired partner attributes and methods of finding romantic partners shift. Adults who are parents or previously married are more tolerant of prospective mates who are divorced or have children (Goldscheider, Kaufman, & Sassler, 2009). Individuals are less likely to find romantic partners at school, and the workplace is often gender segregated. New approaches to finding romantic partners include Internet dating and speed-dating events (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008b; Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009). Sassler Page 5 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
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
Sassler Page9 "early"marriage (Glick.Ruf.White,Goldscheider,2006:Uecker Stokes,2008).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.,2007; NIH-PA Author Manuscript Gaughan,2002;Uecker,2008;Uecker Stokes).Nonetheless,a sizable proportion of these unions have already dissolved by age 25(Schoen,Landale,Daniels,2007).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,2007). Although most do not view living together as an alternative to marriage,cohabitation may become an intensive form of dating for young adults(Lichter,Turner,Sassler,2010). 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 mid-20s 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 NIH-PA Author Manuscript majority of young adults have lived with a romantic partner by their mid-20s,and cohabitation is now the modal pathway into marriage(Kennedy Bumpass,2008) Whereas younger Americans express support for cohabitation as a means to assess compatibility for marriage,older adults appear increasingly likely to use cohabitation as an alternative to marriage,especially among less advantaged populations and those who have children or bear children outside of marriage(Gibson-Davis,Edin,McLanahan,2005; Musick,2007;Reed,2006).In recent years the proportion of cohabitors who marry their partners has decreased(Kennedy Bumpass).Yet studies focused on the broader population assert that,notwithstanding increases in births to cohabiting women,cohabitation has not yet become a widespread alternative to marriage;it remains a relatively unstable living arrangement,and cohabitors continue to express preferences for parenting within marital unions(Raley,2001;Sassler Cunningham,2008). 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.This work documented that many cohabitors move in with partners very soon in the relationship,often because of changes in employment,housing exigencies. or convenience(Guzzo,2006;Sassler,2004)or in response to pregnancy(Reed,2006; NIH-PA Author Manuscript Sassler,Miller,Favinger,2009).Such rapid "slides"into shared living often preclude much discussion of the future(Manning Smock,2005;Sassler;Stanley,Rhoades, Markham,2006).Even though quantitative studies report that most cohabitors plan to wed their partners(Manning Smock,2002),qualitative research that explores the decision to move in together reports that marriage is often not considered a possibility until the couple has lived together for a while(Sassler)and partners have attained desired goals-school completion or obtaining a stable job or purchasing a house(Gibson-Davis et al.,2005;Reed; Smock,Manning,Porter,2005).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.,2004;McGinnis,2003). Scholars have also begun to question whether entrance into shared living and marriage should be modeled as discrete choices or sequential decisions(Manning Smock,2005). JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
“early” marriage (Glick, Ruf, White, & Goldscheider, 2006; Uecker & Stokes, 2008). 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., 2007; Gaughan, 2002; Uecker, 2008; Uecker & Stokes). Nonetheless, a sizable proportion of these unions have already dissolved by age 25 (Schoen, Landale, & Daniels, 2007). 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., 2007). Although most do not view living together as an alternative to marriage, cohabitation may become an intensive form of dating for young adults (Lichter, Turner, & Sassler, 2010). 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 mid-20s 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 majority of young adults have lived with a romantic partner by their mid-20s, and cohabitation is now the modal pathway into marriage (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008). Whereas younger Americans express support for cohabitation as a means to assess compatibility for marriage, older adults appear increasingly likely to use cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, especially among less advantaged populations and those who have children or bear children outside of marriage (Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005; Musick, 2007; Reed, 2006). In recent years the proportion of cohabitors who marry their partners has decreased (Kennedy & Bumpass). Yet studies focused on the broader population assert that, notwithstanding increases in births to cohabiting women, cohabitation has not yet become a widespread alternative to marriage; it remains a relatively unstable living arrangement, and cohabitors continue to express preferences for parenting within marital unions (Raley, 2001; Sassler & Cunningham, 2008). 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. This work documented that many cohabitors move in with partners very soon in the relationship, often because of changes in employment, housing exigencies, or convenience (Guzzo, 2006; Sassler, 2004) or in response to pregnancy (Reed, 2006; Sassler, Miller, & Favinger, 2009). Such rapid “slides” into shared living often preclude much discussion of the future (Manning & Smock, 2005; Sassler; Stanley, Rhoades, & Markham, 2006). Even though quantitative studies report that most cohabitors plan to wed their partners (Manning & Smock, 2002), qualitative research that explores the decision to move in together reports that marriage is often not considered a possibility until the couple has lived together for a while (Sassler) and partners have attained desired goals—school completion or obtaining a stable job or purchasing a house (Gibson-Davis et al., 2005; Reed; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005). 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., 2004; McGinnis, 2003). Scholars have also begun to question whether entrance into shared living and marriage should be modeled as discrete choices or sequential decisions (Manning & Smock, 2005). Sassler Page 9 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 10 Even though the majority of recently married couples lived together prior to the wedding, those who cohabit differ from individuals who marry directly;they are more economically disadvantaged,less religious,and less educationally and racially homogamous (Blackwell Lichter,2004;Sassler Goldscheider,2004).Attempts to understand the factors contributing to the decline in marriage among cohabitors has become a key focus of NIH-PA Author Manuscript research,with researchers increasingly questioning whether standard economic explanations are adequate given marital delays across the social class spectrum.Men's economic attributes play a less central role in the formation of cohabiting relationships than they do for marriage(Blackwell Lichter;Oppenheimer,2003;Sassler Goldscheider).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.,2004;Gibson-Davis et al.,2005;Smock et al.,2005).Yet studies utilizing nationally representative data of transitions from cohabitation to marriage do not find a monotonic relationship between income or earnings and marriage;that is,cohabiting men with greater earnings were not more likely to wed than their less economically well-off counterparts(Oppenheimer,Sassler McNally,2003) 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. Other barriers delaying cohabitors'transitions into marital unions include disagreement regarding the division of domestic labor,marriage plans,and how to resolve unplanned pregnancies.Using marital expectations reported by both partners,Sassler and MeNally (2003)found that fewer than one third of cohabiting respondents concurred that they had NIH-PA Author Manuscript definite plans to marry their partner,not surprisingly,couples who disagreed regarding their marriage plans were significantly less likely to wed.Dissonance in cohabiting partners' views regarding how domestic work should be divided also increased the likelihood that cohabiting couples dissolved their relationship(Hohman-Marriott,2006).Unintended pregnancies-higher among cohabitors than singles-both prolonged and destabilized unions(Reed,2006;Sassler et al.,2009).Studies of disadvantaged populations also reported thatmental illness(Teitler&Reichman,2008),fear of physical abuse(Cherlin,Burton,Hurt, &Purvin,2004),and apprehension about divorce(Waller Peters,2008)reduced the odds that women married. 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.Cohabiting couples report higher levels of discord than do marrieds and lower levels of subjective well-being(Kamp Dush Amato,2005;Rhoades et al.,2006;Stafford,Kline,&Rankin,2004;Williams et al., 2008).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,2004).Psychologists studying the impact NIH-PA Author Manuscript 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.,2004;Rhoades 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.,2006). But more refined studies of the impact of cohabitation on relationship quality found that the difference in relationship quality between those cohabiting prior to marriage and marrying directly was largely driven by those experiencing births while cohabiting(Tach Halpern- Meekin,2009).As cohabitation prior to marriage becomes the normative experience among married couples,additional testing of this association is warranted. JMarriage Fam.Author manuscript;available in PMC 2012 July 18
Even though the majority of recently married couples lived together prior to the wedding, those who cohabit differ from individuals who marry directly; they are more economically disadvantaged, less religious, and less educationally and racially homogamous (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Sassler & Goldscheider, 2004). 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. Men’s economic attributes play a less central role in the formation of cohabiting relationships than they do for marriage (Blackwell & Lichter; Oppenheimer, 2003; Sassler & Goldscheider). 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., 2004; Gibson-Davis et al., 2005; Smock et al., 2005). Yet studies utilizing nationally representative data of transitions from cohabitation to marriage do not find a monotonic relationship between income or earnings and marriage; that is, cohabiting men with greater earnings were not more likely to wed than their less economically well-off counterparts (Oppenheimer; Sassler & McNally, 2003). 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. Other barriers delaying cohabitors’ transitions into marital unions include disagreement regarding the division of domestic labor, marriage plans, and how to resolve unplanned pregnancies. Using marital expectations reported by both partners, Sassler and McNally (2003) 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. Dissonance in cohabiting partners’ views regarding how domestic work should be divided also increased the likelihood that cohabiting couples dissolved their relationship (Hohman-Marriott, 2006). Unintended pregnancies—higher among cohabitors than singles—both prolonged and destabilized unions (Reed, 2006; Sassler et al., 2009). Studies of disadvantaged populations also reported thatmental illness (Teitler&Reichman, 2008), fear of physical abuse (Cherlin, Burton, Hurt, & Purvin, 2004), and apprehension about divorce (Waller & Peters, 2008) reduced the odds that women married. 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. Cohabiting couples report higher levels of discord than do marrieds and lower levels of subjective well-being (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Rhoades et al., 2006; Stafford, Kline,&Rankin, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). 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, 2004). 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., 2004; Rhoades 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., 2006). But more refined studies of the impact of cohabitation on relationship quality found that the difference in relationship quality between those cohabiting prior to marriage and marrying directly was largely driven by those experiencing births while cohabiting (Tach & HalpernMeekin, 2009). As cohabitation prior to marriage becomes the normative experience among married couples, additional testing of this association is warranted. Sassler Page 10 J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 18. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript