Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658 DOI 10.1007/s10508-012-0043-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Shared Social and Emotional Activities Within Adolescent Romantic and Non-Romantic Sexual Relationships Lela Rankin Williams • Stephen T. Russell
Received: 1 March 2006 / Revised: 25 September 2012 / Accepted: 27 September 2012 / Published online: 8 January 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract Typically, ‘‘non-romantic’’ sexual relationships are assumed to be casual; however, the emotional and social distinctions between romantic and non-romantic contexts are not well understood, particularly in adolescence. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) was used to compare shared emotional (e.g., telling partner that they love her/him) and social (e.g., going out in a group) activities within romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships. Adolescents who reported exclusively romantic sexual relationships (n = 1,891) shared more emotional, but not social, activities with their partners than adolescents who were in non-romantic sexual relationships (n = 315; small effect size, r = .07–.13), akin to adolescents who experienced both relationship types (n = 519; small-to-medium effect size, r = .18–.38). Girls shared more emotional and social activities with their partners than boys when in romantic relationships (small effect size, r = .06–.10); there were no significant gender differences within non-romantic sexual relationships. Findings suggest that gendered scripts remain for sexual relationships that are romantic but not for those that are non-romantic. Notably, for the majority of adolescents, non-romantic relationships still held many emotional and social dimensions typical of romantic relationships and differences between relationship types were small. Although non-romantic relationships were less intimate than romantic sexual relationships, there was remarkable heterogeneity within this relationship type. Caution is advised when working with adolescents L. R. Williams (&) School of Social Work, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-0689, USA e-mail:
[email protected] S. T. Russell Department of Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
engaged in ‘‘casual’’ sexual relationships. Understanding the complexity of adolescent sexual relationships is critical for the advancement of effective sex education programming. Keywords Casual sex Adolescence Gender Friends with benefits
Introduction In recent years, there has been growing media attention to ‘‘hook-ups’’or‘‘friends with benefits’’among adolescents and young adults (Conan, 2004; Denizet-Lewis, 2004). This public interest is fueled largely by recognition of (and discomfort with) new possibilities for disconnection between sexual behavior and romantic relationships. Whereas sexual behavior in adolescence has historically been assumed to occur primarily in the context of dating or romance, these new forms of sexual relationships challenge this notion because they are defined by casual emotional connections between partners. Historically, the research literatures on sexual behavior and romantic relationships in adolescence have been distinct, the former focusing on problems associated with precocious and premarital sexual behavior and the latter focusing on the typically positive developmental correlates and consequences of romance and dating in adolescence. Researchers have only recently begun to study adolescent relationships that are characterized by a decoupling of sexual behavior and romance, particularly in the last decade, among young adult and college samples (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Furman & Shaffer, 2011; Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011a, b; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). The current study brings together these two distinct areas of research in order to understand sexual relationships that take place outside of the context of romance in adolescence.
123
650
Specifically, we aimed to examine the emotional, social, and physical components of non-romantic adolescent relationships in order to empirically question the nature of these widespread ‘‘casual’’ relationships. Romantic ideation and sexual interaction are related and often co-occur, but neither is a necessary requirement for the other (Furman & Shaffer, 2011). Almost 15 % of 12 to 16-year-old virgins and more than 40 % of 17 to 21-year-old virgins from a nationally representative U.S. sample engaged in non-romantic sex during the following year (Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2003). In the literature, the term‘‘non-romantic’’sex has become almost synonymous with ‘‘casual’’ sex; yet, we have little evidence that these relationships are, in fact, casual (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011). For many adolescents, sexual activity and heterosexual intercourse take place outside of the context of romantic relationships and what we know about these relationships comes predominantly from studies conducted on college students. In this study, we examined the characteristics and contexts of adolescents’ heterosexual sexual relationships, making use of adolescents’ self-categorization of their relationships as romantic or non-romantic and their reports of the shared emotional, social, and physical activities with their partners within these types of relationships. Given that adolescent sexual and romantic scripts are gendered (Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009; Jonason et al., 2009; Kirkman, Rosenthal, & Smith, 1998; Vannier & Sullivan, 2010), we examined these differences within and across boys and girls.
Adolescent Sexual Behavior and Romantic Relationships Research on adolescent romantic relationships suggests that they change quantitatively and qualitatively with age, have distinct dimensions or characteristics, and are associated with positive outcomes for adolescents. Adolescent romantic relationships are the developmental precursors to family formation and parenthood and are, therefore, normative and serve important developmental functions (Raley, Crissey, & Muller, 2007; Simpson, Collins, & Salvatore, 2011). Adolescent sexuality and sexual behavior, by contrast, has only recently been studied under a normative perspective (Welsh, Rostosky, & Kawaguchi, 1999; Zimmer-Gembeck, Siebenbruner, & Collins, 2004). Most prior research has focused on problems associated with adolescent sexual behavior. Indeed, the sexual health and well-being of adolescents in the U.S. and other Western countries is less than optimal; rates of sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies continue to be significant adolescent health concerns (Martin et al., 2011; Weinstock, Berman, & Cates, 2004). However, the perception that sex during adolescence leads to later psychological disturbances is not fully supported. Prior work indicates that voluntary heterosexual intercourse at a younger age has no negative psychological short- or long-term effects (Bingham & Crockett, 1996;
123
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
Langer, Zimmerman, & Katz, 1995) and adolescents who become sexually active earlier than their peers have the same levels of self-esteem, life satisfaction, and general well-being as other adolescents (Bingham & Crockett, 1996; Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005). Intentional, rather than spontaneous, first experience, greater parental messages about sexual freedom, less commitment to traditional gender roles, and greater body satisfaction are associated with positive experiences of first sexual intercourse (Smiler, Ward, Caruthers, & Merriwether, 2005). An additional limitation of research on adolescent sexual behavior is that few studies have investigated adolescent sexuality with a focus on the relationship context itself (for exceptions, see O’Sullivan, 2005; Welsh, Haugen, Widman, Darling, & Grello, 2005; Welsh et al., 1999). Limited but growing research has been conducted on how other relationships (e.g., parent–child and peer relationships) (Furman & Wehner, 1997; Simpson et al., 2011) and characteristics of sexual partners (e.g., age and ethnicity) (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003) influence adolescent sexuality. However, there is a need to consider the characteristics of the relationship through which sexual activity occurs, including the emotional and social meanings associated with these relationships (Welsh et al., 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2010). In general, we know that adolescents with steady partners report higher levels of caring for each other, doing things together, and communication than do adolescents with casual partners or one-night stands (Ellen, Cahn, Eyre, & Boyer, 1996); they also develop intimate feelings for their sexual partners when they are in relationships that have positive communication (Kvalem & Traeen, 2000). We also know that many adolescents experience sexual activity within relationships that have low levels of intimacy and commitment (Van Ryzin, Johnson, Leve, & Kim, 2011). The question remains: Do the majority of adolescents who experience sexual activity outside the context of romance experience low levels of intimacy and commitment components? Or, is our understanding of non-romantic relationships misguided? Are these relationships indeed casual, with low levels of emotional and social investment? Or, rather, are they meaningful, intimate, and committed relationships that lack (or eschew the label of) romance?
Relational Scripts for Adolescent Sexual Behavior and Gender The notion of sexual or relational scripts (Simon & Gagnon, 1984) is useful for interpreting the romantic experiences of contemporary adolescents. Within the romantic narrative, sexual intercourse is interpreted as part of the quest for love, in which girls and boys have different pre-defined roles to play. At the onset of puberty, there is an intensification of these gender-related expectations in which the peer group aids
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
in the social construction of acceptable romantic behavior for boys and girls (Feiring, 1999): Girls value intimate relationships while boys view sexual intercourse as an end in itself (Kirkman etal.,1998).Girls arecaught in thepositionofbalancing two competing needs: accommodating the male sex drive while maintaining a‘‘good’’reputation. Meaningful differences in the emotional and social characteristics of sexual romantic and non-romantic relationships may be less amplified for girls, as it is suggested that girls tend to interpret casual encounters as something meaningful and long-term (Adams & Williams, 2011; Ellen et al., 1996; Grello et al., 2006; Kirkman et al., 1998; Moore & Rosenthal, 1998), likely due to the general acceptability for girls to have sex when in love (Aarons & Jenkins, 2002; Kirkman et al., 1998; Moore & Rosenthal, 1998) and boys tend to hold more permissive attitudes towards engaging in casual sex (Epstein et al., 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011a, b; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011). Thus, while girls may recognize that their relationships are non-romantic, they may perceive greater closeness and intimacy than boys in non-romantic sexual relationships. Alternatively, gender scripts for behavior and meaning in non-romantic relationships may be more ambiguous and unclear, in part due to the ambiguity of the relationship itself, thereby muting differences in the interpretation of the social and emotional characteristics across gender.
Present Study Based on the literature on the varied contexts of adolescent and young adult sexual activity, the goal of our study was to compare the emotional, social, and physical dimensions of adolescents’ romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships. We expected that adolescents who had sexual intercourse in romantic relationships would report greater shared emotional and social activities with their partners’ compared to adolescents who had sexual intercourse in non-romantic contexts, and that their shared physical activities would not differ. In addition, we expected that girls would report more shared emotional and social activities than boys in their romantic relationships, as girls are likely than boys to interpret relationships as more intimate as a justification of sexual experiences. Given the lack of prior research on non-romantic relationships in adolescence, there was little basis for expecting gender differences in non-romantic sexual relationships. Perhaps gendered patterns in adolescent relationships would apply to all types of relationships, whether romantic or nonromantic. Alternatively, non-romantic relationships may be an arena in which the gendered scripts of adolescent dating may be suspended; adolescent boys and girls may view‘‘hook-ups’’ in similar ways and may report similar dimensions to those relationships (e.g., Denizet-Lewis, 2004; Owen & Fincham, 2011b).
651
Method Participants The data were from the first wave (1995) of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative survey of students in the 7th through 12th grades. The sampling frame included all high schools in the U.S., as well as their largest feeder schools. More than 16,831 adolescents in Grades 7–11 participated in the in-home survey at Wave 1 (Bearman, Jones, & Udry, 1997; Udry, 1998). At Wave 1, participants were asked: ‘‘In the last 18 months, have you had a special romantic relationship with anyone?’’ They were then asked to list and report on up to three romantic relationships; they were asked if they had had sexual intercourse with the romantic relationship partners. In a follow-up section, participants were asked: ‘‘Not counting the people you have described as romantic relationships, have you ever had a sexual relationship with anyone?’’If they answered affirmatively, they were asked to list and report on up to three‘‘nonromantic’’relationships. An initial group of 4,902 adolescents reported romantic sexual relationships; of these, 1,891 reported no non-romantic sexual relationships during the prior 18 months and had complete data for all study variables. Having at least one non-romantic sexual relationship in the last 18 months was reported by 4,557 adolescents; however, when asked to report the initials of their non-romantic partner, only 2,664 individuals continued responding; of these, 315 reported no romantic sexual relationships during the prior 18 months and had complete data for all study variables. There were 519 adolescents who reported having at least one romantic and non-romantic sexual relationship in the last 18 months. The final sample for the present study consisted of over 2,700 adolescents who reported having had heterosexual sexual intercourse in the context of a romantic or non-romantic relationship during the prior 18 months and had complete data for all study variables. For our analyses, we examined only adolescents’ most recent romantic and non-romantic relationship in which sexual intercourse occurred at least once. We limited our attention to adolescent heterosexual relationships because adolescent same-sex relationships are stigmatized and non-normative; thus, the emotional and social dimensions of relationships are likely to differ (Russell & Consolacion, 2003). Measures At Wave 1, adolescents were asked to report on 15 shared emotional, social, and physical activities within each romantic and non-romantic relationship they had (see Table 1). Sample items included‘‘We went out together in a group,’’‘‘My partner told me that he or she loved me,’’ and ‘‘We talked about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases.’’Categorical dummy variables were created, indicating whether adolescents reported
123
652
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
Table 1 A principal components factor analysis and eigenvalues of the 15 relationship characteristics Factor 1 Emotional
Factor 2 Physical
Factor 3 Social
Meeting parents
.53
-.09
.31
Saying are a couple
.62
-.18
.14
Seeing less of friends
.48
-.11
.11
Going out alone
.55
.07
.53
Giving a present
.66
-.22
.15
Receiving a present
.72
-.12
-.19
Saying I love you
.74
-.14
-.32
Hearing I love you
.73
-.09
-.42
Thinking as a couple
.70
-.07
-.30 -.42
Discuss contra./STI’s
.39
.19
Kissing
.30
.50
.04
Touching
.21
.80
-.03
Touching genitals
.23
.80
-.03
Going out in a group
.28
.01
.38
Holding hands
.48
.08
.53
Bold values indicate that those items loaded highest on the indicated factor
the relationship activity with their most recent romantic or nonromantic sexual partner (1 = yes, 0 = no). A principal components factor analysis was conducted on the 15 items to determine if there were underlying conceptual factors. A threefactor solution emerged with eigenvalues of 4.36 (Factor 1), 1.74 (Factor 2), and 1.43 (Factor 3). Conceptually these factors represented activities that we label emotional (Factor 1), physical (Factor 2), and social (Factor 3). The factor or component loadings for each item were .4 or greater. Two items (‘‘going out together alone’’ and ‘‘holding hands’’) loaded on two factors: Factors 1 (emotional activities) and 3 (social activities). Those items (‘‘going out together alone’’loaded on Factor 1: .55 and Factor 3: .53; ‘‘holding hands’’ loaded on Factor 1: .48 and Factor 3: .53) were placed on the factor at which they had the highest loading (Factors 1 and 3, respectively). Subsequent analyses were conducted at the item level and items were grouped by their underlying factor. We considered sociodemographic variability by including age, biological sex, race (White American, African American, Hispanic American, or Asian American), socioeconomic status (via level of maternal education), and family structure (via number of parents in household) in our analyses (each measured at Wave 1). We also included a measure of the frequency of sexual intercourse (1 = having sex only once in the relationship; 2 = having sex more than once within a period of a month; 3 = having sex more than once over a period longer than a month). Data Analysis Our analytic plan included two sets of comparisons. First, we compared relationship characteristics for adolescents with
123
romantic sexual relationships to those with non-romantic sexual relationships and, second, we compared relationship characteristics for adolescents who had both romantic and nonromantic sexual relationships. Sexual relationship groups were developed as follows: Group 1 included adolescents who reported only having had romantic sexual relationships during the prior 18 months (n = 1,891; labeled ‘‘romantic relationships’’), Group 2 included adolescents who reported at least one non-romantic sexual relationship and no romantic sexual relationships during the prior 18 months (n = 315; labeled ‘‘non-romantic relationships’’), and Group 3 included adolescents who reported both types of relationships (n = 519; labeled‘‘both’’). This strategy allowed us to test for between-group differences and within-group differences across types of sexual relationships (romantic with non-romantic). Survey-adjusted t tests (for age) and chi-square tests (for all other variables) were used to examine between-group differences. McNemar’s tests were used to examine differences between romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships for adolescents who reported both (within-group differences). McNemar’s tests are appropriate when testing the difference between two proportions that are on the same sample of participants. Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r, was used to measure the size of the effect which was calculated as the square root of the chi-square value (or McNemar’s value) divided by the sample size. An r effect size of .1, .3, and .5 is estimated as small, medium, and large, respectively. Cohen’s d was used to estimate effect sizes for independent t tests. A d effect size of .2, .5, and .8 is estimated as small, medium, and large, respectively.
Results Between Group Comparison of Romantic and Nonromantic Relationships First, we compared demographic characteristics for adolescents in romantic sexual relationships with adolescents in nonromantic sexual relationships (Groups 1 and 2) (see Table 2). There were no significant differences between relationship types based on maternal education or family structure. Within gender, however, we found a small yet significant difference for age: girls in non-romantic relationships were younger than girls in romantic relationships (d = .23). African American adolescents were more likely than those from other racial groups to report non-romantic sexual relationships (r = .08). When sexual intercourse happened once, it was more often in a non-romantic relationship (r = .11). Repeated sexual intercourse more often took place in a non-romantic relationship if it happened in a shorter time frame (within a month), but more often took place in a romantic relationship if it happened over a longer period of time (more than a month).
67.53
18.50
11.10
2.86
African American
Hispanic American
Asian American
59.34
Test statistic t
13.44
71.97
1,891
1? within a month
1? over a month
N
315
48.96
17.31
33.74
44.26 55.74
.05
.01
.08
r
2,206
Boys
*** p\.0001; ** p\.001; * p\.01; ? p\.05
Test statistic t
69.74
77.84
11.31
10.85
52.52 47.48
80.34
19.66
2.22
10.07
17.97
64.72
803
64.53
16.14
19.33
57.01 42.99
76.45
23.55
3.68
12.42
19.19
.03
.03
.06
r
.01
1,891
63.27
1,891 133
47.50
13.48
39.03
44.62 55.38
73.33
26.67
.19
11.72
24.83
56.40
182
50.05
20.17
29.78
43.99 56.01
77.57
22.43
1.52
10.27
31.81
315
2.20
.01
.56
3.45
v2
315
.08
.01
.04
.10
r
.23
.04
1,221
r
.07
d
.01
4.94
985
.07
5.02? .07
.03
8.80? .09
v2
1.09
t
Boys
1,221 985
21.27*** .13
1.69
.04
.08
8.02?
1.63
r
.23 v2
3.98***
d
Gender (RR-NR)
Test Effect Girls statistic size t d t
15.65 (.19) 16.18 (.18) 1.99?
Boys
Non-romantic relationships (NR) Effect Girls size d
19.53*** .10
1.77
1.85
6.75
v2
16.49 (.07) 16.47 (.12) .15
2,206 1,088
24.33*** .11
6.50?
.35
12.74*
v2
.11
Effect Girls size d
Romantic relationships (RR)
r Pearson’s correlation coefficient (small effect = .10, medium effect = .30, large effect = .50)
14.59
Once
Intercourse frequency (%)
With both parents Other arrangements
54.50 45.50
75.76
Equal or more than high school 78.62
Family structure (%)
24.24
.95
10.89
28.82
21.38
Less than high school
Maternal education (%)
NR
16.48 (.08) 15.96 (.16) 2.52?
European American
Race (%)
Age (in years; M, SE)
RR
Relationship type
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of adolescents in romantic or non-romanic sexual relationships and subgroup comparisons
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658 653
123
654
Once gender was taken into account, however, we found that this pattern emerged only for girls (r = .13). That is, there were no significant differences for boys in frequency of intercourse across relationship type (r = .07). Across the relationship characteristics (see Table 3), there were small yet significant differences for emotional activities (r = .07–.13), but not for physical (r = .00–.03) or social activities (r = .04). However, once gender was taken into account, we found that this pattern generally emerged only for girls. That is, boys had similar levels of participation in emotional, physical, and social activities across relationship type. Girls in romantic relationships had higher participation in each of the emotional activities than girls in non-romantic relationships (r = .07–.16). Boys in romantic relationships had higher participation in saying that they were a couple (r = .09) and giving their partner a present (r = .12) than boys in non-romantic relationships, but otherwise had no significant differences in participation of the activities across relationship type. Gender Differences Within Relationship Type Small, significant gender differences were found within romantic relationships for frequency of sexual intercourse and several emotional, physical, and social activities with their partners. Reports of sexual intercourse occurring once and sexual intercourse occurring more than once within a period of a month were greater among boys (r = .10). Reports of sexual intercourse occurring over a longer time frame (more than a month) were greater among girls. The majority of boys and girls, however, reported having sexual intercourse within their most recent romantic relationship more than once and over a period longer than a month. Within romantic relationships, girls, more often than boys, told other people that they were a couple (r = .08), thought of themselves as a couple (r = .07), and talked about contraception or sexually transmitted infections (r = .06; emotional activities). Girls were also more likely than boys to report going out in a group (r = .10), holding hands (r = .08; social activities), and touching (r = .06; physical activity). Within non-romantic sexual relationships, there was only one significant gender difference. Boys were more likely than girls to report hearing their partner say I love you (r = .17). Boys and girls had similar rates of participation in all other emotional, physical, and social activities, as well as frequency of sexual intercourse. Within-Group Comparison of Romantic and NonRomantic Relationships Finally, we examined adolescents involved in both romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships. Adolescents were compared on frequency of intercourse and participation in
123
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
emotional, physical, and social activities when they were in a romantic compared to non-romantic sexual relationship (see Table 4). This group consisted of 291 boys and 228 girls (Mage = 16.75 years). Ethnic distribution was 54.04 % European American, 27.69 % African American, 14.62 % Hispanic American, and 3.65 % Asian American. Approximately three quarters (76.54 %) had mothers who graduated from high school and 44.62 % lived with both of their parents. For both girls and boys, medium sized differences in frequency of sexual intercourse emerged across relationship type. Girls and boys were more likely to have sexual intercourse once when in a non-romantic relationship (girls r = .40, boys r = .36). Sexual intercourse more than once in a period longer than a month was reported most often (across gender and relationship type); however, it was also more often reported when in a romantic relationship. In general, the relationship patterns when in a romantic versus a nonromantic relationship were similar for both boys and girls. Significant differences emerged for both boys and girls such that more emotional and social activities took place within a romantic relationship than a non-romantic relationship. That is, on each emotional activity, adolescents reported higher rates of participation with their romantic partner than with their non-romantic partner (girls: r = .19–.37; boys: r = .18– .38); most were medium effect sizes. Both boys (r = .24) and girls (r = .16) also more often went out in a group (social activity) with their romantic than non-romantic partner. There were no significant differences in physical activities across relationship type. That is, both boys (r = .01–.09) and girls (r = .02–.06) reported participating in each physical activity similarly, regardless of whether in a romantic or nonromantic relationship.
Discussion Ours is the first analysis of the emotional, physical, and social activities of adolescent romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships from a large-scale study. The findings provided modest support for the hypotheses proposed at the outset of this study: we found notable differences between romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships in emotional activities (between-group comparisons, r = .07–.13; within-group comparisons, r = .18–.38), but few differences in physical and social activities. This is consistent with previous research that found adolescents with steady partners as more caring, communicative, and participatory in mutual activities (Ellen et al., 1996). Between-group comparisons across gender revealed that this was generally only true for girls. Boys made little distinction between romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships (only two activities yielded a significant difference) whereas girls reported sharing more emotional activities with a romantic partner.
87.26
61.89
87.55
79.71
84.17
88.82
89.99
93.01
79.69
Saying are a couple
Seeing less of friends
Going out alone
Giving a present
Receiving a present
Saying I love you
Hearing I love you
Thinking as a couple
Discuss contra./STI’s
84.80
Touching genitals
315
87.20
69.44
80.62
97.59 87.27
65.31
78.72
77.41
75.19
69.03
50.37
69.83
47.41
61.14
65.07
2,206
2,206
.04 .04
3.91?
.02
.00 .03
.08
.09
.08
.08
.08
.13
.08
.07
.13
.10
3.10
1.18
.03 2.51
15.21**
16.21***
14.44**
13.19**
14.17**
39.47***
14.89**
10.27*
35.49***
24.17***
1,088
95.52
82.73
87.15
98.50 94.35
82.63
95.32
90.36
90.19
86.01
81.14
89.86
61.68
91.24
87.19
803
88.51
69.38
81.83
96.97 88.86
75.97
90.09
89.51
87.07
81.85
77.90
84.62
62.15
82.20
82.43
Boys
1,891
12.04**
*** p\.0001; ** p\.001; * p\.01; ? p\.05
1,891
.08
.10
.05
4.77? 18.12***
.04 .06
.06
.07
.01
.04
.04
2.81 7.57*
7.26*
9.07*
.29
2.60
2.62
.03
.05
5.39? 1.90
.00
.08
.05
Effect size r
.02
12.50***
4.55?
Test statistic v2
r Pearson’s correlation coefficient (small effect = .10, medium effect = .30, large effect = .50)
1,891
92.43
Holding hands
N
76.84
Going out in a group
Social activities
97.83 91.93
Kissing Touching
Physical activities
85.09
Meeting parents
Emotional activities
Relationship characteristics (%)
Effect size r
Girls
Test statistic v2
RR
NR
Romantic Relationships (RR)
Relationship type
133
91.15
72.54
76.16
98.85 83.41
65.09
70.40
64.84
68.79
63.61
41.31
62.27
45.32
57.25
56.57
Girls
182
84.25
67.12
83.95
96.65 90.15
65.47
84.95
86.82
79.97
73.08
57.14
75.49
48.98
64.06
71.42
Boys
315
2.66
.80
1.42
1.61 1.26
315
.09
.05
.07
.07 .06
.00
.12
4.19? .00
.17
.09 8.97*
2.62
.07
.13
4.98? 1.62
.11
.03
.04
.11
Effect size r
3.64
.26
.55
3.75?
Test statistic v2
Non-Romantic Relationships (NR)
Table 3 Relationship characteristics of adolescents in romantic or non-romanic sexual relationships and subgroup comparisons
1,221
1.73
3.70
3.73
.13 5.75?
6.92*
13.16**
14.53**
10.66**
13.15**
31.82***
13.90**
6.85*
19.45***
20.41***
1,221
.04
.06
.06
.01 .07
.08
.10
.11
.09
.10
.16
.11
.07
.13
.13
985
1.35
.19
.20
.03 .10
985
.04
.01
.01
.01 .01
.04 .07
4.26?
.03
.05
.05
.12
1.99
.62
2.63
2.59
13.12**
.06
.07 3.78
.09 5.20?
.08
r
8.59*
6.20?
v2
v2
r
Boys
Girls
Gender (RR-NR)
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658 655
123
656
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
Table 4 Comparing the relationship-specific characteristics for adolescents reporting both romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships Girls RR
Boys NR
Test Statistic McNemar’s S
Effect Size r
7.22
28.18
47.33***
.40
12.03 80.76
13.40 58.42
RR
NR
Test Statistic McNemar’s S
Effect Size r
30.23***
.36
.24
Intercourse frequency (%) Once 1? within a month 1? over a month
7.46
22.81
20.18 72.37
16.23 60.96
Relationship characteristics (%) Emotional activities Meeting parents
79.73
68.73
10.67*
.19
80.26
67.11
13.24**
Saying are a couple
91.07
71.48
36.51***
.35
89.04
69.74
30.25***
.36
Seeing less of friends
68.73
52.58
22.77***
.28
60.53
46.56
8.12*
.19
Going out alone
86.60
77.32
10.57*
.19
90.79
83.33
7.41*
.18
Giving a present
78.35
54.98
40.56***
.37
82.46
60.09
32.92***
.38
Receiving a present
83.51
64.26
32.00***
.33
85.53
69.74
23.14***
.32
Saying I love you
91.07
74.23
28.25***
.31
89.91
73.25
26.74***
.34
Hearing I love you
90.72
77.32
19.25***
.26
93.42
79.39
23.27***
.32
Thinking as a couple
95.19
79.38
31.12***
.33
93.86
81.14
16.49***
.27
Discuss contra./STI’s
81.10
71.48
11.88**
.20
80.26
71.49
8.70*
.20
Kissing Touching
98.28 95.19
98.63 93.81
.11 .89
.02 .06
98.68 92.54
96.93 92.98
2.00 .05
.09 .01
Touching genitals
88.66
86.94
.71
.05
89.47
86.40
1.81
.09
Going out in a group
77.66
68.73
7.86*
.16
74.56
60.96
Holding hands
90.72
98.53
5.76?
.14
92.54
89.91
291
291
291
228
Physical activities
Social activities
N
291
228
13.53*** 1.29 228
.24 .08 228
r Pearson’s correlation coefficient (small effect = .10, medium effect = .30, large effect = .50) *** p\.0001; ** p\.001; * p\.01; ? p\.05
An examination of adolescents who participated in both romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships revealed a similar pattern to what was found with girls in the betweengroup comparison. Adolescents shared more emotional activities with a romantic partner than with a non-romantic partner and were also more likely to go out in a group (social activity) with a romantic partner than with a non-romantic partner. Notably, this same pattern emerged for boys when examined within-group, in contrast to the between-group comparisons. That is, boys and girls who participated in both types of relationships behaved similarly when in a romantic versus a non-romantic relationship. Although we found significant differences between romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships, it is noteworthy that these effect sizes were generally small. Additionally, the majority of non-romantic relationships contained many emotional and social characteristics expected of a romantic sexual relationship. For example, almost half (or more) of adolescents shared each emotional, social, and physical activity with a non-romantic
123
partner. One possibility is that non-romantic sexual relationships may not be as casual as they are typically described. Another possibility is that there may be greater variability within non-romantic sexual relationships; some relationships may include ‘‘hook-ups’’ or ‘‘friends with benefits’’ (Conan, 2004; Denizet-Lewis, 2004) while others may include connections just as intimate as romantic relationships (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Taken from a gendered sexual script perspective, girls may be less likely to go out in a group with their non-romantic sexual partner as they may not feel comfortable with their peers knowing that they are having a sexual relationship outside the context of romance. Additionally, girls may perceive communicating about contraception or STIs as safer within a romantic context. Communication and shared emotional activities may be an indication of trust, intimacy, and concern for each other in the context of sexual relationships. These findings suggest that romantic relationships may contain more intimate feelings which foster more interactions between partners (Kelley,
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658
Borawski, Flocke, & Keen, 2003; Kvalem & Traeen, 2000). This perspective may also hold true for boys, given the significant findings that emerged for boys who experienced both types of relationships. As we had anticipated, boys and girls differed on a few characteristics within romantic sexual relationships; consistent with a more traditional gendered sexual script (e.g., girls were more likely to report thinking of themselves as a couple). For boys and girls in non-romantic sexual relationships, however, activities across the emotional, physical, and social dimension, were almost identical (one exception for hearing partner say ‘‘I love you’’). Perhaps these differences reflect ambiguity regarding the meaning of these relationships, a lack of clear scripts or guidance for appropriate behaviors or feelings, or the possibility of a more‘‘even playing field’’for males and females in these relationships. Given that these relationships appear to be increasingly common among adolescents, further investigation of these possible explanations is warranted. The group of adolescents who reported both romantic and non-romantic sexual relationships reported differences that depended on the relationship type in terms of the frequency of sexual intercourse and in the emotional and social dimensions (but not physical). Consistent with the perspective that nonromantic sexual relationships are more casual than romantic relationships (e.g., less intimate and having fewer sexual encounters), these may be relationships described in the popular media as hook-ups or friends-with-benefits. On the other hand, non-romantic relationships may also include relationships that are virtually indistinguishable from romantic relationships. For example, more than two-thirds of adolescents in non-romantic sexual relationships reported telling other people they were a couple and telling their partner that they loved them. Regardless, understanding these diverse relationships are relevant, given that girls in non-romantic sexual relationships communicate less about contraception or STIs and have less strong emotional bonds or supports from a partner to deal with these consequences. Our study was limited by individual-level reporting on couple-level phenomena. Others have demonstrated the utility of taking a dyadic approach when studying adolescent interpersonal relationships rather than studying relationships from an individualistic perspective (e.g., observational communication patterns) (Welsh et al., 2005). Given that relationships that are selfcategorized as non-romantic relationships may be more heterogeneous than romantic relationships, a closer examination of the context of these relationships is warranted (e.g., frequency and quality of non-sexual contact). Although subjective meanings of the romantic relationship may be an important predictor of behavior, more research is needed to examine how individual and dyadic levels interface (i.e., how partner’s characteristics may moderate the effect of an individual’s characteristics on the pattern of interaction). Previous research has theorized more on how individual’s characteristics affect relationships rather than on how relationship experiences affect individuals.
657
Additionally, we did not measure the psychological consequences of these relationships, which may be differentially experienced according to gender (e.g., Owen & Fincham, 2011a; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011). Overall, this study makes initial progress in bringing together two areas of research that have historically been treated separately: adolescent romantic relationships and adolescent sexuality and sexual risk-taking. Our analyses revealed gender differences in adolescent romantic sexual relationships and in the shared emotional activities within these relationships. Although there were some gender differences in non-romantic sexual relationships, boys and girls seem to behave more similarly within that context than in the context of romantic sex. Future research needs to address these two components of adolescents’ relationships simultaneously and focus on the meanings and implications of non-romantic sexual relationships have for adolescents. Such studies could enhance our understanding of factors that enhance healthy sexual expression in adolescence. Acknowledgments This research used data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by Grant P01-HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Anyone interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (www.cpc.unc.edu/ addhealth/contract.html). This study was supported, in part, by a William T. Grant Foundation Scholar Award to Stephen T. Russell.
References Aarons, S. J., & Jenkins, R. R. (2002). Sex, pregnancy, and contraception-related motivators and barriers among Latino and AfricanAmerican youth in Washington, DC. Sex Education, 2, 5–30. Adams, H. L., & Williams, L. R. (2011). Advice from teens to teens about dating: Implications for healthy relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 254–264. Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (1997). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: research design. Retrieved from http:// www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth. Accessed 21 Oct 2012. Bingham, C. R., & Crockett, L. J. (1996). Longitudinal adjustment patterns of boys and girls experiencing early, middle, and late sexual intercourse. Developmental Psychology, 32, 647–658. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Conan, N. (2004, June 10). Friends with benefits. Talk of the Nation, National Public Radio. Denizet-Lewis, B. (2004, May 30). Friends, friends with benefits and the benefits of the local mall. The New York Times Sunday Magazine, p. 30. Ellen, J. M., Cahn, S., Eyre, S. L., & Boyer, C. B. (1996). Types of adolescent sexual relationships and associated perceptions about condom use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 18, 417–421.
123
658 Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). ‘‘Anything from making out to having sex’’: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424. Feiring, C. (1999). Gender identity and the development of romantic relationships in adolescence. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 211–232). New York: Cambridge University Press. Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic partners, friends, friends with benefits, and casual acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 554–564. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In S. Shulman & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: Developmental perspectives (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2003). Dating and sexual relationship trajectories and adolescent functioning. Adolescent and Family Health, 3, 103–112. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267. Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2005). Female sexual subjectivity and well-being: Comparing late adolescents with different sexual experiences. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2, 25–40. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The ‘‘booty call’’: A compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460–470. Kelley, S. S., Borawski, E. A., Flocke, S. A., & Keen, K. J. (2003). The role of sequential and concurrent sexual relationships in the risk of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 296–305. Kirkman, M., Rosenthal, D., & Smith, A. M. A. (1998). Adolescent sex and the romantic narrative: Why some young heterosexuals use condoms to prevent pregnancy but not disease. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 3, 355–370. Kvalem, I. L., & Traeen, B. (2000). Self-efficacy, scripts of love and intention to use condoms among Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 337–353. Langer, L. M., Zimmerman, R. S., & Katz, J. A. (1995). Virgins’ expectations and nonvirgins’ reports: How adolescents feel about themselves. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 291–306. Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Osterman, M. J. K., Kirmeyer, S., Matthews, T. J., et al. (2011). Births: Final data for 2009. National Vital Statistics Reports, 60(1), 1–15. Moore, S. M., & Rosenthal, D. (1998). Contemporary youth’s negotiation of romance, love, sex and sexual disease. In V. C. De Munck (Ed.), Romantic love and sexual behavior: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 233–247). Westport, CT: Praeger. O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). The social and relationship contexts and cognitions associated with romantic and sexual experiences of earlyadolescent girls. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2, 13–24. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011a). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on ‘‘friends with benefits’’ relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311–320.
123
Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:649–658 Owen,J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011b). Young adults’ emotional reactionsafter hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330. Raley, R. K., Crissey, S., & Muller, C. (2007). Of sex and romance: Late adolescent relationships and young adult union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1210–1226. Russell, S. T., & Consolacion, T. B. (2003). Adolescent romance and emotional health in the U.S.: Beyond binaries. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 499–508. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53–60. Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., & Salvatore, J. E. (2011). The impact of early interpersonal experience on adult romantic relationship functioning: Recent findings from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 355–359. Smiler, A. P., Ward, M., Caruthers, A., & Merriwether, A. (2005). Pleasure, empowerment, and love: Factors associated with a positive first coitus. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2, 41–55. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. Udry, J. R. (1998). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (add health), waves I & II, 1994–1996. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Van Ryzin, M. J., Johnson, A. B., Leve, L. D., & Kim, H. K. (2011). The number of sexual partners and health-risking sexual behavior: Prediction from high school entry to high school exit. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 939–949. Vannier, S. A., & Sullivan, L. F. (2010). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archivesof Sexual Behavior,20,54–65. Weinstock, H., Berman, S., & Cates, W. (2004). Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 6–10. Welsh, D. P., Haugen, P. T., Widman, L., Darling, N., & Grello, C. M. (2005). Kissing is good: A developmental investigation of sexuality in adolescent romantic couples. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2, 32–41. Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (1999). A normative perspective of adolescent girls’ developing sexuality. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society and feminism (pp. 111–140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75–89. Williams, L. R., & Hickle, K. E. (2010). ‘‘I know what love means’’: Qualitative descriptions from Mexican American and White adolescents. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20, 581–600. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2004). A prospective study of intraindividual and peer influences on adolescents’ heterosexual romantic and sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 381–394.
