Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-017-0971-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Symbolic Nature of Trust in Heterosexual Adolescent Romantic Relationships Jerika C. Norona1 • Deborah P. Welsh1 • Spencer B. Olmstead2 • Chloe F. Bliton3
Received: 9 November 2016 / Revised: 6 February 2017 / Accepted: 25 February 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Trust contributes to young people’s capacity for sustaining current and future successful relationships. To date, research has yet to examine the meaning of trust in early dating relationships and reasons for its deterioration. The present study focused on videorecorded conversations about trust between 34 heterosexual adolescent couples in dating relationships living in the U.S. Transcripts from these conversations were qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis to identify adolescents’ meanings of trust and reasons they provided for a lack of trust in their romantic partners. All 34 couples identifiedconcernsspecificallyrelatedtoinfidelity.Sixmajorthemes fornottrustingromanticpartnersemerged.Resultssuggestedthatthe lack of trust in romantic relationships might stem from several areas that are directly and indirectly related to the current relationship, includinglowself-esteem,theexperienceofbetrayalinpastromantic relationships, partners’ extradyadic behaviors, and gossip among peers. Importantly, peers can play a defining role in influencing young people’s perceptions of their romantic partners and developing or sustaining trust in their romantic relationships. Keywords Adolescence Romantic relationships Trust Infidelity Thematic analysis
Introduction Adolescents in the U.S. generally experience their first romantic relationships by age 18 (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). Although these relationships are typically short lived (Seiffge-Krenke & Shulman, 2012), they are characterized by intimacy, commitment, and satisfaction (Collins, 2003; Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009). Findings from empirical research point to the significance of romantic relationships during adolescence, their healthy qualities, and their associations with development and mental health (Collins et al., 2009; Davila, 2008, 2011; van Dulmen, Goney, Haydon, & Collins, 2008). One important quality of romantic relationships, trust, has been empirically addressed in terms of its relationship with commitment, monogamy, and condom use among adolescents (e.g., Ewing & Bryan, 2015; MacKinnon & Boon, 2012). However, research to date has yet to examine the meanings that adolescents give to trust and what leads to its deterioration.Thus,inthecontextofconversationswiththeirromantic partners,thepurposeofthepresentstudywastounderstand(1)adolescents’meaningsoftrust and (2)reasonsthat adolescents have for mistrusting their romantic partners.
The Symbolic Nature of Trust in Relationships & Jerika C. Norona
[email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1404 Circle Drive, Austin Peay Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
2
Department of Child and Family Studies, College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA
3
Department of Psychology, College of the Liberal Arts, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Ausefullensthoughwhichtoviewtrustinromanticrelationshipsis symbolic interactionism (Burr, Leigh, Day, & Constantine, 1979; White, Klein, & Martin, 2015). This theory posits that individuals cometolearnthenorms,rules,andexpectationsattachedtospecific positions via their interactions with others (White et al., 2015). The position of interest for our study is that of a committed romantic relationshippartner.Giventhedevelopmentalstageofadolescence,girls and boys are just beginning to be socialized regarding the norms and expectationsattachedtobeingaromanticpartner.Thetheoryofsymbolicinteractionismassertsthatitisthroughtheprocessofsocialization
123
Arch Sex Behav
that individuals learn about these expectations and attach meanings to their experiences (White et al., 2015). Socialization regarding the role of a romantic partner, prior to being in a committed romantic relationship, may come from various sources, including parents, siblings, peers, and the media (Brown & Keller, 2009; Furman & Simon, 2008). As individuals begin to explore romantic experiences in adolescence, they are guided by prior socialization and continue this process through repeated interactions over time with romantic partners. One prominent expectation attached to the role of committed romantic partner is being trustworthy. Trust is an important component of relationship commitment (Campbell, Wright, & Flores, 2012) and is broken for a variety of reasons, one of which is infidelity (Williams & Hickle, 2011). A part of navigating romantic relationship experiences is coming to understand the meaning individuals attach to the word trust, which is often symbolic of the strength and nature of a romantic relationship (Rempel, Ross, & Holmes,2001).Whenromanticpartnersmaynotsharesimilarmean ings for an important relationship component such as trust, they may perceive their experiences and interactions with others in different ways, which may give rise to relationship conflict, confusion, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. For example, an adolescent romantic couple who may have limited experience in relationships may define flirting with a friend ofthe other sex as a form of cheating in different ways. That is, the flirting partner may define her or his interactions as being‘‘friendly’’while the other defines it as‘‘being unfaithful.’’The flirting romantic partner may then be perceived as having broken trust, which could potentially result in conflict in the relationship. Thus, for this study we were interested in the meanings attached to romantic relationship experiences that were identified as thosethatincludedbrokentrust.Weexpectedthesetovarygivenprevious socialization experiences romantic partners had, and in particular previous romantic partners. Trust in Adolescent Romantic Relationships Trust,animportantcomponentofintimacyinromanticrelationships, is a core quality of healthy romantic relationships (Rempel et al., 2001). Researchers have conceptualized trust as believing that another person ‘‘is intrinsically motivated to take one’s own best interests into account when acting—even when incentives might tempt him or her to do otherwise’’ (Boon, 1994; Boon & Holmes, 1991, p. 88). Relational schemas about the trustworthiness of others develop in childhood, whereby parents’ attentiveness to their children’s needs and their reliability in meeting those needs shape the way children view important others (Bowlby, 1984; Erikson, 1968). As adolescents invite romantic partners into their lives to join their family and friends as trusted individuals, this developmental stage mightbeaparticularlyvulnerableandfragiletime.Whentrustdevelopsoverthecourseofaromanticrelationship,it‘‘servesasanimplicit gauge of the partner’s commitment to the relationship’’(Wieselquist,
123
2009).Trustandcommitmenttotherelationshiparerelatedtocouple satisfaction, efforts to avoid seeking out alternative romantic partners, and investments in the present relationship (Wieselquist, 2009; Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). Indeed, to trust is to take ariskand believethat romantic partners are behaving in ways that do not cause harm to the relationship. Research on adults has shown that past experiences with romantic partners influence willingness to trust future romantic partners (Wieselquist, 2009; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Additionally, as it is impossible to know exactly what romantic partners are thinking, feeling, or what motivates them to take certain actions, having trust in others certainly involves taking a‘‘leap of faith,’’leaving open the possibility of betrayal and misperceptions (Boon, 1994). When the sense of trust in romantic partners is unstable, individuals often feel vulnerable and act to protect themselves from possible betrayal (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). This includes viewing their romantic partners in a negative light, feeling uncertain about their relationship, and lower levels of commitment (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000; Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001), whichmightcontributetothedissolutionofaromanticrelationship. Importantly, broken trust can also inspire conversations about relationship dynamics, inviting possibilities to strengthen the relationship. The Symbolic Nature of Trust For adolescents, trust seems to be implicitly linked to fidelity and commitment. Some studies suggest that trust is an important quality in a romantic relationship; specifically, the trust that their romantic partner is not having extradyadic emotional or physical relations (e.g., Laborde, vanDommelen-Gonzalez, & Minnis, 2014; Towner, Dolcini, & Harper, 2015). Additionally, adolescents report monitoring their partners’ behaviors to ensure that their partners are not having romantic or sexual relations outside of the primary relationship,andthesemonitoringbehaviorsseemtobeginassoonasofficial relationships are established (Eyre, Auerswald, Hoffman, & Millstein, 1998). More recently, focus groups of adolescents revealed youth’s fears about their partners’ possible infidelity (Williams & Hickle, 2011). Indeed, researchers noted that concerns about romantic partners’ fidelity arose naturally within focus group discussions without prompting from facilitators. Furthermore, interviews with youth about dyadic commitment revealed that monogamy is a primaryexpectationinromanticrelationships,andtotrustone’sromanticpartnermeanstobelievethatheorshewillhonortheagreementof monogamy (Bauman & Berman, 2005). This trust can be eroded if thereis suspicion ofsexual infidelity that can put romantic partnersat risk of sexually transmitted infections (Bauman & Berman, 2005). Thus, maintaining one’s commitment to the relationship by being faithful is salient in dating relationships. The importance of fidelity also extends to romantic relationships later in life (Campbell et al., 2012).
Arch Sex Behav
The Present Study Insum,oneofthesymbolicmeaningsoftrust foradolescentsimplicitlyincludesromanticpartners’fidelity.However,researchhasyetto examine adolescents’ meanings for trust directly. Thus, the present study addressed the following research question: What are adolescents’ meanings of trust in romantic relationships? Investigating this question is important for several reasons. First, as trust is tied to commitment, relationship satisfaction, and frameworks about romantic relationships (Campbell et al., 2012), identifying meanings for trust can help us deepen our knowledge about how adolescents approach romantic relationships. Second, this knowledge can also inform us about the behaviors that adolescents perceive as violations of trust, providing a window into the meanings of romantic interactions. Third, understanding meanings for trust can be helpful for relationship education programs in terms of discussing expectations for relationships, behaviors that are acceptable in relationships or those that feel like betrayal, and how romantic partners enter romantic relationships with preexisting frameworks about how relationships might work. Using symbolic interactionism to guide this investigation, we examine adolescent couples’ conversations about mistrust within their relationships.
Method Participants and Procedure The data for this project are from the Study of [Masked], an NICHD funded project. Data collection took place between 2000 and 2005. Participants were recruited from a pool of over 2000 individuals attending 17 high schools in the Southeastern U.S. who participated in a survey about dating behaviors. The selected high schools represented rural, suburban, and urban demography and were socioeconomically diverse. Individuals from the original high school sample who expressed interest in participating in future research were telephoned and provided with information about a dating relationship study. Importantly, all index participants were high school students; index participants’ romantic partners were either high school students as well, or beyond the age of high school attendance. The youngergroupincludedindexindividualsbetweentheagesof15and 16 years whose dating partners were between the ages of 14 and 17 years. The older group included index individuals between the agesof18and19 yearswhosedatingpartnerwasbetweentheagesof 17 and 21 years. Couple members who were in their romantic relationshipsforatleast1 monthweremailedconsentformsoutliningthe procedure and were contacted the following week regarding participation. For those under the age of 18, parental consent was obtained in addition to the adolescent’s assent. The subsample from which participants were drawn for the current study included 211 adolescentsandtheirromanticpartners(422participantstotal).Eachparticipantwaspaid$30fortheirparticipation.Demographicsofthislarger sample are shown in Table 1. At the time of data collection, cou-
ples had been dating for amedian of 31.5 weeks (*8 months)with a range of 4–260 weeks (*5 years). Although both heterosexual and sexual minority couples were eligible to participate in the study, all couples who participated were heterosexual couples. Measures Video-Recorded Interaction Task Couples initially completed a Couples Issues Checklist (Welsh, Grello, Dickson, & Harper, 2001), which included 21 common issues of disagreement between couple members as well as an option to write issues not on the list. The measure was modified for our project from the Partners’ Issues Checklist (Capaldi & Wilson, 1992) to improve clarity and to include regionally relevant issues. This checklist has been widely used by family and developmental psychologists to observe young dating couples’ interactions (e.g., Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003; Laurent, Kim, & Capaldi, 2009; Rueda, Lindsay, & Williams, 2015). Examples included‘‘We never have enough money or time to do fun things on dates’’and‘‘Sometimes I wish my partner and I could spend more time talking together.’’Participants were made aware that they would be discussing their selected issues in a subsequent video-recorded interaction task. Couples then participated in a video-recorded interaction session (Welsh & Dickson,2005)thatwasrecordedinauniversitylaboratory.Specifically, participants engaged in conversations about their selected issues of disagreement (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). First, the couple memberswereaskedtoplanapartyfor5 min.Theywereinstructed to discuss the location of the party, the type of food and beverages served, the activities planned, the guest list, and whether adults wouldbepresentorawareoftheparty.Weselectedthisfirstconversation as a warm-up task to allow the couple to become more comfortable with the setting. In the second and third conversations (8 min and 40 s for each of the two conversations per the VideoRecall Procedure; Welsh & Dickson, 2005), couples discussed issues of disagreement previously selected independently by each partner from the couple’s issues checklist. The second and third conversations were counterbalanced for whether the couple discussed the male or female partner’s issue. For each conversation, a computer program provided partners with automated instructions regarding the order in which each romanticpartner’sissuewastobediscussedandthelengthoftimefor eachconversation.Whenpartnerswerefinishedaddressingeitherthe female’s or male’s issue and still had time remaining, they were instructed to move on to the other partner’s next issue. If partners indicated the same primary issue, the couple discussed the other part ner’s secondary issue in the latter conversation (e.g., if both partners picked‘‘We never have enough money or time to do fun things on dates’’ as their first issue, and it was the boyfriend’s turn to discuss his issue in the second conversation, the girlfriend’s second issue would then be discussed in the third conversation).
123
Arch Sex Behav
Of particular interest for this study were conversations in which the primary issue addressed was trust; specifically, when at least one partner selected the issue ‘‘Sometimes my partner doesn’t seem to trust me enough or sometimes I do not trust my partner enough.’’ Conversationswereselectedif(a)trustwastheprimaryissueselected by the partner whose issue was discussed first or (b) trust was the secondary issue selected by the partner whose issue was discussed first (because some couple members chose the same issue, primary issueswerealreadydiscussedintheinitialconversation).Fromthe41 possible conversations about trust, five recordings were inaudible and two conversations were excluded because couple members did notendupdiscussingtrustatallintheirconversations.Thus,atotalof 34 conversations included a discussion about trust in the romantic relationship and were analyzed in the present study. A similar number of girls and boys (19 and 17, respectively) indicatedtrustastheirdesiredissuetodiscuss.Eighteenyoungeradolescents identified trust as a primary or secondary issue, whereas 16 older adolescents identified trust as a primary or secondary issue. Elevenboys indicated not trusting theirgirlfriends only, 14 girlsindicated not trusting their boyfriends only, and there were nine couples inwhichboyfriendsandgirlfriendsreportednottrustingoneanother.
reflected the emergent topics throughout the transcripts through conversations among the coding team about commonalities. In the fifth and final phase of coding, defining and naming themes, the coding team systematically identified and defined themes and created a coding manual that articulated the theme name, definitions, examples, and coding instructions. The establishment of reliability is recommended during collaborativecodingtoprovidesupportforthecoders’achievementofsimilarunderstandingsbasedonthecodingmanualandtoensurethatthe coding manual is a dependable representation of the data (Saldan˜a, 2013).Thus,thefirstauthorandanadvancedundergraduateresearch assistant, who was separate from the original coding team, independently double-coded a random set of 30% of the conversations (n = 11) to establish reliability for the coding manual, which was acceptable (j = 0.80). Discrepancies in coding were discussed, and codes granted and/or theme definitions were revised accordingly to establish the final coding manual, which is available from the first author.Theundergraduateresearchassistant(whowasseparatefrom the original coding team) then coded the remainder of the conversations.
Analytic Strategy
Results
Responses were examined using an inductive approach called thematicanalysis(Braun&Clarke,2006).Specifically,categoriesinthe coding system were generated from participants’ responses, as opposed to a top-down approach whereby theory and/or past studies guided the creation of coding categories. We approached the data from an essentialist epistemological perspective; this perspective assumes that participants’ given narrative responses reflect their internal experiences about trust (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As developmental researchers have yet to understand the factors that contribute to adolescents’ doubt in their romantic partners and relationships, qualitative methods and analyses helped to frame this investigation. Phases one through five of coding included advanced undergraduate research assistants and the first author. In the first phase of thematic analysis, conversations were transcribed by an advanced undergraduate research assistant and subsequently inspected by the first author. In the first phase of formal coding of familiarizing yourself with your data (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the coding team, which consisted of one graduate student (the first author) and two advanced undergraduate psychology students, carefully and thoroughly read through each conversation several times to familiarize themselves with the data. In the second phase, generating initial codes, each member of the coding team independently reviewed each conversation for initial codes, and excerpts for these initial codes were collected. In the third phase of coding, searching for themes, the initial codes were systematically organized into themes and example excerpts that applied to these themes were collated. In the fourth phase of coding, reviewing themes, the themes were examined on a broader level to determine if they appropriately
In the following section, we describe the six situations in which participantsreportednottrustingtheirromanticpartners.Thereasons for not trusting romantic partners shed light on the meanings that adolescents ascribed to trust within these interactions. To help facilitate the identification of each couple member, we use the term ‘‘mistrustful partner’’to indicate the partner who doubted or did not trust their partner in specific situations. Prior to discussing the main findings, we discuss an interesting post hoc finding that emerged. All 34 couples conceptualized trust as the agreement of exclusivity or monogamy within the romantic rela-
123
Table 1 Demographics characteristics of sample Variable
Sample distribution (%)
Gender Male
50
Female Race
50
European American
91.2
African American
6.0
Asian
1.3
Hispanic
0.8
Native American
0.3
Other
0.5
Neighborhoods of residence Suburban
47.4
Rural
30.9
Urban
21.7
Arch Sex Behav
tionship. Although the issue topic was left vague and allowed couple members to interpret the word‘‘trust’’as they pleased, all 34 couples’ conversations were about whether they could trust one another to honor their exclusive commitment and not participate in infidelity. Rather than conceptualizing trust as the belief that a person will meet his or her needs (Erikson, 1968) as in parent–child relationships or that a person will keep his or her secrets as in peer relationships or friendships, trust was discussed in terms of whether or not they believed their partner would‘‘cheat.’’This post hoc finding suggests thattrustinheterosexualromanticrelationships,withinthissample,is perhaps distinct from trust in other relationships. This finding is consistentwithpreviousresearchthatsuggeststhatapartner’sfidelityisa common concern for those in dating relationships (Lenoir, Adler, Borzekowski, Tschann, & Ellen, 2006; Williams & Hickle, 2011), particularly as it relates to the risk of sexually transmitted infections (Lenoir et al., 2006). Reasons for Mistrusting One’s Romantic Partner Analysis of the 34 conversations unearthed six main reasons for participants’ mistrust for their romantic partners: (a) the mistrustful partner is influenced by friends’ opinions and gossip (n = 25); (b) the mistrustful partner is wary of others’ influence on the boyfriend or girlfriend (n = 10); (c) the mistrustful partner feels inadequate about himself or herself (n = 8);1 (d) the mistrustful partner experienced betrayal in past relationships (n = 4); (e) the mistrustful partner’s boyfriend or girlfriend tells ‘‘little lies’’ or omits parts of the truth (n = 3);(f)themistrustfulpartner’sboyfriendorgirlfriendengagesin or has engaged in romantic behaviors with an extradyadic partner (n = 3). Each theme is described below and is accompanied by example excerpts from couple members’ conversations. Names have been changedtoprotectparticipants’identities.Themesandtheirdefinitions are shown in Table2. Friends’ Opinions and Gossip Many mistrustful partners also described being influenced by their peers’gossip,storiesaboutaboyfriend’sorgirlfriend’sinfidelity,and negative opinions about who they were dating. In many cases, the boyfriend or girlfriend did not commit acts of betrayal, but peers’ stories and rumors about infidelity still spread. For example, in the following excerpt, Quinn (18 years old) described how his peers mightmisinterprethisactionsandintentionsandspreadrumorstohis mistrustful girlfriend, Rae (20 years old), about his interactions with others:: Quinn: I—I’ve just had to learn how to, to not just look at what I was doing through my eyes. I had to look through their eyes and see what they were thinking, you know, what my
1
Multiple themes could be referenced in a single conversation; thus, the frequencies presented in this section will total a number greater than 34 because frequency of each referenced theme is taken into account.
intentions were. And if they—and even if they were just only friendly or whatever and they thought it as a different aspect. If they did, if your friends did, then your friends would run and tell you. So then I’d get—by the time, you know– Rae: Mhm. Q: I said hi to a girl and another girl said—you know, I said hi with a wink or something. By the time, by the time it got back to you. You know, I later [invite her to sit on my lap] and I was kissing her kind of deal so… R: Mhm. Q: Like for example, back in eighth grade I was in math class and I was sitting doing my work peacefully and I needed a calculator. And I reached behind a girl to grab a calculator and as I did someone from another room or something saw me reach for that calculator and that girl that was sitting right there– R: It looked like you had your arm around her. Q: It looked like I had my arm around her. And, um, and ran off and told you about that. You were really upset. R: You didn’t tell me you were reaching for a calculator. Q: I did too. I was talking to Nick Johnson. R: No. Q: Yeah. I um, um, I said I was reaching for a calculator. I was—Nick wanted to give me a, I don’t know, a handshake or something, I don’t know. R: Yeah. Q: For some reason I was doing something with Nick and, um, I just reached around Samantha to do it and you heard about and you were mad. R: Emily. Emily seen it. Q: You were so mad. R: Yes. ‘Cause she came up to me and she’s like going on, ‘‘Got his arm around Samantha.’’ Quinn began by describing awareness about how classmates and other peers might wrongly interpret his behaviors with other girls and spread false information to Rae. In the first example he provided, he described how the behavior of saying‘‘hi’’to another girl would escalate into a story about him engaging in romantic behaviors with someone else when rumors spread among peers. He then described another situation in which peers’ spread a rumorthatheputhisarmaroundanothergirlduringclass,whenhe reported he was reaching for a calculator. This rumor eventually reached Rae, leading her to lose trust in him. In another example, Quentin (age 14) explains to his girlfriend Rachel (age 14) how a peer’s gossip sometimes leaves him suspicious about Rachel’s interactions with other boys: Rachel: How do I flirt with him? Quentin: I don’t know. Daniel told me. I wasn’t even paying any attention. R: What’d he say? Q: He goes, ‘‘Check out your woman over there.’’
123
Arch Sex Behav Table 2 Descriptions and examples of adolescents’ reasons for mistrusting their romantic partners Theme
Definition
Feeling inadequate about himself or herself
The mistrustful partner reports not feeling‘‘great’’about oneself or comments on feeling insecure or inadequate as a romantic partner. A common concern involves his or her partner finding a‘‘better’’boyfriend or girlfriend
Betrayal in past relationships
The mistrustful partner is skeptical about his or her current boyfriend/girlfriend and/or their romantic relationship because they were lied to or treated poorly in previous relationships. The violation of trust that occurred previously is carried over into the current relationship
Boyfriend or girlfriend tells‘‘little lies’’or omits parts of the The mistrustful partner’s boyfriend or girlfriend has a history of telling lies or omitting truth parts of the truth. Content of lies might include who the partner spent time with, who the partner spoke to, or how the partner feels. Can also manifest as not answering one’s phone or returning one’s calls Boyfriend or girlfriend engages or has engaged in romantic The mistrustful partner’s boyfriend or girlfriend engages in romantic behaviors with an behaviors with an extradyadic partner extradyadic partner. These transgressions could take the form of sitting on someone’s lap or kissing another person, or general interactions with members of the other gender Weary of others’ influence on the boyfriend of girlfriend
The mistrustful partner does not trust his or her boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s relationship with an individual of the other gender. The partner asserts that he or she trusts his/her boyfriend/girlfriend, but does not trust the actions of the other-gender friend. This can also involve the mistrustful partner expressing suspiciousness of boyfriend’s/ girlfriend’s group of friends; expresses worry that these friends are a‘‘bad influence’’on the boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s behavior
Influenced by friends’ opinions and gossip
Involves distrust in a relationship due to peer influence, gossip, and escalating stories. One partner does not always commit an act that breaks trust, but the story of potential infidelity told by peers influences the other partner’s trust
Here,RachelisinquiringaboutwhyQuentinthinksshehadflirted with a male classmate. He goes on to say that he is not the one who observed their interaction directly; rather, their friend Daniel witnessed the event and then said‘‘Check out your woman over there,’’ leading Quentin to lose some doubt in Rachel.
Wary of Others’ Influence In this theme, the mistrustful partner does not trust his or her boyfriend’sorgirlfriend’srelationshipwithanindividualoftheothersex. Typically, the mistrustful partner asserted that he or she trusted the boyfriend or girlfriend, but did not trust the actions of the other-sex friend. For example, in the following excerpt, Kate (15 years old) asked her mistrustful boyfriend Leo (15 years old) to clarify his concerns about her interactions with other boys: Kate: I still don’t think you trust me though, like with Josh and stuff. Leo: I do. K: I swear you look at me and Josh like we’re doing something. We’re not. L: No. I don’t trust Josh. K: Oh okay. You don’t trust everybody else but you trust me? L: I trust you. I think Josh… the jokes that he says while I’m over there. I think some of them are serious and some of them are just playing. I think he really likes you and really… he’s trying to hit on you or something when I’m not there or I’m not paying attention or something. I seriously think he is.
123
In this excerpt, Leo explained how he trusted Kate; rather, it was her friend Josh that he was wary of because of his suspected crush on Kate. This appeared to be especially troublesome for Leo,asJosh’s‘‘jokes’’andattemptsto‘‘hiton’’Kateoccurredwhen he was not present. Perhaps there was fear that Kate and Josh might engage in romantic behaviors without Leo’s knowledge. The theme wary of others’ influence also involved the mistrustful partner expressing suspiciousness of the romantic partner’s group of friends, describing them as a bad influence on the boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s behavior. In the following excerpt, Max (20 years old) asked his mistrustful girlfriend, Nina (18 years old), to explain her reasons for not trusting him: Max: But, uh, yeah why don’t you trust me? Nina: Why don’t I trust you? M: Yeah. N: It’s not really, like, a, easy question. I mean, I trust you… M: Mhm. N: …but like certain times when you’re out and doing certain things my trust goes down. M: How? N: You know, I mean, it’s like a hundred percent, you know, sometimes but then, like, when you’re at the beach or—I mean, it’s not completely that I don’t trust you. Sometimes I just don’t trustthepeoplethatyou’rewith,youknow?LikeJim,‘‘Hey,let’s go to a strip club.’’ M: Yeah that. N:‘‘Hey there’s some women walking down the road. Let’s go hoot and holler at’em.’’
Arch Sex Behav
M: ‘‘Hoot and holler and stuff.’’ N: Well, I mean, you know how Jim is. Inthisexcerpt,NinadescribedhowshetrustedMax;rather,she became wary when he spent time with Jim, who might encourage him to interact with other girls.There was concernthat exposureto ‘‘how Jim is’’ might lead Max to engage in romantic or sexual behaviors with others. Feeling Inadequate About Oneself Some mistrustful partners described lacking self-confidence, which leads to doubt about their romantic partners. The mistrustful partner might report not feeling‘‘great,’’or comment on feeling insecure or inadequate as a romantic partner. Often, the mistrustful partner acknowledges that his or her boyfriend or girlfriend does not act in ways that warrant this mistrust; rather, it is the mistrustful partner’s owninsecuritiesthatleadtothedeteriorationoftrust.Forexample,in the following excerpt, the mistrustful partner, Andrea (15 years old), described her specific worries to her boyfriend, Billy (16 years old). Andrea attributes Billy’s doubt as stemming from his‘‘insecurities’’: Andrea: I think sometimes your insecurities come into play. Billy: What do you mean? A: I don’t know like…you always say stuff about, you know, stuff that you say sometimes how,‘‘Oh you don’t love me’’or something like that, you know. B: Yeah. A: And you’re mainly just playing but like, I think you know some things that you say. You just want to be reassured. Betrayals in Past Relationships Some mistrustful partners described being skeptical about their romantic partners because they were lied to or treated poorly in previous relationships. This skepticism was then carried over to the present relationship, regardless of whether the present boyfriendorgirlfriendactedinwaysto betraythemistrustfulpartner’s trust. In the following excerpt, Cathy (17years old) asked her mistrustful boyfriend David (18 years old) about why he does not trust her, and he described his experiences from his past relationships: Cathy: Why don’t you trust me, sweetie? David: [silence] C: Tell me the truth. D: I don’t know. It’s just… C: What makes you not trust me when you know I– D: I guess it’s the way all the relationships before you and everything and the way I’ve got treated and shit. I just take it out on you and just think you’re going to do the same thing. C: Don’t cuss. D: That’s the only reason, I guess. I’m just afraid if you get out there and then you find another guy or something and something’s gonna happen.
In this excerpt, David described how his past romantic partners betrayed his trust, possibly by‘‘finding [other] guy[s].’’David also explicitly stated how this fear in his past relationship has followed him to his present relationship, even if there were no reasons directly related to Cathy that led to his doubts about her. Telling ‘‘Little Lies’’ or Omitting Parts of the Truth In this theme, the mistrustful partner described his or her partner as having a history of telling lies, which contributed to the breakdown oftrust. The lies were generally about interactions with membersof the other sex, but could include one’s lies about one’s whereabouts. In the following excerpt, Ellen (15 years old) expressed not trusting her boyfriend Finn (17 years old) because of his history of lying: Ellen: I don’t trust you. Finn: Why? E: Because you lie to me. F: I don’t—I only lied to you a couple times. Not big lies. E: And how many little lies? F: I don’t know. I don’t count. E: See? Lies are lies. Not surprisingly, Finn’s history of telling these‘‘little lies’’led Ellen to lose trust in him. Later in the conversation, Ellen elaborated on this reason for not trusting Finn, explaining that telling ‘‘little lies’’lead her to worry about him telling‘‘big[ger] lies’’: Ellen: Well, if you make little lies to me I know you’re gonna lie to me big about something. Finn: I told you I was sorry. Sorry’s good enough. E: No, it’s not good enough. F: Why don’t you think it’s good enough? E: Because I don’t want [lies], I want you to tell me the truth. This theme also involved a history of omitting parts of the truth and the subsequent loss of trust in a boyfriend or girlfriend. For example, in the following excerpt, the mistrustful partner, Evan (17 years old), described how Faye’s (17 years old) omission of the truth also affected his ability to trust her: Evan: It’s hard to trust you. I mean, you lied to me before. You know. Faye: [smiles] E: Why areyousmiling?It’s…Imean, you liedto mebefore so,I mean, what’sto sayyou’renot going todoitagain? Ihavetotrust you. I can’t exactly have a lie detector test and give it to you. I mean, people pass those all the time, which, you know, even if I had one I wouldn’t give it to you, it’s kind of stupid but, I don’t know it’s just sometimes I don’t think you’re being totally honest,youknow?Imean,like,youtellmealltheseguyscallyou ‘‘Hey, what’s up? You wanna go do something? Duh duh duh duh whatever.’’I mean, you never tell me about that before. It’s like when you want me to know something you let me know and when you don’t want me to know something you just keep it.
123
Arch Sex Behav
Evan gave an example of a time that Faye was not‘‘being totally honest,’’particularly about her interactions with other boys. It appeared that this emerging pattern of Faye‘‘keeping’’information eroded his confidence that she would be forthcoming about future interactions with boys. Romantic Behaviors with Extradyadic Partners Many mistrustful partners described losing trust in their girlfriend or boyfriend because they engaged in extradyadic intimacy. These transgressions could take the form of flirting, hugging, or kissing someone outside of the primary romantic relationship. For example,inthefollowingexcerpt,themistrustfulpartner,Grant(15 years old), explained why hedidnot trust hisgirlfriend,Heather(15 years old): Grant: Let’s see. You flirt way too much. Heather: That’s my nature. G: So? Shouldn’t really flirt when you have a boyfriend. H: So, you didn’t trust me? G: Yeah. And, uh. When you went to the party after prom without me and ended up kissing people. In this excerpt, Grant told Heather that he does not trust her because she‘‘flirt[s] way too much’’with other people, even though they were in an exclusive romantic relationship with one another. Grant also described an event during which Heather kissed other people, which is another example of a relational transgression that contributed to Grant’s loss of trust in Heather.
Discussion As demonstrated by the array of themes, adolescents’ trust in their romanticpartnerscanbeeroded by a varietyofsituations and actions related to themselves, their current romantic partner and/or romantic relationship, and their peers. Many individuals perceived their own mistrust as stemming from their partners’ actions. For example, whenthemistrustfulpartner’sboyfriendorgirlfriendtells‘‘littlelies,’’ omits parts of the truth, or engages in romantic behaviors with an extradyadicpartner,thiscanleadthemistrustfulpartnertobewaryof their partner’s ability to remain faithful. It is important to note that these partner-driven factors interact with the mistrustful partner’s characteristics and perceptions, and that partners’ behaviors are only apieceofthelargerpuzzleofthevariouscontributionstoperceptions of trust. Importantly, symbolic interactionism helps investigate the subjective meanings that individuals attach to various interactions and experiences. Thus, these meanings in addition to what might be occurring objectively should be considered in order to understand trust within adolescent romantic relationships. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that individuals’ reasons for mistrusting their romantic partners were also indirectly related to theircurrentromanticrelationships.Specifically,mistrustfulpartners mentioned being wary of others’ influence on their boyfriend or
123
girlfriend to engage in infidelity and being influenced by friends’ opinions and gossip to doubt their partners. Consistent with research that examined infidelity from a developmental perspective, our findings lend support to the idea that peers play a unique role in romantic relationships,evenwiththeirrelativelydistantrole.Researchers(e.g., Williams & Hickle, 2011) found that adolescents were particularly impressionable with the rumors and potentially false information about their partners‘‘cheating’’on them, which can lead to doubting their boyfriends or girlfriends. Young people are more heavily influenced by their peers than their parents (Bukowski, Buhrmester, & Underwood, 2011) and turn to both friends and family members for support and security (Bukowski et al., 2011; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Additionally, they often turn to their friends to understand their sense of self (Sullivan, 1953), their emotional functioning (Larson & Richards, 1991), and their general adjustment (Bukowski etal.,2011).Asyoungcouples’sharedactivitiesoftenincludespending time in groups (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009), their romantic lives are more closely interwoven with their larger social lives, whereas adults’ romantic lives can be kept more separate. As young people head into a unique, exciting, and sometimes stressful time in their lives, it follows that they also turn to their friends to understand their relationships as well as their romantic partners’ commitment to their relationship. Adolescents may experience pressure from their peers to be cautious about their boyfriend or girlfriend, or to end the relationship, as well as the competing desire to maintain the relationship. Incontrast,adults’romanticrelationshipsarerelativelyprivate,especially as romantic partners become more important in their lives compared to peers (Arnett, 2015). Inasimilarwaythatpeerscaninfluenceone’sperceptionsoftheir romantic partner, our results suggest that adolescents are concerned that peers can also influence their boyfriend or girlfriend to engage in infidelity. As young people struggle to find a balance between intimacyandidentity,aswellasintimacywiththeirfriendsandwiththeir romantic partners, the peer pressure to be concerned about infidelity adds another demand on adolescents’ already daunting tasks. This awarenessofpeerpressure’sinfluenceontheseperceptionsisrelated to the erosion of trust within the relationship. Whereas relationship dissolution for older individuals (for a review, see Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010) is associated with dyadic factors (e.g., communication, commitment, satisfaction) and environmental factors (e.g., friends’ support for the relationship, intersection of partners’ socialnetworks),friends’gossipandrumorsandtheirlinktothedeterioration of intimacy might be a unique quality that is important to consider in the development of adolescents’ romantic relationships. Thus, these results suggest that adolescents’ microsystems that include romantic partners and peers might be particularly important in shaping adolescents’ trust in their romantic partners during this developmental period. Reexamining our findings from symbolic interactionism (Burr et al., 1979), mistrust and infidelity appear to be linked in adolescent romantic relationships. Conversations demonstrated that adolescent couple members do not always share similar meanings for trust, and thus, some couple members are left perceiving extradyadic
Arch Sex Behav
interactions with the other sex as a breach of that trust. It appears that the meanings attached to trust in adolescent romantic relationships include fidelity and limited interactions with the other sex. Thus, when romantic partners are observed to be in such interactions, it is interpreted within the lens of infidelity. Relatedly, couple members with different understandings about monogamy in romantic relationships tend to experience more distress than those who have similar understandings (Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007). Thus, these various meanings that adolescents attach to these romantic experiences can potentially lead to conflict, as well as the opportunitytoengageinconversationstounderstandandrepairtrustwithin the relationship. Implications Although couplemembers were allowed to interpret the word‘‘trust’’ as they pleased, all 34 couples’ conversations were about whether they could trust one another to honor their exclusive commitment as romantic partners. Only 20% of couples chose trust as a primary issue; however, it was the third most frequently chosen issue. It appears that when trust is a concern for adolescents, this concern is specificallyrelatedtowhetheraromanticpartnerwillremainmonogamous. Drawing from symbolicinteractionism, resultssuggest that a variety of individual and relational factors, as well as a romantic partner’s contact with potential extradyadic partners, tie together the concepts of trust and infidelity. Researchers and clinicians who work with adolescents, as well as parents of adolescents, should consider the importance of this topic in young peoples’ lives and directly address the ways fidelity concerns affect their individual and relational development. For example, communication that involves activelistening,validation,honesty,andconsistencyhasbeenshown to promote trust in relationships (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 2009). Learning such skills can aid young couples in the development of healthy communication as they establish or reestablish trust. Given the relationship between peer pressure and an individual’s choice to betray and/or lose trust in a romantic partner, as well as the links between infidelity, relationship dissolution, and depressive symptoms (Welsh, Grello, & Harper,2003), it is essential for adolescents to learn how to cope with peers’ potential negative influence in this area. Currently, relationship education programs (for a review, see Karney, Beckett, Collins, & Shaw, 2007) involve an extensive focus on teaching young people how to communicate with their romantic partners, regulate their emotions during arguments, and negotiate safe sex practices. Given the common concern that adolescents have about fidelity in their romantic relationships, as well as their recognition that peers play an important role in shaping behaviors (Brown, 1999), young people would benefit from programs that alsodiscussthepotentialinfluenceofpeerpressureandgossipasthey relate to their romantic and sexual experiences. Additionally, professionals might also teach youth who experienced infidelity that, although re-experiencing this betrayal in another relationship is within the realm of possibilities, it is not guaranteed that it will occur
in future romantic relationships. Importantly, relationship education programs might help adolescents recognize the deterioration of trust and subsequently emotion regulation and communication strategies to repair intimacy within the relationship. To our knowledge, only one relationship education program (Davila & Lashman, 2016) incorporates emotion regulation strategies as they teach young people to view some conflictual experiences as opportunities to grow rather than signs that the relationship is not working. It will be important for professionals who work with adolescents to emphasize that conflict stemming from mistrust can provide young people with the opportunity to work through intimacy difficulties and reestablish trust. Regardingthemanysourcesofmistrustinromanticpartners,professionalscouldalsoutilizetheseresultsbyhelpingadolescentsfoster healthy schemas of romantic relationships. Specifically, for those who are mistrustful because of experiences with past romantic partners or because of peers’ gossip, clinicians should help adolescents become aware of the ways their past experiences influence their current ideas about romantic relationships. This awareness would help adolescents achieve a balance of caution and openness to trusting romantic partners. It is possible that the caution with which adolescents approach their romantic relationships might help elicit direct conversations about trust and fidelity in the context of sexual intimacy during this developmental stage. As previous research indicates that trust is linked with sexual behaviors (Fortenberry, Tu, Harezlak, Katz, & Orr,2002;Kirkman,Rosenthal,&Smith,2007;Moore&Rosenthal, 1998), communicating about trust and expectations for interactions with members of the other sex might be fruitful opportunities for young people to develop a framework for relationship expectations. As symbolic interactionism proposes, and as demonstrated by the excerpts presented in this study, adolescents can carry various meanings about romantic interactions and how that aligns with their definitions of trust. Direct conversations about these meanings can help young couples build their communication skills around sexual intimacy, as well come to a shared understanding about the meanings that romantic interactions carry.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research Importantly, the majority of participants in the present study identifiedasEuropeanAmericanandalsoidentifiedasheterosexual.Thus, theextenttowhichthesefindingsapplytoyouthfromdifferentracial/ ethnic backgroundsand sexual orientationshas yet to be determined. It will be important for future research to continue this line of inquiry with more diverse samples. Additionally, data collection for the present study took place between 2000 and 2005, prior to adolescents’ increasing use of other forms of technology in addition to cell phones,includingFacebook,Twitter,Instagram,Snapchat,andother social networking websites and applications. Reasons for the deterioration of trust in romantic relationships occur within the context of these social networking mediums that were not captured in the
123
Arch Sex Behav
present study. Future research should explore the role of technology in the production of mistrust, infidelity, and peer gossip that promote concerns about romantic partners’ fidelity. Researchersshouldalsoexaminetheprecursorsofthemeanings that adolescents ascribe to trust, such as individual characteristics thatcanaffectperceptionsofinteractions.Forexample,adolescents who are sensitive to rejection tend to misperceive neutral romantic interactionsasrejectingandnegative(Norona,Salvatore,Welsh,& Darling, 2014). Thus, rejection sensitivity might lead an individual to interpret his or her partner’s interaction with a member of the other sex as a threat to the primary relationship. Additionally, given the influence that peers appear to have in casting doubt about romantic partners’ fidelity, the distal factors that relate to meanings of trust are important to examine. Such investigations can complement findings from the present study in creating a more complete picture of the ways adolescents give meanings to trust in romantic relationships. Relatedly, to contribute to the literature on the continuity of attachment styles throughout the lifespan, future research can investigate the role of attachment in trusting romantic partners. As frameworks about trusting others begin in childhood (Bowlby, 1984; Erikson, 1968), early romantic relationships might be affected by childhood attachment styles. Finally, it is important to note that gender differences in understandingsoftrustshouldbeexaminedinfutureresearch.Researchon gender differences and infidelity is a much-studied topic (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001; Blow & Hartnett, 2005). According to evolutionary and cultural scripts perspectives, women may be more concerned with their partners’ commitment to the family and their ability to provide emotional and financial support (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Owen & Fincham, 2011; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011) and more focused on the romantic and emotional aspects of relationships (Giordano, Manning, Longmore, & Flannigan, 2011) compared to men. Our small sample size limited our ability to analyze gender differences in the present study; however, it will be important for future studies to examine any gender differences in the nature of trust and to explore why these differences may exist. Insummary,thepresentstudyexplorestrustinadolescentromantic relationships through the lens of symbolic interactionism. Results highlight the various meanings that adolescents attach to romantic interactions and how these meanings affect the dynamic of trust with their romantic partners. Mistrust within romantic relationships can lead to conflict in romantic relationships, which can either result in dissolution of the relationship or explicit communication about trust as it relates to sexual behaviors to foster intimacy within the relationship.
References Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
123
Atkins,D.C.,Baucom,D.H.,&Jacobson,N.S.(2001).Understandinginfidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.735. Bauman, L. J., & Berman, R. (2005). Adolescent relationships and condom use: Trust,loveandcommitment.AIDSandBehavior,9,211–222.doi:10.1007/ s10461-005-3902-2. Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 217–233. Boon, S. (1994). Dispelling doubt and uncertainty: Trust in romantic relationships.InS.Duck(Ed.),Dynamicsofrelationships:Understandingrelationship processes (Vol. 4, pp. 86–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. G. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behavior (pp. 167–182). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bowlby, J. (1984). Violence in the family as a disorder of the attachment and caregiving systems. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44, 9–27. doi:10.1007/BF01255416. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp 063oa. Brown, B. B. (1999).‘‘You’re going out with who?’’Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D., & Keller, S. N. (2009). Blame or acclaim? The role of the media as teen sexuality educators. In E. Schroeder & J. Kuriansky (Eds.), Sexuality education: Past, present, and future, Vol. 4—Emerging techniques and technologies (pp. 75–97). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Bukowski, W. M., Buhrmester, D., & Underwood, M. (2011). Peer relationships as a developmental context. In M. Underwood & L. Rosen (Eds.), Social development (pp. 153–179). New York, NY: Guilford. Burr, W. R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. II, pp. 42–111). New York, NY: Free Press. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x. Campbell, K., Wright, D. W., & Flores, C. G. (2012). Newlywed women’s maritalexpectations:Lifelongmonogamy?JournalofDivorce&Remarriage, 53, 108–125. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.651966. Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184–206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00 101.x. Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-risk young: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1–27. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0001. Capaldi, D. M., & Wilson, J. (1992). The partner’s issues checklist. Unpublished questionnaire, available from Oregon Social Learning Center, 160 E. 4th Ave., Suite 202, Eugene, OR 97401. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1301001. Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. doi:10. 1097/00001756-200011270-00046.
Arch Sex Behav Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1209–1223. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.01.006. Davila, J. (2008). Depressive symptoms and adolescent romance: Theory, research, and implications. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 26–31. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00037.x. Davila, J. (2011). Romantic relationships and mental health in emerging adulthood. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Advances in personal relationships (pp. 275–292). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Davila, J., & Lashman, L. (2016). The thinking girl’s guide to the right guy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton Company. Ewing,S.W.F.,&Bryan,A.D.(2015).Aquestionofloveandtrust?Theroleof relationship factors in adolescent sexual decision making. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 36, 628–634. doi:10.1097/ DBP.0000000000000190. Eyre, S. L., Auerswald, C., Hoffman, V., & Millstein, S. G. (1998). Fidelity management African-American adolescents’ attempts to control the sexual behavior of their partners. Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 393–406. doi:10.1177/135910539800300308. Fortenberry, J. D., Tu, W., Harezlak, J., Katz, B. P., & Orr, D. P. (2002). Condom use as a function of time in new and established adoelscent sexual relationships. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 211–213. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.2.211. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115. doi:10.2307/1130905. Furman, W., & Simon, V. (2008). Homophily in adolescent romantic realtionships. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescence (pp. 203–224). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Flanigan, C. M. (2011). Developmental shifts in the character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. Early Adulthood in a Family Context, 2, 133. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1436-0_9. Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34–48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514. 93.1.34. Karney, B. R., Beckett, M., Collins, R., & Shaw, R. (2007). Adolescent romantic relationships as precursors of healthy adult marriages: A review of theory, research, and programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Kirkman, M., Rosenthal, D., & Smith, M. A. (2007). Adolescent sex and the romantic narrative: Why some young heterosexuals use condoms to prevent pregnancy but not disease. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 3, 355–370. doi:10.1080/13548509808400610. Laborde, N. D., vanDommelen-Gonzalez, E., & Minnis, A. M. (2014). Trust—that’s a big one: Intimate partnership values among urban Latino youth. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 1009–1022. doi:10.1080/136910 58.2014.921837. Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284–300. doi:10.2307/1131003. Laurent, H. K., Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2009). Longitudinal effects of conflict behaviors on depressive symptoms in young couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 596–605. doi:10.1037/a0015893. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811. 2010.01285.x. Lenoir, C. D., Adler, N. E., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Tschann, J. M., & Ellen, J. M. (2006). What you don’t know can hurt you: Perceptions of sex-partner concurrency and partner-reported behavior. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 38, 179–185. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005. 01.012. MacKinnon, S. L., & Boon, S. D. (2012). Protect the individual or protect the relationship? A dual-focus model of indirect risk exposure, trust, and caution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 262–283. doi:10.1177/0265407511431178. McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: The communication skills book. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Moore, S., & Rosenthal, D. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior. In J. Coleman & D. Roker (Eds.), Teenage sexuality: Health, risk, and education (pp. 35–54). The Netherlands, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.478. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P. (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 423–436. doi:10.1177/0146167201274004. Norona, J. C., Salvatore, J. F., Welsh, D. P., & Darling, N. (2014). Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic interactions. JournalofAdolescence, 37, 1257–1267. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence. 2014.09.003. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hook up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9652-x. Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close relatinoships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 57–64. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57. Rueda, H. A., Lindsay, M., & Williams, L. R. (2015). ‘‘She posted it on Facebook’’: Mexican American adolescents’ experiences with technology and romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 419–445. doi:10.1177/0743558414565236. Saldan˜a, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Shulman, S. (2012). Transformation in heterosexual romantic relationships across the transition into adolescence. In B. Laursen & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 191–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Towner, S. L., Dolcini, M. M., & Harper, G. W. (2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban African American adolescents: Patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth and Society, 47, 343–373. doi:10.1177/0044118X12462591. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. doi:10.1007/s10508-0119841-2. vanDulmen,M.H.M.,Goncy,E.A.,Haydon,K.C.,&Collins,A.W.(2008). Distinctiveness of adolescent and emerging adult romantic relationship featuresinpredictingexternalizingbehaviorproblems.JournalofYouth and Adolescence, 37, 336–345. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9245-8. Welsh, D. P., & Dickson, J. W. (2005). Video-recall procedures for examining observational data and subjective understanding in family psychology. JournalofFamilyPsychology,19,62–71.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.62. Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., Dickson, J. W., & Harper, M. S. (2001). The adolescent couples’ issues checklist. Unpublished questionnaire, Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., & Harper, M. S. (2003). When love hurts: Depression and adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory,
123
Arch Sex Behav research, and practical implications (pp. 185–211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. White, J. M., Klein, D. M., & Martin, T. F. (2015). Family theories: An introduction (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Wieselquist, J. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 531–548. doi:10.1177/0265407509347931. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relatinoships. Journal
123
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966. doi:10.1037/00223514.77.5.942. Williams, L. R., & Hickle, K. E. (2011).‘‘He cheated on me, I cheated on him back’’: Mexican American and White adolescents’ perceptions of cheating in romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1005–1016. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.007.
