Millennials Experience of Romantic Relationships During the Period of Emerging Adulthood

Home , Mutual monogamy

Millennials Experience of Romantic Relationships during the period of Emerging Adulthood

in Relation to Attachment Style: A Qualitative Study

Thesis By Judith Bradley

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts In Psychology

The University of New York in Prague SUNY Empire State College 2020 Declaration.

I hereby declare that I wrote this thesis individually based on literature and resources stated in references section.

9th April 2020. Judith Bradley

Acknowledgements.

I would first like to thank my mentor Dr Ronnie Mather for his support and encouragement throughout this process. A special thank you also to Mr Vartan Agopian, for his guidance on the writing process and being a constant source of motivation from beginning to end. I would also like to extend my gratitude to everyone who participated and shared their personal experiences in such an honest way, I cannot thank you enough for having the courage to share your intimate experiences with me, this research would not have been possible without you. I am forever thankful to my parents for being there to support, guide and reassure me in reaching my academic goals.

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to examine millennials experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood in relation to attachment style.

Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with five participants including three females and two males. The questions were related to aspects of romantic relationships including conflict and satisfaction and openness towards consensual non-monogamy (CNM). Participants were assessed on the attachment style and all answers were analysed in relation to this theory. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyse the data and develop common themes in millennials experience of romantic relationships.

Results: The results showed that millennials have more liberal attitudes towards and experience of CNM than previous generations. CNM is a method by which millennials explore their sexuality and maintain their freedom. Attachment style influences romantic relationship attitudes and behaviours of this group. Secure attachment had lowest levels of conflict, highest levels of satisfaction and high levels of openness towards CNM, however unlike previous studies, dismissive-avoidant individuals were unwilling to engage in CNM because this would impact on positive views of self and cause conflict within romantic relationships. This study confirmed that individuals with anxious-preoccupied attachment have positive attitudes towards CNM and are motivated to engage in this because it fulfils their high intimacy needs. However, this can cause conflict when they feel threated of losing their partners assurance or approval.

Table of Content.

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………6 2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………...8 1.1.1. Millennials…………………………………………………………8 1.1.2. EmergingAdulthood………………………………………………10 1.1.3. AttachmentTheory……..…………………………………………12 1.1.4. Relationship conflict and satisfaction……………………………..17 1.1.5. Consensual non-monogamy...……………………………………..21 1.1.6. Importance of understanding millennials experience of romantic relationships for psychological wellbeing…………………….26 3. Methodology…………………………………………………………………..28 3.1. Aim……………………………………………………………………28 3.2. Rationale for Qualitative Research……………………………………29 3.3. Research Design………………………………………………………30 3.4. Participants……………………………………………………………30 3.5. Materials………………………………………………………………31 3.5.1. Demographic information…………………………………..31 3.6. Participant recruitment………………………………………………..31

3.7. Protection of participants……………………………………………...32

3.8. Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………32

3.9. Data Analysis………………………………………………………….34

4. Results………………………………………………………………………….35

4.1. Romantic partner conflict management and attachment style…………36

4.1.1. Secure attachment conflict management……………………36

4.1.2. Dismissive-avoidant attachment conflict management…….36

4.1.3. Fearful-avoidant attachment conflict management…………38

4.1.4. Anxious-Preoccupied attachment conflict management…….39

4.2. Attachment and openness to consensual non-monogamy…………….39

4.2.1. Secure attachment and CMN……………………………….39

4.2.2. Dismissive-avoidant attachment and CNM……………..42

4.2.3. Fearful- avoidant attachment and CNM…………………42

4.2.4. Anxious-preoccupied attachment and CNM…………….43

4.3. Attachment and relationship satisfaction and commitment……….44

4.3.1. Secure attachment, satisfaction and commitment……….44

4.3.2. Dismissive-avoidant attachment and relationship

satisfaction and commitment…………………………..45

4.3.3. Fearful-avoidant attachment and relationship

satisfaction and commitment…. ………………………46

4.3.4. Anxious-preoccupied attachment and relationship

satisfaction and commitment…………………………..47

5. Discussion……………………………………………………………..48

6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….53

6.1. Summary…………………………………………………53

6.2. 6.2. Implications and limitations…………………………53

References…………………………………………………………….55

1. Introduction

This study will focus on millennial’s experience of romantic relationships, during the period of Emerging Adulthood and how this is influenced by individual attachment style.

Attachment theory in psychology has received a great deal of attention in research over the past four decades and the literature demonstrates that an individual’s attachment style will significantly impact on their close relationships and other important areas of their life. The differing styles have implications for an individual’s experience of forming and maintaining relationships throughout their life and ultimately their psychological wellbeing.

Historically, attachment theory has been applied to infant and primary caregiver relationships, and it is believed that forming attachments in infancy sets the foundation for all future relationships. Some attachment styles are characterised as more psychologically healthy than others. For example, secure attachment is associated with many positive outcomes, including healthy brain development in terms of judgment, decision-making and reasoning, which are important skills to develop to minimise risk of psychological dysfunction throughout the life course. Furthermore, secure attachment is also linked with positive outcomes in social and emotional development in terms of developing empathy, trusting others, and emotional regulation which predicts behaviour.

In recent years, the study of attachment theory has turned its attention to attachment styles in adulthood and the impact this has on an individual’s ability to form and maintain personal and romantic relationships. This is a relatively new research area, but a substantial body of literature exists which indicates that adult attachment styles are important factors which

7 impact upon a person’s ability to form satisfying, healthy and long-lasting, intimate relationships with others. From a psychological perspective it is important to understand this complex relationship between attachment style and the behaviours associated with this as it can have a significant impact upon a person’s psychological functioning and ultimately quality of life.

This study will specifically examine individual attachment styles in relation to experience in romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood. The period of emerging adulthood has recently been identified as a new developmental stage between adolescence and reaching full adulthood. Currently, the millennial generation are in the emerging adulthood stage of their lives and for many this includes reaching many important milestones in their lives including forming romantic attachments to others. The millennial generation in many ways have created different types of romantic relationships which were perhaps not the norm in previous generations. For many young adults, romantic relationships are an integral part of their lives and therefore have the potential to impact on their psychological functioning. It is important, as future psychological practitioners, to understand the complexities of millennial’s romantic attachments in order to provide the most effective, supportive service and treatment to our clients when it is needed.

In order to understand these new emerging relationship dynamics and how this is influenced by attachment styles it is necessary to conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participants. This study will have five participants, who will be asked questions on their experience of romantic relationships in regards to three areas including; satisfaction, conflict and attitude towards consensual non-monogamy. The author will use interpretive

8 phenomenological analysis to analyse the data and develop themes which best depict the experience of millennials romantic relationships.

The findings of this study will deepen our understanding of the role of attachment styles in adult romantic relationships and highlight how romantic relationships are evolving through the generations which has implications for future therapeutic practice.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Millennials. The millennial generation are the cohort of people born during the 1980’s up to the millennial. The term millennials was first coined by Strauss & Howe (1991), and is used to refer to individuals born between 1982- 2004, who would reach adulthood around the turn of the 21st century. At present, there is no consensus for the exact dates of birth which constitute an individual as a millennial and depending on the source it can vary significantly from 1978 to 2004. The Pew Research Center (2018) has been the latest think tank to refine the birth dates for the millennial generation and has now established that anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 22 to 37 in 2018) will be considered a millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward will be part of a new generation. However, since researchers recognise that generational cut-off points are not an exact science, and considering the wealth of research that has been carried out to date using a broader age range for the millennial generation, this study will consider millennials as the last generation born in the 20th Century from 1982 up to the year 2000.

There has been an explosion of psychological and sociological research over the past decade defining some of the key characteristics of millennials. The difficult economic climate,

9 financial strain, and unemployment have caused many to become stagnant in moving onto the next phase of adulthood, which is happening much later than previous generations (Ipsos, n.d.). Millennials are better educated than any other generation, which ultimately impacts on their life expectations and shapes their openness and tolerance to wider societal issues.

Research has shown that there are a number of unique characteristics associated with the millennial generation in terms of their attitudes towards family, romantic relationships, marriage, and sex. Marriage rates of this generation are declining, e.g. in the UK 55% of adults were married in 2002 compared to 51% in 2015 (Ipsos, n.d.); similarly in the US the median age of first marriage in 2014 was 27 for women and 29 for men in comparison to

1960 when the median age was 20 for women and 23 for men (Pew Research Center, 2018).

The reasons behind this trend in millennials postponing marriage has been explained in terms of their tolerance and acceptance of premarital sex, many opting to cohabitate and marry later, a shift in attitudes towards the importance of marriage as a social institution and the lack of economic and financial stability.

On average, millennials lose their virginity aged 17, two years younger than the previous generation (Ipsos, n.d.). Current studies often contradict one another on the frequency of which millennials engage in sex in comparison to previous generations, but the data does demonstrate that while the average number of sexual partners for millennials is slightly lower than Gen X, there are more millennials that have higher numbers of sexual partners. This has been explained by an increase in dating apps, more liberal attitudes towards sex, women’s increased access to birth control, and millennials’ self-exploration with sex and sexuality. It should also be considered that millennials’ frequency of sex may be lower than previous

10 generations because they are less likely to have a long-term partner whom they would be having regular sex with. It is important to note that these are Western trends within the millennial generation and are not necessarily applicable to other cultures such as those in

Asia or Africa.

It’s clear that millennials are forging a distinct path into adulthood, not seen by previous generations. They are the most liberal in terms of politics and social issues including abortion, gay marriage, and acceptance of the LGBT community (Pew Research Centre,

2014). This will ultimately impact on their romantic relationships.

2.2. Emerging Adulthood. Emerging adulthood has been conceptualised as a new developmental period that refers to individuals between the ages of 18 and 29 and is thought to be a time of uncertainty, instability, experimentation, and possibilities (Arnett, 2015).

These years are typically a time of frequent change, characterised by identity exploration in the areas of romantic relationships, love, sex, work, and worldviews (Arnett, 2015), reaching significant developmental milestones before settling into adult roles. It is at this time that individuals establish mature relationships, namely with romantic partners, and these relationships play a central role in their lives (Allen & Land, 1999). Currently, most of the millennial generation is in the period of emerging adulthood.

In previous generations, it has been common practice for many people to experience their first committed, intimate, romantic relationship, during their adolescent years and continue this pattern into adulthood. It is these early experiences which are often considered as the learning or training needed for successful future romantic relationships, where they develop their ability to form mature intimacy with romantic partners (Allen & Land, 1999). However,

11 current empirical research shows that in western cultures, emerging adulthood is in fact characterised by relationship instabilities, moving between committed relationships and sporadic romantic encounters (Arnett, 2004; Cohen, Kasen, Chen, Hardmark, & Gordon,

2003) rather than long-term commitment to one partner. Evidence indicates that for the current cohort of emerging adults, they prefer short-term romantic and sexual encounters rather than the responsibility of a serious commitment, until they become financially stable

(Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Some scholars suggest that this change has resulted in greater sexual permissiveness and could be the result of greater sexual freedom, openness to experience, and societal tolerance of casual and premarital sex in comparison to previous generations (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). It appears that this shift in attitudes among the millennial generation is driven by a greater focus on higher education, career aspirations, more women participating in the labour market, postponement of marriage and family life, and individual desire to travel and have greater independence (Lyons, Manning, Longmore &

Giordano, 2014).

Despite the fact that increasing numbers of emerging adults are in casual or fluid romantic relationships, longitudinal studies show that for the vast majority, marriage is an important goal in their lives (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001), and that many of them will move through this unstable period to commit to a long-lasting relationship (Cohen et al., 2003). It shows perhaps, that despite changes in the formation, duration and types of romantic love of millennials, they still have basic human desires to form and maintain an attached affectional bond to a romantic partner.

2.3 Attachment Theory. Millennials may view romantic commitment very differently to previous generations, however their basic human desire to be attached to a significant other has not changed, and from a psychological point of view this is rooted in attachment theory.

Psychologist John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980, 1982) was responsible for developing the first evolutionary theory of attachment, which suggests that children come into the world biologically programmed to form attachments with others in order to survive. Attachment theory emphasizes the importance of a secure mother-infant bond for healthy development and wellbeing, essentially promoting the child’s sense of security. Bowlby’s purpose was to describe and provide a theoretical framework of how infants become emotionally attached to their primary caregivers and emotionally distressed when separated from them (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987). Bowlby formulated his theory of attachment by observing children who were separated from their primary caregiver and noticed common emotional reactions to this distress.

Attachment has four main functions: providing a sense of security, regulating affect and arousal, promoting the expression of feelings and communication, and serving as a base for exploration (Davis, 2011). Bowlby postulated that if these needs are met by the primary caregiver then the child is able to explore the surrounding environment while feeling safe and secure.

Bowlby (1994) believed that attachment is a key component of human experience “from the cradle to the grave” (p. 129) and that it is the early affectional experiences that influence emotional and physical well-being not only in childhood but over the course of adulthood as well (Sable, 2008). Several studies have shown that secure parent attachment relationships

13 are fundamental for psychological wellbeing, social competence, higher levels of social adjustment (Rice et al., 1997), higher self-esteem and self-efficacy (Arbona & Power 2003;

Huntsinger & Luecken, 2004; Thompson, 1999), higher levels of life satisfaction (Ma &

Huebner, 2008; Nickerson & Nagle, 2004), and better social skills. These attributes can be considered as essential to forming stable, long-lasting romantic relationships in adulthood.

According to Bowlby (1969, 1982) childhood experiences with caregivers will play a significant role in the formation and quality of intimate relationships with others during emerging adulthood (Guarnieri, Smorti & Tani 2014; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).

Bowlby (1973) termed ‘internal working models’ to describe individual beliefs and expectations about attached partners, which serve as a guide for engaging in future relationships with significant others (Bretherton and Munholland 1999; Mikulincer et al.

2003; Guarnieri, Smorti & Tani 2014). These working models are described by Schwartz et al., 2007 as establishing “enduring and stable templates that impact and guide later adult attachments” (p. 254). These working models continue to develop during adolescence through interaction with peers, which extend beyond the family, however, they are based on early childhood experiences, hence attachment representations formed in infancy are generalised to future adult relationships (Guarnieri, Smorti & Tani 2014).

Bowlby also discussed the role of attachment in the emotional lives of adults, where some of the most powerful of emotions are felt when a relationship is formed, maintained and/or dissolved. Bowlby highlighted the complexity of human emotions involved in falling in love, loving someone and grieving over the loss of a partner, often expressed by individuals as a reflection of their affectional bonds (Bowlby, 1980).

Ainsworth et al., (1978) further developed Bowlby’s theory through naturalistic observations of infant-caregiver interactions and identified three attachment styles, which were dependent on mother’s sensitivity and responsiveness to the infant during the first year of life. Anxious attachment is characterised by slow or inconsistent responsiveness from the caregiver, resulting in the infant being unable to rely on constant and dependable care. Avoidant attachment develops when mothers do not respond to or reject their infants’ attempts at physical closeness, which results in the infant not seeking support. Finally, a secure attachment is formed when the mother is consistent and nurturing in caring for her infant, demonstrating to the child that their needs will be met when they display specific behaviours.

Hazan and Shaver (1987) applied attachment theory to adult relationships, after having noticed similarities in the interaction between infants and caregivers and interaction of adults.

They acknowledged that while there are significant differences between these attachments, romantic love is essentially an attachment process through which affectional bonds are formed (Shaver, Hazan & Bradshaw, 1988). The function of adult attachment is to ensure the formation of reliable relationships that can be counted on for psychological and physical protection and reproductive success (Bretherton, 1985; Crowell Treboux, & Waters., 1999;

Sable, 2008). Hazan and Shaver (1987) took the three attachment styles identified by

Ainsworth et al., (1978) and ‘translated’ these to three distinct adult attachment styles

(Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Avoidant attachment, is characterized by jealousy, fear of intimacy, and experience of frequent emotional highs and lows in the relationship; anxious/ambivalent attachment is an obsessive view of love, feelings of jealousy, strong sexual attraction, and a need for constant reassurance and validation from a partner; lastly, secure attachment tends to be associated with long-lasting fulfilling relationships

15 characterized as friendly, happy, trusting, and accepting partners regardless of their faults

(Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Attachment theory in adult relationships has been the subject of endless studies since the

1980s. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) expanded on previous work to develop a new measure to test adult attachment style in relationships, defining four main types which are the most widely used today. The first is fearful-avoidant attachment, characterized by unstable behaviour or emotions, discomfort with emotional closeness and often denial or suppression of feelings, distrust of a partner and seeking less intimacy as a result of feelings of unworthiness and negative views of self. The second style is dismissive-avoidant, whereby individuals have a positive view of self and a negative view of others. This form of attachment typically has a desire for independence, appearing self-sufficient and invulnerable to feelings associated with being close to a romantic partner. Furthermore, this is characterized by defensive behaviour, with a tendency to suppress feelings and distancing from romantic partners to avoid rejection (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Butzer &

Campbell, 2008; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The third attachment style, anxious-preoccupied, is characterized by a need for high levels of intimacy, approval and responsiveness from partners to the degree that these individuals become overly dependent and ultimately blame themselves if their partner does not reciprocate their feelings. Individuals who fall under this form of attachment often feel anxious when they are separated from their partner and often display high levels of emotional expression, emotional dysregulation, and impulsive behaviour.

It is important to note that these three attachment styles to some extent all fall under the umbrella of insecure attachment, but it is the behaviour and coping mechanisms which make them distinctly different from each other. These three types of insecure attachment described hitherto are all characterized by a lack of trust and low level of relationship satisfaction, which is often related to poor psychological adjustment in individuals who have these types of attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Butzer & Campbell,

2008; Conley et al., 2013).

The final attachment style, as mentioned previously, is secure attachment. Similar to that identified by previous scholars, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) describe this style as characterized by positive views of self and the relationship, greater levels of satisfaction and adjustment, comfort expressing intimacy, but also secure in individual independence. This attachment style is positively related to general wellbeing measures (Torquati & Raffawlli,

2004) and overall life satisfaction (La Guardia Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Wei Liao,

Ku, & Shaffer, 2011).

It is important to note however that while early childhood attachment is likely to influence adult attachment, it does not automatically dictate the type of romantic attachment an individual will experience (Davies, 2011). Other factors play a significant role including a person’s level of resilience and the way in which social and environmental factors influence how individuals process their relationships and childhood experiences.

Evidence has shown that relationship quality and secure attachment bonds specifically with a partner, are key to emerging adults successfully transitioning into adult roles (O’Connor,

Allen, Bell, & Hauser1996; Arnett, 2000). Research has demonstrated therefore, that

17 balancing autonomy and dependence with significant others is an important indicator of individual wellbeing and overall life satisfaction, of which romantic relationships play a key role (Nickerson and Nagle 2005; Ma and Huebner 2008; Wei et al. 2011; Guarnieri et al.,

2014;).

2.4. Relationship Conflict and Satisfaction of Millennials. It is during emerging adulthood that intimate romantic relationships come to be one of the primary emotional sources of support and attachment in people’s lives, perhaps even superseding relationships with parents and friends in terms of importance and priority (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Meeus, Branje, van der Valk, & de Wied, 2007). It is considered a critical development task of early adulthood, learning to form, maintain and end romantic and sexual relationships with others

(Snyder, 2000), Research has shown that romantic and sexual relationships are central to the lives of emerging adults (Brown Feiring & Furman, 1999; Collins & van Dulmen, 2006) and that finding a romantic partner and developing intimate relationships is perceived by emerging adults as very important (Arnett, 2006).

Over time, romantic relationships develop increased levels of intimacy, and a deeper connection and closeness is formed in the partnership (Shulman & Scharf, 2000). But despite this, relationships can start and end repeatedly, particularly during the period of emerging adulthood. Qualitative research has evidenced that the predominant reason for couples breaking up is arguing or fighting a lot (Dailey et al., 2009; Halpern-Meekin, Manning,

Giordano, & Longmore, 2013). Furthermore, higher levels of closeness and intimacy between partners is predictive of stability in romantic relationships. On the other hand, it is associated

18 with greater emotional distress following the dissolution of the relationship (Simspon,1987;

Halpern-Meeking et al., 2013).

Satisfaction in relationships is synonymous with the terms stable, healthy, functional and non-distressed. According to the literature, it can be defined as having positive feelings about a romantic partner and the relationship overall (Rusbult, 1983). In comparison, conflict is synonymous with the terms unstable, unhealthy, dysfunctional, dissatisfied and distressed. At its most basic, conflict can be defined as “an interpersonal process that occurs whenever the actions of one person interfere with the actions of another” (Peterson, 1983, p. 365; Gunnar

& Collins, 2013). Conflict occurs when a person feels threatened by the actions of another or when their goals or beliefs are incompatible with another.

Romantic partners need to learn how to approach and resolve conflicts in their relationship in order to maintain a long-lasting commitment that is satisfying for both partners. The ways in which relationship problems are dealt with is one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of relationship satisfaction in romantic partnerships (Cramer, 2004). There are obvious signs of conflict including; repetitive fighting over the same issue or similar issues; ending an argument with no resolution or abruptly ending an argument with one or neither partners feeling like their opinion or emotions have been taken into consideration by the other. Conflict can be described as either perpetual, meaning it is ongoing over a long period of time in the relationship or solvable, meaning a resolution can be found and they tend to be less painful or intense as perpetual problems (Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Silver, 1999).

Relationships increase in stability and durability when couples can master conflict resolution skills within their relationship and strike a balance between negotiating self and partner needs. Couples who have the capability to resolve their problems strengthen their relationship, potentially turning it into one of the most important sources of support in the lives of both partners (Adams, Laursen & Wilder, 2001; Connolly & McIsaac, 2009).

Research has focused on identifying precursors for adaptive romantic relationships among emerging adults, and two strong themes have been documented. First, secure relationships with close friends during adolescence predict more positive daily emotional experiences and better conflict resolution in terms of a collaborative approach to romantic partners during emerging adulthood (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007; Dhariwal, Connolly, Paciello,

& Caprara, 2009). Secondly, experiencing a higher quality romantic relationship during mid- adolescence predicts the quality of relationships with romantic partners in emerging adulthood (Beyers & Seiffge- Krenke, 2010).

In addition to this, positive romantic experiences during adolescence predicted the quality of romantic relationships at age 20-21, more so than any other significant earlier relationship experiences with friends or parents (Madsen & Collins, 2011). These findings suggest that earlier experiences in mastering the skills to navigate conflict with significant others is beneficial for adapting to adult roles and increases the likelihood of maintaining a healthy and fulfilling romantic relationship in adulthood.

It is well documented and discussed previously that emerging adults often have fluid and unstable romantic relationships. Relationship churning has been termed to describe the

20 breakup-reconciliation pattern and sex-with-an-ex phenomenon, both of which are characteristic in young adult relationships, not surprisingly because this period of life is spent exploring individual identity and different forms of intimate relationships (Arnett, 2000;

Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). The data available on this trend shows that more than four in ten young adults have experienced a breakup-reconciliation in their present or most recent relationship (Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck & Clark, 2009; Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013).

Relationships that adhere to this churning pattern experience more minor conflicts, such as arguing, than more stable relationships (Dailey, Pfiester et al., 2009; Dailey, Rossetto,

Pfiester & Surra, 2009; Halpern- Meekin et al., 2012).

Research in this area demonstrates that on/off relationships have lower levels of satisfaction, commitment and passion, and more conflict, as well as higher rates of aggression between partners (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). This is because couples in on/off relationships often have problems with communication and are less likely to adopt relationship maintenance strategies such as being patient, understanding, cooperative and polite when discussing their issues together (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). Churning relationships however do have higher levels of some essential relationship features, including intimate self-disclosure, which deepens love and attachment between partners. This deep bond may account for the repeated pattern of separating and reuniting with each other, despite the presence of conflict. Further expanding on this point, some authors hypothesize that couples reunite because they have reached a level of comfort or familiarity with each other that they feel would be difficult to find with someone else (Dailey et al., 2009 and Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013).

Intimate partner violence (IPV), which includes verbally abusive or aggressive behaviour and physical violence, has been found to be relatively frequent in young adult relationships, with mutual violence being the most common form (Halpern- Meekin et al., 2013; Giordano et al.,

2010; Whitaker et al., 2007). It is believed that violence occurs in couples due to poorly managed conflict, and an inability to resolve issues before they escalate to IPV (Follette &

Alexander, 1992; Riggs, O’Leary & Breslin, 1990). Relationships with higher levels of jealousy, cheating and verbal conflict are more likely to experience IPV (Giordano et al.,

2010), particularly during times of stress. It is more likely to occur with couples who do not possess the necessary social and relationship skills needed to prevent conflict escalating to the point of violence (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013). This negative pattern of behaviour, and ineffective coping strategies can cause a cycle of small issues turning into big arguments, leading to verbal and physical confrontation.

2.5. Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM). The next topic is consensual non-monogamy

(CNM) which is evolving as an important research area in the study of emerging adulthood romantic relationships. Monogamy is not consistently defined in the literature, however, the most widely used definition is that provided by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC, 2009) “Mutual monogamy means that you agree to be sexually active with only one person, and that person has agreed to be sexually active only with you.” In Western culture, monogamy is considered the norm if not optimal relationship formation, and it is assumed to have always been this way, but history indicates that this is a recent phenomenon

(Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012a; Kipnis, 2004; Perel, 2006). The Old Testament in fact, condones non-monogamy, evident through the multiple wives of patriarchs Abraham and Jacob. From a biological perspective, sexual monogamy refers to having a single sex partner for one’s entire life span (Gubernick & Teferi, 2000; Kleiman, 1977; Pinkerton &

Abramson, 1993; Ryan & Jethå, 2010), meaning that individuals would stay with their first sexual partner, with no exceptions or outside experiences until their death. However, this model of behaviour is a rarity in society today,

Schmitt (2005) conducted a cross-culture study which found that men and women have not evolved solely for monogamous long-term mating; instead, non-monogamous relationship patterns are common for many people and may even be the preferred sexual strategy (Conley et al., 2013). Schmitt concluded that in many cultures, monogamy is a continuum whereby people adopt behaviours from exclusively monogamous to completely non-monogamous

(Schmitt, 2005). A recent study (Superdrug, 2018) surveyed 2000 men and women in the

United States and Europe and found that the average number of sexual partners overall is 7.2, and this number varies widely across different states. This shows that monogamy in Western cultures does not necessarily mean that a partner is and always will be one’s only sex partner.

Monogamy dominates in Western societies as the ideal form of romantic relationship, despite the high rates of infidelity and divorce, which raises questions about the universal applicability of monogamy today (Conley et al., 2013). Furthermore, there is little to no research which empirically shows whether people in modern society are psychologically or relationally advantaged by monogamy relative to other relationship styles.

Current research is showing that there are benefits to monogamy including more frequent, exciting, and meaningful sex; prevention of sexually transmitted infections; and overall better relationship quality, satisfaction, and trust, as it reduces feelings of jealousy and insecurities

(Conley et al., 2013). However, available data also shows that on average, sexual frequency

23 deceases over the course of a monogamous relationships (Beck, 1999; Clement, 2002;

Levine, 2003; Brewis & Meyer, 2005), which can ultimately put a great deal of strain and stress on couples. Furthermore, a lack of or unsatisfying sexual experiences is one of the fundamental reasons couples seek sex and relationship therapy (Frank, Anderson, & Kupfer,

1976; Hawton, 1982).

Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) is considered an alternative relationship structure, whereby individuals have an explicit agreement within their relationship to have sexual and/ or romantic relations with others. This is a term used to describe multiple relationship styles including swinging (a situation in which a couple engages in extradyadic sex, usually at parties or other social settings where both partners are in attendance; Jenks, 1998), polyamory

(having consensual loving and romantic relationships with more than one partner; Barker,

2005; Klesse, 2006), and open relationships (in which a couple pursues independent sexual relationships outside of their primary dyad (Hyde & DeLamater, 2000). Generally, CNM is defined as a committed romantic relationship whereby all partners consent to sexual and/or romantic involvement with other consenting individuals (Sizemore & Olmstead, 2017).

Conley et al., (2013) made clear the distinction between CNM and infidelity within relationships. Infidelity occurs when one or both partners break their monogamous agreement without the others consent; however, CNM is when there is a mutual agreement in which partners are encouraged or given permission to engage in alternate sexual relationships.

Although considered a taboo subject to many, studies on CNM in America have found that between 4% and 5% of people are currently involved in various forms of CNM relationships

(Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler, 2011, 2012a; Moors, Edelstein, & Conley, 2012). The

24 most recent findings from two nationally representative samples suggest that this figure is a conservative estimate, and that a more accurate approximation is that 20% of people engage in CNM relationships (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2016).

The perception that CNM relationships cause more acute feelings of jealousy is not supported by empirical data. In fact, studies have found that those who engage in this type of relationship have lower and more manageable levels of jealousy, in comparison to those in monogamous relationships (Pines & Aronson, 1981; Pines & Aronson, 1983; Jenks, 1985).

Jealousy occurs in monogamous relationships as a result of fear that one partner may engage in sex with others. It is also suggested that those individuals who prefer CNM are not typically jealous individuals.

Current research on adult attachments have focused mostly on dyadic relationships. In relation to CNM relationships, there is limited research in this area, and the few studies that do exist do not have consistent findings. For example, Allen & Baucom (2004), examined attachment style and the likelihood of engaging in extradyadic involvement (EDI) and found that styles characterized by anxiety (fearful and preoccupied) are more likely to engage in these types of relationships, due to their need for high levels of intimacy. However, Conley et al., (2012) found that anxious attached individuals are less likely to engage in or be happy in this form of romantic commitment because of their fear of losing their primary partner.

Similarly, avoidant (fearful and dismissive) individuals, who have low anxiety, tend to have lower commitment to intimate relationships, avoid having a deep involvement with others and have a desire to engage in sexual activity without the emotional investment, emphasizing

25 fun rather than intimacy (Allen & Baucom, 2004). CNM may enable these individuals to dilute emotional closeness across multiple partners, providing them with the emotional distance that makes them comfortable (Conley et al., 2012). This type of relationship provides these individuals with greater independence and freedom (Allen & Baucom, 2004).

On the other hand, avoidant individuals may struggle to manage and become unsatisfied with

CNM relationships which may be more time-consuming and challenging than they first appear (Conley et al., 2013). Taking these points into consideration, it is clear attachment style does play a role in both the desire and likelihood of having a CNM relationship, but this is not the only factor which plays a role in this new emerging relationship style.

Millennials’ ideas about relationships are changing. Unlike previous generations, who didn’t consider or have the freedom to explore all the different ways a relationship could be, millennials are more open to different forms of relationships and experiences. Millennials have more sexual freedom than previous generations. This, with the combination of delayed adulthood, means they may be more likely to endorse or engage in CNM. Conley et al.

(2013) referenced the underrepresentation of young adults in the current literature on CNM but proposed that this type of relationship structure may be attractive to this group. This is not surprising given that millennials are now in emerging adulthood, a period characterised by identity exploration in the areas of love and sex (Arnett, 2015). CNM could potentially be a platform from which millennials explore and compare different relationship formations.

Research is clear that emerging adults are endorsing and engaging in other forms of sexual and relational non-monogamy in the form of ‘hooks ups’ which are sexual relations that occur outside of a committed or romantic relationship, and are motivated by sexual

26 satisfaction (Fielder, Walsh, Carey & Carey, 2014). This can take the form of casual sex,

‘friends with benefits’, and threesomes where couples bring a third person into the relationship for the purpose of sex, either as a one-off experience or repeatedly (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013; Lyons et al., 2014). Hook ups also include infidelity in committed monogamous relationships.

The current data shows that between 54% and 67% of emerging adults engage in casual sex or other types of hook-ups (Lyons et al., 2014), and a study of monogamous relationships on college campuses found that 20% of women and 27% of men had extradyadic sexual experiences resulting in infidelity (Vail-Smith, Whetstone & Knox, 2010). Furthermore, willingness to engage in non-consensual extradyadic relationships (infidelity) or other forms of casual sex during emerging adulthood is associated with permissive attitudes towards casual sex (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). The ‘hook-up’ culture that is evident with millennials may be influencing the structure of their future relationships, suggesting there is an increase in the desire for committed relationships that allow concurrent and sexual romantic partners (Woik, 2015). Considering this shift in the how this generation of emerging adults view romantic relationships, and the uniqu%e challenges they face compared to previous generations, it is important to understand the potential impact this could have on their psychological wellbeing.

2.6. Importance of understanding millennials experience of romantic relationships for psychological wellbeing. Forming and maintaining romantic relationships is a significant developmental task in young adulthood, which can have profound consequences for future adult emotional, physical and mental wellbeing (Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002; Umberson,

Crosnoe & Reczek, 2010; Bonnie, Stroud & Breiner, 2015). There is a strong body of research demonstrating that individuals with insecure attachment to romantic partners generally have lower self-esteem and emotional wellbeing and have greater feelings of loneliness and stress (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007; Lafontaine,

Bélanger, & Gagnon, 2009; Caron, Lafontaine, Bureau, Levesque, Johnson, 2012).

Furthermore, these individuals often experience greater difficulty in conflict management and poor communication skills, resulting in greater distress and feelings of isolation within their partnership (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Caron et al., 2012), all of which could lead to mental health problems including anxiety and depression. This demonstrates that attachment styles are a key predictor of psychological wellbeing in intimate relationships.

In general, romantic relationships are considered important for individual mental health. They provide enhanced feelings of self-worth, security, fulfilment, and enhanced emotional wellbeing (Simon & Barrett, 2010). However, relationships can also have adverse effects on individuals, including self-doubt, physical and emotional distress, anxiety and can cause decreased mental health (Simon & Barrett, 2010). The negative aspects are associated more with a recent break-up or when there is conflict or low levels of satisfaction in the relationship.

Taking into consideration the extensive body of research which exists on the benefits of marriage and long-lasting unions, including reduced health risk behaviour and improved psychosocial functioning (Waite, 1995; Umberson and Montez, 2010; Bonnie et al., 2015), it is important to consider the impact of emerging adults experience of romantic relationships and the effect it may have on their psychological wellbeing. For example, delayed marriage,

28 relationship churning, hook ups, on/off relationships, CNM relationships, conflict and IPV are common practices in emerging adult relationships, however, there are potentially long- term psychological consequences associated with these types of unstable, unhealthy or emotionally erratic relationships. No such study exists on the impact of these relationships styles on the mental health of emerging adults, however, research on adolescents demonstrates that intimate relationships during this period, also characterized by instability and on/off relationships, found that they increase depression and substance abuse problems

(Joyner & Udry, 2000; Davila et al., 2004; Simon & Barrett, 2010). Individuals who experience depression during adolescence are at an increased risk of future relationship problems, meaning these early romantic experiences could be harmful to developing a stable and satisfying partnership in the transition to adulthood.

Considering that relationship churning is common among emerging adulthood relationships, and the complexity of these relationships in terms of conflict and potential verbal and physical aggression, this has serious implications for mental health practitioners working with this group to help support the development of healthy romantic relationships (Halpern-

Meekin et al., 2013). For this reason, it is important to fully understand how emerging adults perceive and experience romantic relationships in the transition to adulthood, to minimize harm and increase the mental wellbeing of these individuals.

3. Methodology

3.1. Aim. The aim of this study is to apply an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach in order to explore in-depth millennials experience of romantic relationships in relation to their attachment style, relationship satisfaction, relationship conflict and openness

29 to consensual non-monogamy. There is currently a gap in the literature and to date no such qualitative study has been conducted to understand how psychological factors influence this groups experience of romantic relationships.

3.2. Rationale for Qualitative Research. This research focuses on millennials experience of romantic relationships, and therefore a qualitative approach was chosen because this methodology can provide rich and nuance insight into the experience of participants.

Qualitative research enables new knowledge to emerge on a topic, as researchers report participants thoughts and feelings leading to greater understanding of individuals experiences

(Sutton & Austin, 2015). In psychology, qualitative research explores complex human behaviour through the “lived-experience” of participants, providing greater insight and understanding to the experience of specific groups (Price, Jhangiani & Chiang, 2014). It is the job of the researcher to make sense of the experiences of participants, to interpret the meanings people construct through their experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Biggerstaff,

2012).

In qualitative research, the researcher is not ‘neutral’ but rather they must put themselves in their participants position, in order to view the world from that individual’s perspective

(Sutton & Austin, 2015). The process of reflection is ongoing throughout the research, whereby the researcher does not deny how their own perspective or experiences may influence the process but instead articulate their subjectivities, including biases so that readers understand all aspects which influence the reporting and analysing of data. In this study, the advantage for the author is their own lived experience and ability to relate to participants because they are all from the millennial generation. The literature on the topic of

30 millennials romantic relationships provided no such qualitative research on the experience of this phenomenon and therefore a qualitative approach has been chosen for this study to complement existing quantitative data and to explore more deeply the complexities of human relationships during this period of the lifespan and the beliefs, attitudes and experiences which are influence by Western society at this time.

3.3. Research Design. This qualitative study adopted the interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach to collect and analyse the data in this study. This methodology is particularly useful for analysing the lived experiences of a small number of participants, which is applicable to the sample size of this study. The purpose of this research design is not to quantify participants experiences but rather to study in-depth how they make sense of their personal and social experiences and provide a detailed interpretation so that it may be fully understood. As a qualitative research measure, IPA is ideal for describing, exploring, understanding and interpreting individual’s life experiences (Smith & Flower, 2009; Tuffour,

2017). The process of IPA involves active participation from the researcher, who is aiming to get an ‘insider perspective’ of participants experiences and interpret the information. It is important to note that participants may at times struggle to express their thoughts and feelings and therefore may not have complete self-disclosure so it is the role of the researcher to also make interpretations on the mental and emotional state of study respondents (Smith, Flowers

& Larkin, 2009). It has been found that IPA is particularly useful methodology for research which involves complex and emotive human experiences (Smith & Osborn, 2015).

3.4. Participants. There is a total of five participants in this study, including two males and three females. Participants are aged between twenty-one and twenty-seven years, all of which

31 are classed as being millennials, according to the defined generational data. Participants were recruited through the University of New York in Prague. All resided in Prague, Czech

Republic however they were not all natives of this country, but they were all from countries which endorse Western culture norms. Participants were either currently in or had recent experience of being in a romantic relationship. The interviews were conducted at a time that was convenient to participants and all took place in the project rooms at the University of

New York in Prague (UNYP), replicating the same environment for each participant.

3.5. Materials. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews consisting of ten open- ended questions. The questions were in English and validated by the principle researcher and their supervisor. The interviews were recorded onto one device using a voice-recorder information and then stored in a secure online server. Participants were also asked to complete a short demographic questions to capture relevant information for the purposes of the study.

3.5.1. Demographic information. A short demographic section was included in the questionnaire to collect key participant information. The demographic questions include gender, age, nationality, relationship status and length of current/ most recent romantic relationship. Confidential information, for example participant name, phone number, email or other identifiable information was not solicited.

Procedure

3.6. Participant recruitment. Participants were recruited to the study through the University of New York in Prague. Individual interviews were conducted over a three-week period in

March 2019.

3.7. Protection of participants. In accordance with the American Psychological

Association’s guidelines for the ethical treatment of human participants, participants were first informed about the goals of this research project on the experience of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. Informed consent also provided details about potential benefits and risks, the guarantee of confidentiality of interviews, and the contact information of the principle researcher and thesis supervisor. Participants were also informed of their choice to withdraw from the research at any time, for any reason, without penalties. After the participants provided their individual consent, interviews were scheduled to take place at a time that was convenient for participants. Recording of the interviews were stored on a secure online server and once the data is no longer needed it will be destroyed. Participants anonymity was always protected, the researcher assigned numbers to participants, not using their names or any other identifiable information. Participant were debriefed after the interview and reassured of the strict confidentiality measures in place.

3.8. Data Collection Procedures. The method of data collection chosen for this study was semi-structured interviews. All interviews were conducted face-to-face by the principle researcher and they were recorded using a voice recorder application on the researcher’s computer which were later transcribed for analysis purposes. Over the course of the in-depth interview, participants were asked ten open-ended questions, which were prepared ahead of time. Questions related to respondent’s experience of romantic relationships, which included committed monogamous relationships, casual dating, ‘hook-ups’ and relationships with no defined label. An example of one such question that was asked is “have you or your partner discussed/ have any desire to/ experience with, adopting any aspects of consensual non- monogamy?”

Furthermore, participants attachment style was assessed using the Experiences in Close

Relationships Revised (EC-R Questionnaire) (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), 36- item questionnaire measures individuals on two subscales of attachment: Avoidance and Anxiety.

The EC-R Avoidance subscale reflects individuals’ discomfort with closeness and intimacy and the need for independence. The Anxiety subscale reflects individuals’ fear of rejection and abandonment. Sample items include “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down” (Avoidance) and “I’m afraid I will lose my partners love” (Anxiety). Participants rated agreement with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Previous research has shown that the ECR-R has demonstrated validity, reliability, and replicability measures of both the attachment anxiety and avoidance sub-scales (e.g. Sibley & Liu, 2003), (anxiety α= 0.9281 and avoidance α=

0.9111).

The open framework of semi-structured interviews brings flexibility to the research process and enables the researcher to expand on specific topics of discussion where needed.

Interviews were not time limited, purposefully because of the sensitive and personal information that was discussed the researcher felt it would be inappropriate to rush or put unnecessary pressures on participants in order to help create a relaxed and comfortable environment. It was important for the researcher to build rapport with participants so that they felt more relaxed and comfortable discussing information relating to their intimate relationships. This approach to data collection created a two-way communication between researcher and participant and provided participants with the freedom to express their thoughts and feelings without constraint. The depth and details covered in interviews

34 increases validity of the study as meanings of behaviour are better understood without interruption from the interviewer.

3.9 Data Analysis. Data was collated and analysed following the process of interpretative phenomenological analysis. The aim of the analysis is to understand the meaning of respondents’ experiences rather than the frequency with which they occur. The researcher interpreted the data after lengthy engagement with the text by reading the transcripts repeatedly and adopting the idiographic approach of beginning with one transcript, finding specific examples of experiences and then forming more generalised examples between transcripts. IPA approach involves highlighting anything significant within the text, paraphrasing the data or making connections between participants responses. The researcher also reflected on semantics, and participants reactions or behaviours throughout the interview. The process of repeatedly reading each transcript was continued until themes emerged and the researcher was able to interpret and label them within a psychological construct. This process, known as coding, involves taking the lengthy phrases, statements or sentences and condensing them to key words or phrases which accurately depict the true meaning of participants lived experiences.

The next step was to list all the themes from each transcript and make connections between them. The researcher then listed the themes in a theoretical order, which showed the dominance of some themes which were stronger or more apparent than others. The researcher kept a catalogue of participant responses that supported each theme, which helped methodically to present the study findings. The final stage was to write up the findings, presenting the themes as a narrative account of millennials experience of romantic

35 relationships. The researcher presented their interpretation of respondents’ experiences and supported this with verbatim excerpts from participants transcripts.

4. Results

This chapter will present the results of this qualitative study on millennials experience of romantic relationships in relation to their attachment style. Participants were asked to talk openly about their relationship with their current or past romantic partner in order to discover if their attachment style influenced their relationship dynamics or behaviour towards their partner. Participants’ accounts centred around three dominant themes: attachment style in romantic relationship conflict management, attachment style and CNM, and attachment style and relationship satisfaction and commitment.

Participants had experience of many different forms of romantic relationships including traditional monogamous relationships, open relationships, polyamorous relationships and friends with benefits type of relationships. It is important to consider these dynamic relationship formations when examining the findings of this paper because they influence millennials experience of romantic relationships in Western culture.

4.1. Romantic partner conflict management and attachment style. All participants discussed some form of conflict in their relationship which they had all experienced regardless of the length of time they have been together or whether they were in a traditional monogamous relationship, or an open or long-distance relationship. The conflict varied from domestic chores to the form of communication participants adopted to express their needs to

36 their partners. Participants attachment style influenced the ways in which they managed conflict within their relationships.

4.1.1. Secure attachment conflict management. Participants with secure attachment

reported low levels of conflict, which was usually about trivial matters. These

participants took a proactive approach to managing conflict within their relationships

and voiced their concerns to their partners. Participants reported that this was an

effective way to manage conflict, which generally does not cause them a lot of stress

or anxiety. One participant explained his experience of conflict in his open

relationship was the result of long-distance but that their intimacy remain because

they both appreciate each other and respect their busy schedules.

“The only conflict is distance. We value making time together. We can’t meet

every day, because we’re both working and right now, we have our own

projects, and we understand that about each other. But after this time, we can

still talk, and I can have an intimate relationship with her. I know at the end of

the day she will choose me anyway; I know that.” (P3)

Another participant reported similar experiences of relationship conflict. He and his

partner have open communication and talk frequently, addressing any problems as

they arise rather than avoiding or ignoring their issues.

“I think it’s that we just sit down and talk about it. We don’t generally have a

lot of arguments or disagreements but when we do it tends to be about

irrelevant stupid things. In a matter of minutes then we will just sit down and

talk about it, to sort it out. We never really avoid or ignore the problem.” (P5).

4.1.2 Dismissive-avoidant attachment conflict management. One participant

described different types of conflict in her relationship which included ongoing

37 conflict related to domestic chores. Her strategy for dealing with this varied depending on her mood and if she felt she wanted to discuss it with her partner.

“Most of it is home orientated. The typical stuff like him cleaning after

himself, we’ll fight about that a lot. (P1)

Furthermore, this participant disclosed that the conflict within her relationship also involved deeper issues of the lack of emotional connection to her partner. She described the internal struggle she has with this because of her inability to disclose these concerns to her partner on the belief he won’t understand.

“There is a barrier between us where I can’t express my emotions correctly. I

think a lot in the future, if my partner is compatible...compatible for what I

want in my future family, because sometimes we don’t have the best

emotional connection. I won’t talk about it. It's the whole independence thing,

why should I explain what I’m feeling emotionally when I’ll understand

myself the best emotionally anyway?” (P1)

A running theme in this participants narrative was her desire to remain emotionally independent to a certain degree. She struggled to reconcile her need to be independent and her ability to be able to rely on her partner for emotional support, which created conflict that was not dealt with in a healthy manner. She described her love for her partner but also her belief that it is important to love yourself more because ultimately you can’t rely on others. She acknowledged that her beliefs were not consistent with maintaining a healthy relationship, as these created problems and insecurities for both partners.

““We will have bad times together, like we fight and have disagreements and

it won’t be the best or the healthiest. I am in love with him but, (long pause)

you never know what’s going to happen so you can’t be dependent on other

people because you’re on your own. I can feel myself being very distant in

some conversations. I can see that like me being so independent is what drives

the conversation. I’ll be like okay, whatever, full stop, I don’t want to talk

about this. Because, it doesn’t matter anyway. I’ll die alone anyway. I give a

front...it’s fine, you do you, because I’m better off on my own anyway. Yeah

okay sometimes, we’ll have an argument but my whole heart might not be in

the argument, or not wanting to heal whatever is going on with us.... I might

start feeling dependent if I go 100% whole heart into it, I might lose my

independence and I don’t like that. My partner he is much more dependent on

me, than I am on him, not in an obsessive way, but I don’t think I bring that to

the table, and that might be the reason for some of our arguments. (P1)

4.1.3. Fearful-avoidant attachment conflict management. One participant described multiple incidents of conflict in her relationship which she reported as all stemming from her inability to express her needs to her partner which leads to angry outburst of emotions. She needs reassurance and emotional support without having to ask for it however conflict arises from her expectations which causes arguments over what she considers insignificant matters such as domestic chores. There is high levels of emotionality attached to these outbursts as they tend to build up intensely over days not communicating needs.

“I’m not vocalising my needs, and I just want to lash out, it doesn’t come out

in the way that it should. I don’t vocalise that I need help, that I need

reassurance, so therefore he doesn’t give it to me because he needs those

words, he doesn’t read my mind. When a conflict builds up its very practical,

I don’t vocalise how disturbing or irritating it is for me. We have such a close

relationship because on the deepest level we are very very close…we clash the

most on these petty things, domestic things. every single conflict we’ve had is

literally because I didn’t vocalise what I needed. But with the deeper

underlying things the only person I would ask for help is him, he would just be

there.” (P2).

4.1.4 Anxious-Preoccupied attachment conflict management. One female

participant explained the biggest area of conflict in her relationship is a lack of

communication on an emotional level. There is often reluctance to talk intimately,

however their conversations are usually calm when they have the courage to face their

issues.

“I tend to find that most of my partners don’t really tell me how they feel, I

would have to be the one who initiates that conversation. Lack of

communication on an emotional level, I guess. Our conversations are very

calm, we’re both very honest people, but I must initiate it even if I don’t want

to, I know I have to.” (P4).

4.2. Attachment and openness to consensual non-monogamy. Participants discussed their views and experiences of CNM with some regularly engaging in these practices and others unwilling to do so.

4.2.1. Secure attachment and CMN. Participants who had secure attachment styles,

meaning they are low in both avoidance and anxiety, have had or are currently in a

CNM relationship and reported on their experiences of this, most of which were

positive.

“Open relationship is what we have discussed. We haven’t discussed a

threesome. We don’t discuss it too much but we’ve just said, you’re free to do

whatever you know, it’s your life, it’s not gonna affect me....we don’t discuss

in detail if we have had a sexual relationship with someone else because, we

understand the physical need anyway, so I think it’s just a matter of who you

come back to rather than who you’re with for the moment.” (P3)

For this participant in an open relationship, there is agreement that both partners have permission to be sexually active with other people. His ability to articulate his needs, wants and desires to his partner demonstrates that he is low in avoidance, typical of secure attachment. Both partners view it as a brief physical act which is not related to their emotional connection as both partners want to come back to each other each time and are not afraid of the consequences. This low anxiety is a key characteristic of secure attachment and it is clear that for partners to engage in CNM relationship successfully, they must not be anxious or fearful that they will lose their partner.

Another male participant with secure attachment described his experience with CNM, and articulated his desire or motivation was in part because of his discomfort with monogamous relationships.

“My first experience of CNM, was in a polygamous relationship for 2 months,

where our agreement was that even though we have a loving relationship, as

individuals we are free to do whatever else. In a polygamous relationship I

started to disagree with this type of relationship and the idea that a person can

love more than one person at a time, on a romantic level, so with my new

partner we resulted in being in an open relationship which lasted about a year.

she was okay with me wanting an open relationship but she herself didn’t act

on this. I was sleeping with people, she wasn’t. She was free to, and we were

quite clear and communicated this. I was always open and honest with her and

would tell her if I slept with someone, I would call her in the morning and tell

her about it. She wasn’t necessarily always okay with that, but she never said,

I don’t want to do this anymore. I don’t think it caused problems in the

relationship; I would say it caused her problems. And after a year together, as

our relationship developed to a certain degree, she wanted to be in a

monogamous relationship. But after six months this didn’t work for me.

Objectively I’m not 100% in favour of monogamous relationships. I have a bit

of internal conflict about whether I want a monogamous or non-monogamous

relationship. When I was in an open relationship, I knew that that’s not

necessarily something I want for the future, but I think the justification is that

right now I’m at an age where this is something I can definitely do, it’s an

experience. I still think along these lines now except, because I feel how I do

about my current partner I’m okay with monogamy right now and seeing an

extended future with her despite being too young for this, so it’s a bit of a

cognitive dissonance there” (P5).

In this instance, the participant felt secure in his attachments, to explore other sexual relationships and believed that with open and honest communication it can work. This relates to his secure attachment enabling him to be direct in his communication and not avoiding difficult conversations. This man has experienced divergent CMN relationships and monogamous relationships but still has his doubts about his ability to maintain a monogamous relationship during the period of emerging adulthood. In addition, his openness to CNM is also because of his age, a time he believes is for experimentation. This openness to experience, is core to secure attachment style and in this instance is influencing his attitude and behaviour of CMN. Furthermore, his secure attachment, enables him to be comfortable with intimacy with his partners but

42 also independence from his partners. Given the nature of CNM, it is not surprising that an individual who is secure in this regard would be able to adapt and manage the complexities involved in these types of relationships.

4.2.2. Dismissive-avoidant attachment and CNM. One participant had dismissive- avoidant attachment and had no desire to engage in CNM. This participant was not judgmental towards this practice however explicitly stated this was unacceptable behaviour in her romantic relationships.

“We have no desire to experience anything else. We don’t wanna have a third

partner, cos we are both quite traditional so if he would be interested in a third

party, for me that would be very offensive, and clearly, he’d be unsatisfied

with something AKA me! I would find that as a huge problem and I’d

probably break-up with him. If you want to be with someone else, that is

alright, that’s understandable if you’re interested in that but I wouldn’t be

around for that I wouldn’t accept that.” (P1).

4.2.3. Fearful- avoidant attachment and CNM. One participant had a fearful- avoidant attachment and spoke about the desire to adopt CNM practices with her long-term partner for the benefit of their relationship. She articulated that the physical act of her partner having sex with another women is okay but not where there are emotions involved as this would cause jealousy and insecurities to form.

“This conversation emerged from me, because I know we’ve been together a

long time, I’m his first, I know he is a man and I know there is a difference

between emotionality and sex, and I have nothing against him sleeping with

another woman, I just want him to tell me, that it was just a one night stand,

for sex. I would have a problem with emotional openness, I don’t have a

problem with the sex but the emotional aspect of him being close to another

woman would make me feel uncomfortable and jealousy could creep in. We

are indestructible and us wanting to sleep with someone else has nothing to do

with our relationship, nothing at all”

4.2.4. Anxious-preoccupied attachment and CNM. One female participant had anxious-preoccupied attachment. She is currently in an open relationship where both partners have permission to be sexually active with other people. She describes her motivation as purely sexual and enjoys the freedom to sexually experiment with other people. This participant prefers open to monogamous relationships but explains that it does sometimes cause problems with her partners.

“He doesn’t necessarily like it, even though I’m okay with it, he prefers not to,

whereas I’m allowed to have complete freedom. We have discussed it, he

describes it as allowing me to have the freedom to be happy. I do like him, for

me the other relationships that I’m seeking out is purely sexual, whereas with

him I feel more of an emotional connection. I prefer and open relationship but

I am capable of being committed and if that’s what my partner wants, I am

willing to do that. I was met with anger where my partner would say it’s not

okay for me to be with other people… the issue that does come up is the

communication….my partners don’t tell me it’s not okay to be open anymore

and when they finally do its like disaster!” (P4).

However, despite this participant’s desire for an open relationship and the ability to explore her sexuality with multiple partners, she does admit that she would prefer it if her partner did not engage in CMN activities given her possessive nature.

“I want to say that I would be okay with it if my partner also wanted to

explore outside the relationship but I noticed that I’m a very possessive person

where I prefer to have them be purely focused on me, uhmmm, I do think it's

unfair that I want people to pay attention…oh how do I word this….i want to

focus on different people, but I want them to only focus on me (laughs).” (P4)

4.3. Attachment and relationship satisfaction and commitment. Participants discussed their views on long-term commitment either to their current partner or their desires for their future romantic relationships.

4.3.1. Secure attachment, satisfaction and commitment. Two participants in this

study have a secure attachment style and both have had experience of CNM

relationships. They spoke positively of their current relationships and articulated they

are satisfied. One participant described mutual love and said he believes his partner’s

life compliments his own, because both desire to have a certain level of independence,

which is needed to sustain their long-distance situation, while also being comfortable

relying on each other for help and support in times of need.

“I guess mutual love and compassion, consensus on the important things. We

are okay with each of us having our own lives, it compliments the relationship,

but I’m also comfortable to ask her for help when I need her, and she is also

opened to asking for help.” (P5)

In addition, this participant discussed his previous experience with CNM but

disclosed his desire to have a monogamous relationship in the future due to the

positive experiences he has had with his current partner.

“I think I very much see a traditional, nuclear family in the future. I do see

being in a monogamous relationship, not necessarily with the prerequisite of

marriage, and I also see having children. Yeah with my current partner.” (P5)

Similarly, another participant, who is in an open relationship, discussed positive aspects of his relationship including both emotional and physical intimacy and having shared goals but also being independent to grow as people.

“The first word would be intimacy, shared goals, we are very independent too.

We value what we have between each other.” (P3)

This participant too desires a traditional monogamous relationship in the future but not in this period of emerging adulthood. His motivation for this is to have children and raise them in a stable relationship as opposed to an open relationship. He assumes that he and his partner will commit in the future because he would be unable to have children within an open relationship.

“In the future, eventually I would want the traditional committed relationship,

but only with age. I guess at some point I will want to have children and in

order for them to be healthy, I think we would have to have a committed

relationship, I would not be able to be as open about it if I were to have

children. At this point in time I don’t want to have children.

4.3.2. Dismissive-avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction and commitment. A female participant with dismissive-avoidant attachment described how her relationship tended to fluctuate between good and bad periods where both partners were opinionated but equally could have a lot of fun times together.

Reflecting on her relationship she was unsure if she and her partner are compatible long-term and if she wants this commitment in the future. She has a strong desire to

46 maintain her independence and considers herself self-sufficient and therefore does not require the attachment of a romantic partner. it is clear from her responses and the long pauses she takes to disclose this information that she is hesitant and unsure how to articulate her thoughts and feelings.

“Sometimes, a mood will come to me where my desire for independence can

really get the best of me, where I can go from second to second, where I can

break-up with him and I won’t care, I’m still very happy with myself, and I

don’t need that partner in the end. Uhm mm...cos I am very self-sufficient I

don’t need to be attached to others. My partner now, ...he has best satisfied my

needs better than my past relationships, ... I am in love with him but, (long

pause) but based on what I have experienced in my whole life, I know that

there can still be an opportunity, where I could maybe meet someone else in

the future, who could maybe completely change everything I think. There are

so many people in the world, so you never know. And that is why (long pause)

I am so independent, because you never know.” (P1)

4.3.3. Fearful-avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction and commitment. One female participant with fearful-avoidant attachment reported high levels of satisfaction in her long-term relationship but explained that this has taken years to get to this level and required a lot of effort by both partners willing to make the relationship work. She and her partner are committed to each other and want to have a future together. She explains this is because of their levels of trust and openness and having freedom within the relationship.

“I now trust him more than my parents, openness, communication, freedom

and security. A few years ago we were in a rout we were arguing all the time

over every little thing, and we were so frustrated because we knew we wanted

to be together so we went to a psychologist to figure it out and its slowly but

surely working out. but we’re gonna keep working on it and being open, open,

open, always, otherwise I will destroy him and he will destroy me. We push

each other, in positive ways. We are working on our deficits together. I can’t

imagine my future without him. I hate him in a moment when I can’t control

my emotions, but I just know that nobody can compare to him.” (P2)

4.3.4. Anxious-preoccupied attachment and relationship satisfaction and commitment. A female participant with this form of attachment and who is currently in a CNM relationship articulated that she finds her relationship to be fun, an adventure but one which also causes her stress at times and despite there being trust she is somewhat guarded. She enjoys the freedom of CNM and has many positive experiences of these relationships which enable her to explore her sexuality and reduces the pressure on both partners to please each other because this is possible outside of their relationship. This participant considers that in the future CNM may cause problems in terms of marriage, but she may still explore this with her partner if he is willing to engage in this. She believes that the millennial generation is open to sexual exploration which has enhanced her romantic satisfaction, albeit not in the traditional sense.

“Stressful, very fun, uhmm… this is hard…it’s definitely an adventure. We’re

very trusting, but there is hesitation. And I do like the freedom because I don’t

have to put the burden on a single person to please me. I think it’s our

generation…we’re all very open people, and into exploration, experiencing

new things which is causing us to have very open minds, uhm, and having the

experience of being with multiple people, and only one person has shown me

what I like and what I don’t like. I think it is possible for me to be exclusively

with one person, when it comes down to marriage, I probably wouldn’t bring

in another person…maybe secretively (laughs).” (P4).

5. Discussion The aim of this study was to investigate millennials experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood in relation to their attachment style. The research identified specific areas of millennials romantic relationships that are influenced by attachment style, including conflict management, CNM, and relationship satisfaction and commitment. The qualitative data provided rich information regarding these dominant themes which were highlighted in the literature as important factors of millennials experience of romantic relationships during emerging adulthood but were not before discussed in relation to attachment style.

The participants of this study are all in the period of emerging adulthood. Each one either currently has or had a romantic partner, all with differing relationship formations including long- and short-term monogamous relationships, and those practicing CNM such as polyamorous and open relationships. The research has shown that this generation of emerging adults’ experiment with their sexuality by choosing CNM relationships. They are often motivated to do so because they want to maintain their freedom or have greater levels of relationship and life satisfaction by not being confined within the constructs that are often dictated by monogamous relationships. No participants were married or have children. Some aspire to have a family in the future but expressed that they would rather wait until they are older to make such a commitment.

Millennials romantic relationship conflict centred around domestic chores, managing long- distance or open relationships and an inability for individuals to articulate their needs to their partner. Apart from open relationships, these forms of conflict are not unique to those of the millennial generation, but the strategies individuals adopted to manage conflict was influenced by attachment style. The findings of this study were supported by the literature whereby those with secure attachment reported low levels of conflict within their relationship and adopted healthy conflict management strategies (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991).

Secure partners discussed their problems openly and directly, feeling confident they could voice their concerns without fear of rejection or ridicule. With secure partners, there was a healthy balance between being intimate and relying on each other while also maintaining a level of independence, which helped to reduce the incidence of conflict, this was found in other studies also (Torquati & Raffawlli, 2004).

On the other hand, those with insecure attachments, characterised by anxiety, fear and avoidance, reported higher levels of perpetual conflict, meaning it was ongoing and unresolved in the relationship. The biggest source of conflict for these participants was difficulty expressing their needs or emotions. For one participant with dismissive-avoidant attachment, the perpetual conflict centred around her inability and reluctance to relinquish some of her independence and form a deeper emotional bond with her partner, despite loving and wanting to be committed to him. This is common for those with this form of attachment and is supported by the literature whereby these individuals have a desire for independence, appearing self-sufficient and invulnerable to feelings associated with being close to a romantic partner (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Hazan &

Shaver, 1987). This participant would often suppress feelings and distance herself from romantic partners to as a form of self-protection.

Consensual non-monogamy is considered an alternative relationship structure, whereby individuals have an explicit agreement within their relationship to have sexual and/ or romantic relations with others. CNM is when there is a mutual agreement in which partners are encouraged or given permission to engage in alternate sexual relationships (Conley et al.,

2013). Current literature indicates that emerging adults are endorsing this form of relationship, which is motivated by sexual satisfaction (Fielder, Walsh, Carey & Carey,

2014). In this study, CNM emerged as a dominant theme in millennials experience of romantic relationships. It is common practice in emerging adulthood with almost all participants engaging in or having a desire to engage in this practice, however attachment style heavily influenced the behaviours associated with CNM.

Individuals with secure attachment, meaning they have low anxiety and avoidance, spoke positively about their multiple experiences of CNM. They reported that sexual activity with others was not a concern, nor did it create fear or discomfort for them because of the deep emotional connection to their partners. They viewed extradyadic sexual activity as simply a physical act and a basic human need and want. They take a proactive approach in tackling this issue in their relationship by not avoiding talking about their desires and through constant open communication they have found that it enhances their relationship. They reported that this helps to maintain independence within their relationships, which is supported by the literature on secure attachment that individuals require high levels of intimacy but also independence (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991).

The current literature on emerging adulthood, CNM and attachment style is scarce however there is some evidence that those with avoidant attachment are more likely to engage in this relationship formation because it lessens intimacy and helps to create distance between partners, which maintains the desired independence (Conley et al., 2012). However, the findings of this study contradict the current research. A participant with dismissive-avoidant attachment was opposed to such relationships, despite her need to have a high level of independence. She reported that this would affect her self-esteem, and create a negative view of self, that would ultimately result is the dissolution of her romantic relationship. Therefore, she had no desire to engage in this relationship because positive view of self was fundamentally most important to her, and as she already maintained emotional distance in her relationship, CNM would not help her to dilute her vulnerability. This is significant because it demonstrates how individuals with dismissive-avoidant attachment also have insecurities relating to their positive views of self.

Similarly, the findings of this study contradict previous studies showing that fearful-avoidant individuals are more likely to engage in CNM because of their fear of depending on others emotionally, with CNM providing the opportunity to dilute their emotions with multiple partners. In this instance, the participant was willing to engage in CNM with her long-term partner, who she is deeply emotionally connected to, with the understanding that the motivation is purely sexual satisfaction. This is a new finding because according to attachment theory, fearful-avoidant individuals usually desire CNM in order to avoid intimacy with a partner (Allen & Baucom, 2004), however this participant desires it because she has established a comfortable level of intimacy with her partner and feels that this would be a beneficial addition to their relationship on a sexual level. She expressed that her ability

52 to separate emotional and physical acts with another person, while having a high level of intimacy with her partner, would enable her to engage in this activity.

The current literature on anxious-preoccupied attachment and CNM is inconsistent. Some sources claim these individuals are more likely to engage in these types of relationships, due to their need for high levels of intimacy (Allen & Baucom (2004), while others state that anxious attached individuals are less likely to engage in or be happy in this form of romantic commitment because of their fear of losing their primary partner (Conley et al., 2012). The findings of this study demonstrate that anxious-preoccupied individuals are open and willing to engage in CNM, and in fact prefer this to monogamous relations, however due to their anxiety and perhaps fear or possessiveness they do not wish for their partners to also have extradyadic sex. This enables them to fulfil their intimacy needs while also reducing anxiety that they will lose their partner or be abandoned. This is not surprising given this form of attachment requires high levels of reassurance and approval from partners (Hazan & Shaver,

1987). The other interesting finding, which contradicts the current research, this participant ensures her needs are being met by expressing to her partner that CNM is her preferred choice, she is not sacrificing herself as would be expected of a person who is anxious- preoccupied but rather she would only consider a monogamous relationship if she had a deep emotional connection to her partner, not because of a fear of being abandoned.

All participants expressed that CNM was nothing to be ashamed of and considered it common practice today. There was acceptance not judgement of CNM, whether participants themselves would engage in this activity, they understood the appeal and benefits of exploring sexuality, something which millennials as a cohort have greater acceptance of in comparison to previous generations.

This group of millennials had no desire to marry at this point in their lives, preferring to wait until they are older. This is not surprising considering the decline in marriage rates of this age group, with many expressing they are not ready for this type of commitment or to have a family. Furthermore, the findings show that even though there is greater acceptance of and experience of CNM, the majority would choose to have a monogamous marriage in their futures but expressed their enjoyed experimenting with multiple partners or relationships in the current period of emerging adulthood.

6. Conclusion

6.1. Summary. To summarize, the aim of this study was to examine millennials experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood in relation to attachment.

The qualitative data was rich and provided in-depth information about participants experiences of monogamy and CNM, their conflict management strategies as well as their relationship satisfaction and how their attachment style has played a role in all these aspects of their romantic life. The study has shown that some aspects of their experiences are heavily influenced by more liberal views of society than previous generations and they consider the period of emerging adulthood to be a time of exploration and experimentation of the sexuality.

6.2. Implications and limitations. This study has highlighted some common experiences which are unique to the millennial generation who are currently in the period of emerging adulthood. As the psychological literature has demonstrated, the emotional attachments formed in young adulthood are some of the most significant relationships and therefore have

54 the potential to have a psychological and emotional impact. It is important that mental health professionals have insight into the experiences of this group, and the specific challenges they face as the navigate this important developmental period, this will enable professionals to provide better care, support and treatment.

One limitation of this study was time-constraints. The author would have benefited from

conducting this study over a much longer period given the huge amount of data that was

collected. It was not possible to report on the subthemes that emerged from the data and therefore the author chose to focus on the broader themes overall. This inevitably resulted in some gaps within the research and therefore this study can only be considered as a first step in exploring millennials experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging

adulthood.

References

Allen, L. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319–

335). New York: Guilford Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Arbona, C., & Power, T. G. (2003). Parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial

behaviors among African American, European American, and Mexican American

adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 40–51. doi:10.1037/0022-

0167.50.1.40.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens

through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.55.5.469.

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the

twenties. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the

twenties (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795574.013.9

Barash, D. P., & Lipton, J. E. (2002). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in

animals and people. New York, NY: Holt Paperbacks

Beck, J. B. (1999). Hypoactive sexual desire disorder: An overview. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 63, 919-927.

Beyers, W., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson’s

theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 25(3), 387-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York:

Basic Books.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary

Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment

relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York:

Guilford Press.

Brewis, A., & Meyer, M. (2005). Marital coitus across the life course. Journal

of BiosocialScience, 37 (4), 499-518.

Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship

satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141-154.

Caron, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., Bureau, J.-F., Levesque, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2012).

Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 44(4), 245-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028013

Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences

in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150.

doi:10.1177/2167696813487181

Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Chen, H., Hartmark, C., & Gordon, K. (2003). Variations in patterns of

developmental transitions in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental

Psychology, 39, 657–669. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.657

Committee on Improving the Health, Safety, and Well-Being of Young Adults; Board on

Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; National Research Council; Bonnie RJ,

Stroud C, Breiner H, editors.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Jan 27.

Conley, T.D.,Ziegler,A.,Moors,A.C.,Matsick,J.L.,&Valentine, B.(2013b). A critical

examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141.

Connolly, J. A., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Romantic relationships in adolescence. In R. M.

Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual

influences on adolescent development (pp. 104-151). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview and the

Relationship Questionnaire: Relations to reports of mothers and partners. Personal

Relationships, 6, 1-18.

Davies, S., Katz, J., & Jackson, J. L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on

sexual andrelationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual

Behavior,28(6), 553-567.

Dhariwal, A., Connolly, J., Paciello, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Adolescent peer

relationships and emerging adult romantic styles: A longitudinal study of youth in an

Italian community. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(5), 579-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558409341080

Frank, K., & DeLamater, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries, identities, and

fluidities across relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding

non-monogamies (pp. 9–22). New York, NY: Routledge.

Frank, E., Anderson, C., & Kupfer, D. J. (1976). Profiles of couples seeking sex therapy and

marital therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 559-562

Guarnieri, S., Smorti, M., & Tani, F. (2015). Attachment relationships and life satisfaction

during emerging adulthood. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 833-847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0655-1

Gubernick, D. J., & Teferi, T. (2000). Adaptive significance of male parental care in a

monogamous mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:

Biological Sciences, 267, 147-150.

Gunnar, M. R., Collins, W. A. (2013). Development During the Transition to Adolescence:

The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Volume 21. Psychology Press

Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2013).

Relationship Churning, Physical Violence, and Verbal Abuse in Young Adult

Relationships. Journal of marriage and the family, 75(1), 2-12.

Hammarberg. K, M. Kirkman, S. de Lacey, Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them, Human Reproduction, Volume 31, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 498–

501, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334

Haupert, M., Gesselman, A., Moors, A., Fisher, H., & Garcia, J. (2016). Prevalence of

experiences with consensual non-monogamous relationships: Findings from two

national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,1 –17.

Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675

Hawton, K. (1982). Symposium on sexual dysfunction. The behavioural treatment of sexual

dysfunction. British Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 94-101.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment

Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151009

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (1991). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York:

Vintage Books

Huntsinger, E. T., & Luecken, L. J. (2004). Attachment relationships and health behaviour:

The mediational role of self-esteem. Psychology and Health, 19(4), 515–526.

doi:10.1080/0887044042000196728.

Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2000). Understanding human sexuality (7th ed.). NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior,

27 (5),507-521.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its "others": Contesting the terms of non-

monogamy. Sexualities, 9 (5), 565-583

La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within person

variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on

attachment, need fulﬁllment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.

Ley, D. J. (2009). Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love

Them. Rowman & Littlefield.

Lyons H, Manning W, Longmore M, Giordano P. Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life

course specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives. 2014; 7:79–

101. DOI: 10.1177/073112141351755

Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, E. S. (2008). Attachment relationships and adolescents’ life

satisfaction: Some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychology in the

Schools, 45(2), 177–190. doi:10.1002/ pits.20288.

Madsen, S.D., and Collins, A.W. (2011). The Salience of Adolescent Romantic Experiences

for Romantic Relationship Qualities in Young Adulthood https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x

Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and shared relationship

benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships: A review

and insights for moving forward. European Psychologist, 22(1), 55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000278

O’Connor, T. G., Allen, J. P., Bell, K. L., & Hauser, S. T. (1996). Adolescent–parent

relationships and leaving home in young adulthood. New Directions in Child

Development, 71, 39–52. doi:10.1002/cd. 23219967105.

Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual

jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51 (1), 108-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1983.tb00857.x

Price. P. C., Jhangiani. R., Chiang. I. A., (2014). Research Methods in Psychology. BC

Campus, BC Open Textbook Project.

Rice, K. G., Cunningham, T. J., & Young, M. B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social

competence, and emotional well-being: A comparison of Black and White

adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 89–101. doi:10.1037/0022-

0167.44.1.89.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and

deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101

Ryan, C., & Jethå, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: The prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. New

York: Harper.

Sable, P. (2008). What is Adult Attachment? Clinical Social Work Journal, New York, Vol.

36 (1) 21-30. DOI:10.1007/s10615-007-0110-8

Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex,

culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral & brain sciences, 28, 247-275.

Schwartz, J. P., Lindley, L. D., & Buboltz, W. J. (2007). Adult attachment orientations:

Relation to affiliation motivation. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 20(3), 253-265.

Doi:10.1080/09515070701308480

Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement:

Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,

31(1-2), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01560274

Simpson (ed.), J. A., Simpson, J., & Rholes, W. S. (Ed.) (1998). Attachment theory and close

relationships. New York, NY: Guilford.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as Attachment: The Integration of Three

Behavioral Systems. In R. J. B. Sternberg, & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The Psychology of

Love (pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging

adulthood reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27–39.

Shulman, S., Tuval-Mashiach, R., Levran, E., & Anbar, S. (2006). Conflict resolution

patterns and longevity of adolescent romantic couples: A 2-year follow-up

study. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 575-588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.018

Smith JA, Flower P, Larkin M (2009) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Sage Publishing, USA.

Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain, 9(1), 41– 42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463714541642

Snelgrove, S. R. (2014). Conducting qualitative longitudinal research using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Nurse Researcher (2014+), 22(1), 20. doi:http://dx.doi.org.unyp.idm.oclc.org/10.7748/nr.22.1.20.e1277

Torquati, J. C., & Raffaelli, M. (2004). Daily Experiences of Emotions and Social Contexts

of Securely and Insecurely Attached Young Adults. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 19(6), 740–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403260023

Tuffour I (2017) A Critical Overview of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: A

Contemporary Qualitative Research Approach. J Healthc Commun. 2:52. doi: 10.4172/2472-

1654.100093

Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2001). ‘‘Who wants to marry a soulmate?’’ The state of

our unions. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Marriage project.

Wei, M., Liao, K., Ku, T., & Shaffer, P. (2011). Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and

subjective wellbeing among college students and community adults. Journal of

Personality, 79(1), 191–221. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.

Woik, E. (2015). Hook up culture: Changing the structure of future relationships? (Master’s

thesis). Minnesota State University. Retrieved

from http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/433/

Vail-Smith, K, Whetstone, L. M, & Knox, D. (2010). The illusion of safety in monogamous

undergraduate relationships. American Journal Of Health Behavior, 34, 12-

20.doi:. doi:10.5993/AJHB.34.1.2