The Differential Impact of Past Sexual, Romantic, and Cohabitation Histories on Current Relationship Functioning

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive

Faculty Publications

2019

Is It the Sex, the Romance, or the Living Together? The Differential Impact of Past Sexual, Romantic, and Cohabitation Histories on Current Relationship Functioning

Dean M. Busby Brigham Young University - Provo, [email protected]

Brian J. Willoughby Brigham Young University - Provo

Melissa L. McDonald Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub

Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Busby, Dean M.; Willoughby, Brian J.; and McDonald, Melissa L., "Is It the Sex, the Romance, or the Living Together? The Differential Impact of Past Sexual, Romantic, and Cohabitation Histories on Current Relationship Functioning" (2019). Faculty Publications. 4637. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/4637

This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice

Is It the Sex, the Romance, or the Living Together? The Differential Impact of Past Sexual, Romantic, and Cohabitation Histories on Current Relationship Functioning

Dean M. Busby, Brian J. Willoughby, and Melissa L. McDonald Brigham Young University

Before their current relationship, individuals may have had a variety of previous relationships such as romantic relationships, sexual relationships, and cohabiting relationships. In this study we explored the common or shared influence of these 3 types of previous relationships, and the unique influence of each type, on current relationship functioning. With a sample of more than 4,000 individuals we found that there was a significantly negative shared influence for previous romantic, sexual, and cohabiting relationships on current relationship attitudes, sexual satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Above and beyond the shared influence, there was also a unique negative influence for previous sexual and cohabiting relationships on current relationship stability. The effects were largely similar for women and for men. It appears that on average the positive lessons that are learned from previous relationship experiences are likely being overwhelmed by the negative carryover, especially in regard to relationship attitudes and relationship stability.

Keywords: sexuality, romance, cohabitation

The romantic and sexual histories of individ- ciations of these three types of relationships uals are becoming more complex and varied as have never been examined simultaneously so the pathways to an eventual marriage for those that both the shared and unique elements of who have this goal have diversiﬁed, and some these relationship types can be explored. This is individuals are electing to never marry (Cherlin, the purpose of this study. 2009). Individuals often have romantic relation- The potential differential associations of ships that are not sexual, and sexual relation- these relationship histories are important to ships that are not romantic, and some that are understand because youth and adults are un- both. One type of relationship that usually in- sure regarding the place and timing of ro- cludes both sex and romance is a cohabiting mance, sex, and cohabitation in relationship relationship. While romantic, sexual, and co- development. For example, a recent report habiting relationships may share common attri- from Harvard University indicates that most butes, there may also be unique inﬂuences of young adults feel very uninformed about how each of these three relational experiences. Of to understand and sequence love, sex, and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. most importance for this study is that the asso- friendship as they strive for a lasting romantic

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. relationship. This lack of information leaves them vulnerable to misogyny, sexual harassment, and other types of negative relationship experiences (Weissbourd, Anderson, Cashin, Dean M. Busby, Brian J. Willoughby, and Melissa L. & McIntyre, 2017). Additionally, individuals’ McDonald, School of Family Life, Brigham Young Univer- relationship histories may leave them with sity. attitudes, opinions, and feelings about rela- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- tionships that may or may not help them dressed to Dean M. Busby, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2086 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: sustain their current relationships (Wil- [email protected] loughby & James, 2017). Careful research

90 SEX OR THE ROMANCE 91

that helps differentiate the influence of differ- (Shulman & Connolly, 2013, p. 29). As a result, ent types of relationships could be crucial for it is expected that emerging adults will have helping young adults make wiser choices. multiple romantic partners. However, the literature exploring the influence of these multiple Romantic Relationships relationships is sparse. There is some literature on adolescent relationship development and in- In this study, we define a romantic relation- fluence, but recognizably, for young adults, ship as an exclusive relationship where individ- there is likely a different process. The experi- uals share feelings and expressions of love and ences of emerging adults are dramatically dif- affection. Meier and Allen’s (2009) relationship ferent than those of preceding generations as progression theory suggests a developmental “hanging-out” and “hooking-up” has replaced sequence for emerging relationship skills. His- some of the traditional experiences of dating for torically, individuals developed from short- many young adults (Siebenbruner, 2013). In term, superficial relationships, to multiple rela- fact, when evaluating emerging adults, it would tionships, then often to a few single steady not be uncommon to discover that the term relationships. However, there has been a shift “dating” is almost omitted from their conversa- during the last several decades where there is tions. Some scholars found that one third of the greater diversity in romantic relationships such female seniors in college had been asked on two as individuals having no romantic experience, or less dates and only 50% had been asked on having sporadic involvement with different six or more dates during their three plus years in partners that often leads to cohabitation, or hav- college (Woodger, Holman, & Young, 2007). ing frequent involvement where these relation- The infrequency of dating, in favor of casual ships are short-term with multiple partners romantic experiences, such as hanging-out, may (Rauer, Pettit, Lansford, Bates, & Dodge, be beneficial or detrimental for long-term rela- 2013). Scholars have also noted that many long- tionship success. Seiffge-Krenke (2003) sug- term romantic relationships will now include gested that greater involvement in romantic re- periods of break-up and renewal, a concept lationships early on leads to later positive coined on/off again relationships or relationship romantic outcomes. However, we know that the churning (Dailey, Jin, Pfiester, & Beck, 2011; number of previous partners does have an in- Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009; fluence on current levels of functioning (Green, Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Long- Campbell, & Davis, 2007; Herzog & Hill- more, 2013). Dailey and colleagues (2009) have Chapman, 2013; Leck, 2006; Saribay & Ander- noted that the majority of young adult relation- sen, 2007). These and other authors have dem- ships may now include such cycling in and out onstrated that previous relationship break ups or of the relationship at least once. Halpern- difficulties can lead to more problems in future Meeking et al. (2013) have specifically empha- relationships. Moreover, past relationships can sized the importance of conducting research have a negative effect on future relationships such as this study where we explore whether (Brimhall, Wampler, & Kimball, 2008). We this “relationship churning” influences the sta- also know that the process of forming new bility of subsequent marriage or other relation- relationships and breaking up with multiple ships. partners over time can be problematic. This can This historical shift parallels the emerging lead to a decrease in an individuals’ commit- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. adulthood literature—a proposed life stage last- ment to future relationships and associations This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ing from the late teens through the mid- to with increased levels of delinquency (Cui, late-20s (Arnett, 2000). This proposed develop- Ueno, Fincham, Donnellan, & Wickrama, 2012; mental stage has been presented as a time of Davies & Windle, 2000; Simpson, 1987; Teach- instability, exploration, and self-focus. Many of man, 2003). It is possible that extensive rela- these emerging adults are not focused on having tional experiences that do not always work out a lasting romantic partner. Indeed, one emerg- well may contribute to individuals being more ing adult scholar noted that, “observation of the cautious and slower to commit in subsequent lives of the majority of young people shows that relationships. It is also possible that some indi- they may move between transitory and incon- viduals struggle to fully recover from the emo- sistent states with regard to relationships” tional process of ending a long-term relation- 92 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

ship, thereby carrying negative emotions into may “weaken the marital bond by heightening their new relationships. awareness of alternatives to one’s marital part- From the work previously reviewed the ob- ner as sources of sexual intimacy and fulfill- vious question arises as to whether is it better ment” (p. 198). for individuals to have many romantic relation- In a culture where sexual relationships are ships to gain experience and greater understand- common, similar questions to those previously ing or is it more ideal to have fewer romantic mentioned are raised. Is it better for individuals relationships to reduce the negative effects from to have many sexual relationships so they are terminated relationships? In this study we hope able to gain experience and improve their ability to at least partially address this question. to develop sexual efficacy? In contrast, is it more ideal to have fewer sexual relationships? Sexual Relationships Cohabiting Relationships Sometimes sexual relationships are embed- ded in romantic relationships and sometimes While it is beyond the scope of this article to they are not. Social interaction often leads to describe the extensive literature on cohabiting individuals hooking up by participating in some couples, it is important to note that most mar- degree of casual sexual activity—ranging from riage relationships are now preceded by cohab- kissing to intercourse. Glenn and Marquardt itation (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008). In addi- (2001) suggested women in their college sam- tion, cohabitation has been consistently linked ple reported 91% of these hookups happened to negative relationship outcomes, especially “very often” or “fairly often.” Consequently, when the cohabitation is not with an eventual approximately 90–95% of married individuals marriage partner (Jose, O’Leary, & Moyer, have had premarital intercourse (Halpern & 2010). While selection factors likely account for Kaestle, 2013; Teachman, 2009). Furthermore, some of these associations, scholars have noted unlike some romantic relationships, hooking-up that cohabiters continue to report less positive carries no promise of long-term commitment. outcomes, even when accounting for potential This suggests that some people in today’s cul- selection effects (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, ture are centered on low-commitment relation- 2003). These explanations often center around ships. These types of relationships are typically reports of less marital commitment among pre- created solely for the physical pleasure and may marital cohabiters (Kuperberg, 2014; Wil- even evolve into an ongoing, yet noncommitted loughby, Carroll, & Busby, 2012). While recent relationship (i.e., “friends-with-benefits”; work has suggested that these findings may be Banker, Kaestle, & Allen, 2010). diminishing in recent cohorts (Kuperberg, 2014; Similar to romantic relationships, these pre- Manning & Cohen, 2012), a large body of ex- vious casual sexual relationships also influence isting literature continues to suggest that pre- current relationship functioning. Specifically, marital cohabitation may carry some risks for sexual involvement and the timing of sexual long-term relationship success. However, be- involvement influences future relationship func- cause virtually all cohabiting relationships are tioning. In particular, the research demonstrates also sexual and romantic in nature it is difficult that early sexual involvement in a relationship to determine whether the possible negative ef- and sexual involvement with different partners fects might be from these relationship processes This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. across time negatively influences the develop- rather than anything unique that is part of the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ment of relationship communication patterns, cohabiting experience. This study should help sexual quality, and stability in couples (Busby, with beginning to unravel the potentially unique Carroll, & Willoughby, 2010; Busby, Wil- influence of cohabitation above and beyond ro- loughby, & Carroll, 2013; Sassler, Addo, & mance and sex. Lichter, 2012; Teachman, 2003). Specifically, Teachman (2009) found that among women, Theoretical Model having premarital intercourse with more partners than just their future spouse indicated an Scholars have attempted to organize their increase in the risk of subsequent marital dis- thinking about the influence of past relationship ruption. Moreover, multiple sexual partners history, regardless of the type, by developing SEX OR THE ROMANCE 93

different theoretical models (Meier & Allen, pared with other variables that influence rela- 2009). Some of these models have emphasized tionship outcomes, we used a number of control behavioral systems that are developed such as variables that are commonly used in this type of affiliation, sexuality, attachment, and caregiving research including relationship length, educa- (Furman & Wehner, 1994), while others have tion, and religiosity (Tolman & Diamond, 2013; emphasized the phases relationships go through Willoughby et al., 2012). Age would have been such as initiation, affiliation, intimacy, and another natural control variable but it was commitment (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). highly correlated with relationship length so we While it is not possible to fully test phase mod- selected relationship length instead. els without longitudinal data, we attempt to The constructs in the middle of the model combine common elements from these two including sexual satisfaction and effective com- types of theories into the model presented in munication capture the primary elements of the Figure 1. On the far left of the model are the behavioral system and phase models that em- central exogenous variables of interest that have phasize both the sexual and emotional intimacy not been tested simultaneously before for com- that develop through effective communication mon and unique effects. The multiple arrows and sexuality. The constructs to the far right of leading out of the unique effects of these three the model represent the relationship bonding relationship types indicate that we will explore variables that develop as the result of emotional whether, beyond the common effects included and sexual intimacy such as commitment, rela- in the latent variable, each relationship type tionship satisfaction, and stability. To the pre- might influence all the other variables to the left vious theories, we add the crucial variable of in the model. This approach to using both the relationship attitudes (Jensen, Willoughby, Hol- shared and the unique elements of a variable in man, Busby, & Shafer, 2015) that is a newer a structural model has been used by several variable we expected might be a common out- researchers in the past but not with relationship come of multiple relationship experiences as types as we do in this study (Galovan, Holmes, described by Teachman (2009) and others (see & Proulx, 2017; Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). Willoughby & Carroll, 2016). In Teachman’s To isolate the influence of sexual, romantic, work he contemplates whether the negative ef- and cohabitation relationship histories as com- fects of cohabitation and multiple sexual part- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 1. Initial model testing the inﬂuence of sexual, relationship, and cohabiting histories. 94 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

ners might be because of individuals learning 1. Is there a common or shared influence that relationships are fragile and painful rather from past sexual, romantic, and cohabiting than enduring and satisfying. While this con- relationships on current relationship func- struct is associated with attachment, correla- tioning? tions with attachment measures from previous 2. Is there a unique influence of each of these studies indicate it is only moderately correlated three types of relationships on current re- with attachment measures (Jensen et al., 2015). lationship functioning? These findings suggest the measure is capturing overall attitudes about relationships rather than In addition, the effects of previous relation- attachment behaviors and internal working ships may be different for women and men so models. Consequently, relationship attitudes is our third research question is: a scale that evaluates whether individuals view relationships as positive or rewarding as com- 3. Does the combined or unique influence of pared with negative, challenging, and punish- previous relationship types change based ing. on gender? Through the evaluation of this model we attempt to fill important gaps in the literature by We sought to answer these questions by eval- comprehensively exploring the common and uating the model in Figure 1. This model allows unique influence of the three primary types of us to explore the common effects, or relation- relationships that individuals experience. While ship history, that are shared by all relationship some studies have explored the influence of one types as compared with the unique influence of type of relationship on a few variables, none of cohabitation, sexuality, and romance. the studies have attempted to explore all three types of relationships in a comprehensive model Method that includes the new variable of relationship attitudes as suggested by recent research. Participants

Purpose of This Study The participants for this study were selected from a recently collected national dataset from The purpose of our study is to explore how the RELATionship Evaluation Questionnaire different relationship histories influence current (RELATE; Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, relationship functioning. Some individuals have 2001). Our sample consisted of 4,264 individu- many romantic relationships and few sexual als, drawn from a larger dataset by selecting relationships. Others have few romantic rela- only those in a serious relationship who indi- tionships and many sexual relationships. There cated they were either exclusively dating their are also those who have few or no cohabiting partner, engaged, or married. Thirty-two per- relationships and some have many cohabiting cent of the participants were in an exclusive relationships. Because many relationships com- dating relationship, 44% were engaged, and bine elements of romance, sex, and cohabita- 24% were married. Sixteen percent of the par- tion, we expect that there will be a common or ticipants had previously been divorced. The shared influence of previous relationship expe- gender distribution was 37% male and 63% This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. riences that is captured by a latent variable female. The participants ranged in age from 18 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualcalled user and is not to be disseminated broadly. relationship history. We expect this rela- to 79, with the mean age of the sample being tionship history to be associated with current 31.1 years (SD ϭ 9.58). The ethnic distribution relationship functioning. Conversely, no matter was 72% percent Caucasian, 9% African Amer- how much shared variance exists between ro- ican, 5% Latin American, 4% Asian American, mance, sex, and cohabitation, there is still likely 4% mixed ethnicities, and 6% answered “oth- some unique influence of romantic, sexual, or er.” These individuals reported a variety of re- cohabiting relationships on current relationship ligious affiliations; 32% Protestant, 19% Cath- functioning that is not captured by the latent olic, 24% nonaffiliated, 5% Latter-day Saint variable. Therefore, our first two research ques- (Mormon), 3% Jewish, 2% Buddhist, and 15% tions were the following: listed “other.” SEX OR THE ROMANCE 95

Procedure partners was 7.53 (SD ϭ 9.5). In the current study participants who reported more than 100 These individuals completed RELATE on- sexual partners were removed as outliers (N ϭ line after being exposed to the instrument 9). Several studies have reported mean number through a variety of settings (as part of a class, of sexual partners in a similar age range to the given by a relationship educator or therapist, current sample including means of 7.05 from searching for it on the web). Participants take Liu et al. (2015) and means of 6.31(Stanley et RELATE because they or their instructor or al., 2018). The mean for the Stanley et al. study therapist are interested in getting the assessment was likely lower than average for lifetime sex- report that details the strengths and weaknesses ual partners because the mean age of the sample in their relationship. Nobody is excluded from was approximately 26, and the question asked taking RELATE except for those under the age about the number or previous sexual partners so of 18 because of the sensitive nature of some of participants were not counting their current the questions about violence in the family of partner. origin and sexuality in the current relationship. Cohabitation partners. The number of co- Each participant was asked to complete the habiting partnerships was measured by asking 300ϩ item survey independently. Participants the question, “In your lifetime, with how many typically take between 30 to 60 min to complete romantic partners have you cohabited prior to the survey. All of the participants completed an marriage (including your current partner if ap- appropriate consent form before the completion plicable)?” The average number of cohabiting of the RELATE instrument and the study was partners was 0.88 (SD ϭ 1.07). This number is approved by the Institutional Review Board similar to the average number of cohabiting (IRB) committee at the authors’ university. partners, .80, calculated from scholars using governmental statistics on cohabitation and Measures marriage (Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010), though this number is likely low as the For this study, all of the measures came from maximum value participants could report for the RELATE instrument. We examined the con- cohabiting unions was “3 or more.” In the cur- structs of relationship satisfaction, sexual satis- rent study participants who reported more than faction, effective communication, commitment, 10 cohabiting relationships were removed as relationship stability, relationship attitudes, outliers (N ϭ 4). number of sexual partners, number of romantic Sexual satisfaction. This scale was mea- relationships, and number of cohabitation part- sured with six items from Rust and Golombok’s ners. (1986) Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Sat- Romantic relationships. The number of isfaction to assess how satisfied participants romantic relationships was measured by asking were with their sexual relationship (e.g., fre- the question, “How many serious romantic re- quency of intercourse, amount of variety, time lationships have you had with different people spent on foreplay, etc.). This inventory has (including your current partner if appropriate)?” shown adequate reliability and predictive valid- The average number of romantic relationships ity in a variety of studies over the years (Brown was 2.90 (SD ϭ 1.7). Participants that reported et al., 2017; Leonhardt, Willoughby, Busby, more than 15 romantic relationships were re- Yorgason, & Holmes, 2018). Items were rated This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. moved as outliers (N ϭ 10). We were unable to on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1ϭ This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. find a comparison sample in the literature for never to 5ϭ very often. Internal consistency of the variable assessing the number of romantic the sexual satisfaction construct was high partners so it is not clear whether the current (Cronbach’s ␣ϭ.84). The average report of sample was higher or lower than national norms sexual satisfaction was 3.67 (SD ϭ .85). on this variable. Relationship satisfaction. To assess the Sexual partners. The number of sexual level of relationship satisfaction, we used seven partners was measured by asking the question, items evaluating the participant’s degree of sat- “With how many people have you had sexual isfaction in their relationship (e.g., satisfaction intercourse (including your current partner if with how conflicts were resolved, the love ex- appropriate)?” The average number of sexual perienced, the overall relationship, etc.). Each 96 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale correlational and longitudinal research to be (1 ϭ very dissatisfied to 5 ϭ very satisfied). The predictive of couple outcomes and are sensitive Cronbach’s ␣ for the relationship satisfaction to change in couple intervention studies (Brad- scale was .90. The average score was 3.78 ford Witting & Busby, 2018; Busby et al., (SD ϭ .86). Additional test–retest reliability 2007). estimates in past research were between .76 and Relationship stability. The relationship .78 (Busby et al., 2001). Validity data have also stability scale consisted of three items assessing shown the strength of this scale in both corre- how stable their relationship was (e.g., how lational and longitudinal research as an outcome often they have broken up or separated, thought of other relational processes (Halford et al., that their relationship was in trouble, and talked 2017; Kim Halford et al., 2015). In previous about ending the relationship with their part- research this scale was also highly correlated ner). These items were adapted from earlier with other relationship quality and satisfaction work by Booth, Johnson, and Edwards (1983). measures in cross-sectional and longitudinal re- The response scale was a 5-point Likert style search (Busby et al., 2001; Busby, Ivey, Harris, scale, ranging from 1 ϭ never to 5 ϭ very often. & Ates, 2007). The average stability score was 4.06 (SD ϭ Commitment. Commitment was assessed .83). The Cronbach’s ␣ was .81. Previous stud- with four items from Stanley and Markman’s ies have shown this scale to have test–retest Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, reliability values between .78 and .86, and the 1992) that asked participants to select the de- scale was appropriately correlated with other gree to which they agreed with each of the relationship quality measures. Consequently the statements (e.g., “My relationship with my part- scale has been shown to be valid for use in ner is more important to me than almost any- cross-sectional and longitudinal research thing else in my life.”). Items were on a 5-point (Busby, Holman, & Niehuis, 2009; Busby et al., Likert scale ranging from 1 ϭ strongly disagree 2001, 2007). to 5 ϭ strongly agree. Cronbach’s ␣ for the Relationship attitudes. The relationship commitment scale was .77. The average report attitudes scale assessed the participants’ atti- of commitment was 4.38 (SD ϭ .66). Validity tudes toward romantic relationships (e.g., think- information on this scale from previous research ing relationships are safe, secure, rewarding; or showed that it has been effective as either a confusing, unfair, anxiety-provoking) based on predictor of other relationship variables or as an what they have experienced in previous roman- outcome (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Mark- tic relationships. This scale is an adaptation of a man, 2006; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, commonly used scale used to evaluate the im- 2002). pact of the family of origin relationships on Communication. The communication current relationship attitudes (Holman & Busby, scale consisted of 15 items used to measure how 2011; Yoshida & Busby, 2012). Items were often participants were able to communicate changed to reference previous romantic rela- love and appreciation, were able to engage in tionships rather than family of origin relation- empathic communication, were able to commu- ships. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale nicate clearly, and were able to communicate in ranging from 1 ϭ strongly disagree to 5 ϭ a soothing fashion during times of conflict. The strongly agree. The Cronbach’s ␣ was .77 with response scale was a 5-point Likert-type scale the average report being 3.65 (SD ϭ .83). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ranging from 1 ϭ never to 5 ϭ very often. Control variables. We controlled for reli- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Internal consistency of the communication scale giosity, education, and relationship length. Re- was high (␣ϭ.91). The average report of ligiosity was measured through four items that communication was 3.93 (SD ϭ .50). In terms asked the participants to select the degree to of test–retest and validity information on this which the item described them (e.g., “Spiritual- scale, the communication items have been ity is an important part of my life”). Items were shown to have test–retest values between .70 rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging and .83 and were appropriately correlated with a from 1 ϭ never to 5 ϭ very often. Factors version of a commonly used Relationship Qual- included how frequently they prayed, attended a ity measure as predicted (Busby et al., 2001). religious service, and considered spirituality an These scales have also been shown in both important part of their lives. Internal consis- SEX OR THE ROMANCE 97

tency of the religiosity construct was high (␣ϭ For the female model the ␹2 was 236.78 (p Ͻ .89). The average report of religiosity was 2.89 .000), the comparative fit index (CFI) was .98, (SD ϭ 1.29). the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .95, and The remaining control variables were single the root mean square error of approximation item demographic variables with one exception. (RMSEA) was .05. For the male model the ␹2 Relationship length for married couples in- was 127.99 (p Ͻ .000), the CFI was .98, the TLI cluded both the amount of time they dated be- was .95, and the RMSEA was .04. fore marriage and the length of their marriage, if Next we evaluated these models for equiva- applicable. lency by constraining the values to be equal across sex. The ␹2 difference when the mea- Results surement coefficients were constrained to be equal was .171, p ϭ .68, indicating that the Table 1 includes the bivariate correlations measurement coefficients for women and men between the variables in Model 1 for men and were equivalent. The ␹2 difference when the women. The correlations illustrate several im- structural coefficients were constrained to be portant patterns in the data. First, the moderate equal was 92.62, p Ͻ .000, indicating that the correlations, around .35, between the number of structural coefficients for women and men were romantic, sexual, and cohabiting partners pro- not equivalent. In Figure 2 the structural coef- vides evidence that using a common fate model ficients that were significantly different between is appropriate as there is sufficient correlations genders are indicated in bold. Only two coeffi- to produce reliable indicators of a latent variable cients were significantly different; the pathways (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). Second, the num- between relationship history and the number of ber of sexual partners, as compared with the sexual partners and relationship stability. The number of romantic or cohabiting partners, had ␹2 difference when the measurement intercepts the strongest relationship with the other vari- were constrained to be equal was 10.82, p Ͻ ables in the study such as relationship attitudes, .01, indicating that the measurement intercepts relationship stability, and satisfaction. Third, for women and men were not equivalent. The ␹2 the differences between women and men were difference when the structural intercepts were small. p Ͻ The next step in the analysis was to evaluate constrained to be equal was 162.68, .001, the model in Figure 1. Although not dia- indicating that the structural intercepts for women and men were not equivalent. Finally, grammed, each of the unique elements, or error ␹2 terms, for the three variables contributing to the the difference when the covariances of the structural errors were constrained to be equal latent relationship history variable were re- Ͻ gressed on all the endogenous variables. Only was 235.84, p .001, indicating that these two paths were significant and were retained in covariances were not equivalent for women and the results listed in Figure 2. All of the coeffi- men. cients listed in Figure 2 were significant at p Ͻ The structural coefficients listed in Figure 2 .05. Also the control variables were regressed indicate that most of the variance of the three on all of the other variables in the model but are relationship history variables flowed through not drawn as were the covariances between the the common or latent variable pathways and endogenous variables. As expected from the that all of these associations were negative. The This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. correlation matrix, the influence of education strongest associations for this common latent This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. was typically weak or nonsignificant on most of factor of relationship history was with relation- the variables in the model, while the influence ship attitudes and stability. There were only two of religiosity was moderate on the number of significant paths directly from the unique vari- cohabiting and sexual partners and communica- ances of cohabiting partners and sexual partners tion and commitment. The influence of relation- and they were both on relationship stability. ship length was moderate on relationship satis- These associations showed that as the number faction, sexual satisfaction, and communication. of cohabiting and sexual partners increased re- The model was evaluated for both men and lationship stability decreased. The number of women. The model fit statistics for the female romantic partners did not have any unique as- and male models indicated good fit to the data. sociations. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 8BSY ILUHY N M AND WILLOUGHBY, BUSBY, 98

Table 1 Correlations for Women (Above the Diagonal) and Men (Below)

Variable #Cohabit #Sexual #Romantic Attitudes SexSatis EffComm Commit RelSat RelStab Length Religiosity Education ءϪ.22 .03 ءCohabit 1.00 .39 .40 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.07 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.09 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.02# Ϫ.14 .08 ءSexual .32 1.00 .45 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.06 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.14 Ϫ.03# 15. ءϪ.08 Ϫ.03 ءϪ.03 ءϪ.07 Ϫ.04 ءRomantic .29 .29 1.00 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.03# Attitudes Ϫ.15 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.09 1.00 .37 .52 .37 .55 .49 Ϫ.05 .07 .06 Ϫ.08 ءϪ.23 .02 42. 67. 33. 51. 1.00 31. ءϪ.08 Ϫ.03 ءSexSatis Ϫ.01 ءϪ.25 .11 .04 52. 72. 49. 1.00 44. 49. ءEffComm Ϫ.10 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.05 ءCommit Ϫ.07 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.08 .44 .29 .48 1.00 .49 .46 Ϫ.11 .08 .01 ءRelSat Ϫ.11 Ϫ.17 Ϫ.07 .52 .66 .67 .48 1.00 .65 Ϫ.31 .06 Ϫ.04 ءϪ.18 .05 .04 1.00 62. 45. 46. 34. 47. ءRelStab Ϫ.11 Ϫ.15 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.26 Ϫ.11 1.00 .06 .13 ءϪ.07 Ϫ.09 Ϫ.27 Ϫ.21 Ϫ.05 ءϪ.01 ءLength Ϫ.04 ء04. 1.00 07. 12. 13. 17. 20. ء02. 11. ءReligiosity Ϫ.18 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.04 C DONALD 1.00 ءϪ.03 .04 .11 Ϫ.01 ءϪ.04 ء02. ءϪ.04 ء06. 10. ء02. ءEducation Ϫ.02 Means (women) .90 6.87 2.79 3.57 3.67 3.93 4.34 3.75 4.02 5.36 2.96 6.74 SD 1.10 9.10 1.59 .86 .85 .52 .68 .90 .85 6.40 1.27 1.78 Means (men) .86 9.52 2.99 3.80 3.66 3.92 4.23 3.84 4.14 5.37 2.75 6.53 SD 1.03 13.50 1.92 .76 .83 .47 .63 .77 .79 6.61 1.33 1.9 Note. SexSatis ϭ sexual satisfaction; EffComm ϭ effective communication; RelSat ϭ relationship satisfaction; RelStab ϭ relationship stability. Asterisks indicate nonsigniﬁcant correlations at p Ͻ .01. SEX OR THE ROMANCE 99

Figure 2. Final model. Coefﬁcients listed ﬁrst are for females and those listed in parentheses are for males.

Discussion uals learn both positive and negative things from past relationships, perhaps the positives Our purpose in conducting this study was to are overwhelmed by one or more serious break- understand whether there was a common or ups that leave individuals with less hopeful at- shared association from past romantic, sexual, titudes about relationships and less stable future and cohabiting relationships with current rela- relationships. The relationship attitude scale is tionship functioning. It was also our intention to strongly associated with all of the other vari- explore the unique associations of each type of ables in this study from sexual satisfaction to relationship and whether the associations were communication and commitment, and finally to distinct for women and men. There does appear relationship satisfaction and stability. to be shared attributes between these types of Teachman (2003) may have been correct relationships that are negatively associated with current relationship functioning. when he speculated that some of what is learned What our findings illustrate is that when the from previous breakups may be the transitory This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. correlations between these three relationship nature of relationships as well as how to become This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. types move together or are shared they have a better at breaking up. Perhaps individuals with significantly negative association, especially on extensive previous relationship experience be- relationship attitudes and relationship stability. come less patient with future relationships and Why? It is possible that this latent variable of more sensitive to negative relational signs. This relationship history is largely picking up on the may influence them to move toward breaking up damage that can occur because of breakups of faster that would explain the negative effect on serious relationships as mentioned earlier and current relationship stability. It may also be that backed up by research from other scholars (Cui those who are better at making relationships et al., 2012; Davies & Windle, 2000; Simpson, work from the beginning are more likely to stay 1987; Teachman, 2003). While surely individ- in relationships and, therefore, have fewer num- 100 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

bers of relationships of all types. However, if few of these coefficients were significantly dif- this were the dominant pattern we should still ferent. Consequently, the most accurate state- see a significant common association for the ment would be that the associations of relation- relationship history latent variable but it would ship history and relationship attitudes on all the be a positive rather than a negative association. other variables in the model are largely the same These speculations lead us to ponder how future for men and women. There are some differences research with these types of variables should that ought to be more carefully explored, but so consider unique trajectories for different types far most of the variables are not significantly of couples as those who have few relationships different for the sexes. of all types may be quite different than those who have many different relationships of all Limitations and Future Directions types. Also important, it may be very enlight- ening to have individuals rate the impact of each There are several limitations to this study that relationship they have been in to see if what is should be noted when interpreting the findings. occurring is an accumulation of small effects The sample is not representative so conse- across many relationships or less common but quently the results may be skewed in unex- more traumatic effects of a single breakup. pected directions. Also, while we asked partic- We also found that over and above the com- ipants to rate the influence of previous mon or shared associations of relationship his- relationships on their current attitudes, a longi- tory there was a unique negative association on tudinal sample where individuals are followed relationship stability for both the number of in and out of previous relationships would cohabiting and the number of sexual relation- likely yield more depth and predictive power to ships. These findings are consistent with previ- previous relationship histories on current rela- ous research that shows that multiple cohabiting tionship functioning. and sexual relationships were negatively asso- Additionally, there are likely unique issues ciated with future relationship stability (Busby experienced by LGBTQIA individuals that may et al., 2013; Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008; Sassler influence their relationship histories and that et al., 2012). We thought there might be unique may influence how relationship history is asso- associations on other variables such as attitudes, ciated with relationship outcomes. Unfortu- sexual satisfaction and commitment, but the nately, the sample did not allow us to explore unique associations appear to be exclusively these issues and we were unable to locate re- with relationship stability. Though this associa- search by scholars who have studied how relation is not strong it is worth noting as the factor tionship histories influence relationship out- loadings were large enough to suggest that most comes with these groups. of the variance is going through the common Even with the limitations, this is the first effect so what little variance is left still has a study we are aware of that allows for an inves- significant influence on relationship stability tigation of the shared variance of different types and the effect is stronger for women than men. of past relationship histories on current relation- The unique effect of the number of sexual part- ship functioning while also exploring the ners, distinct from its association with romance unique associations of previous romantic, co- or cohabitation, appears to specifically be asso- habiting, and sexual experiences. From the re- ciated with women feeling less stable in their sults of this study it is evident that more closely This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. current relationships. This is more evidence for studying previous relationship history, includ- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. the potential salience of a sexual restraint model ing more details about both the positive and versus a sexual compatibility model (Busby et negative carryover into current relationships, is al., 2013) as well as for the commitment model likely to help scholars and couples better under- from Stanley and associates that suggests early stand and improve current relationship func- sexual involvement may impede the ability to tioning. The findings from this study suggest make better relationship choices (Stanley, that the combined shared association of previ- Rhoades, & Markman, 2006). ous relationship history is negative and that the Still, although in the bigger picture the gen- unique associations of previous sexual and co- eral trend in the results was for the associations habiting relationships are also negative as it is to be stronger for women than for men, very associated with lower levels of relationship sta- SEX OR THE ROMANCE 101

bility. Clearly more studies need to be con- into future relationships that they may want to ducted on relationship history and more effort be more enduring. The results from this study needs to be done to help individuals develop- do not suggest that any one type of relationship mentally mature in the relationship area without is ideal; rather they suggest that as the number the negative spillover that can occur after break- of relationships accumulate across time there is ups. an association with negative relationship attitudes and outcomes. Consequently, it would be Implications useful to help youth and young adults understand that matters of the heart are serious and Most individuals have had previous relation- even casual sexual relationships have conse- ships with a variety of partners. In fact on quences. It might help to consistently teach the average individuals in this study had experi- markers of positive friendship and the mecha- enced three romantic relationships, eight sexual nism for building strong relationships so that relationships, and one cohabiting relationship. fewer but better relationships are enjoyed. Fi- As has been noted by other scholars on adult nally, there are likely many exceptions to the romantic relationships, the alternatives to mar- overall patterns in this study in that some indi- riage are as diverse and available as they have viduals likely learn needed lessons and perspec- been at any time in modern history (Cherlin, tives from previous relationships and appropri- 2009; Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014). ately learn to carry forward these lessons for Currently, the vast majority of couples are elect- improved future relationships. Studying these ing to cohabit before marriage and higher per- exceptions would be important for informing centages of individuals are staying single longer both basic research and applied programs. than ever before. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that close to 90% of people will eventually marry and that almost all report that References they want to marry. (Finkel et al., 2014). These realities make it even more important that we Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of consider the unique effect of different types of development from the late teens through the twen- ties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. http:// past relationship choices on current relationship dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 functioning as we have attempted to do in this Banker, J. E., Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2010). study. Dating is hard work: A narrative approach to un- At the least the present study implies that derstanding sexual and romantic relationships in applied professionals should ask about relation- young adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy, ship attitudes and histories as potential points of 32, 173–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10591- education or intervention. As these relationship 009-9111-9 histories become more complex and numerous Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). they are likely to be associated with a variety of Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage attitudes which are also likely to be related to and the Family, 45, 387–394. http://dx.doi.org/10 .2307/351516 relationship outcomes. The ﬁndings from this Bradford Witting, A., & Busby, D. M. (2018). The study also imply that applied professionals may long arm of trauma during childhood: Associations be able to enhance current relationships. This with resources in couple relationships. Journal of may be done by developing strategies, pro- Marital and Family Therapy. [Advance online This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. grams, or modules that help individuals and publication.] http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12354 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. couples identify enduring negative expectations Brimhall, A., Wampler, K., & Kimball, T. (2008). they have about relationships. Once these neg- Learning from the past, altering the future: A ten- ative expectations are identiﬁed applied profes- tative theory of the effect of past relationships on sionals can help them challenge these expecta- couples who remarry. Family Process, 47, 373– tions, adopt more hopeful and forward thinking 387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008 .00259.x perspectives, and behaviorally translate these Brown, C., Carroll, J. S., Yorgason, J. B., Busby, positive expectations into their current relation- D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Larson, J. H. (2017). ships. Another important implication is to begin A common-fate analysis of pornography accep- to help youth contemplate the potential spill- tance, use, and sexual satisfaction among hetero- over that might occur from all relationship types sexual married couples. Archives of Sexual Behav- 102 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

ior, 46, 575–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Jour- s10508-016-0732-4 nal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539–549. http:// Busby, D. M., Carroll, J. S., & Willoughby, B. J. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00539.x (2010). Compatibility or restraint? The effects of Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climb- Family Psychology, 24, 766–774. http://dx.doi ing mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psy- .org/10.1037/a0021690 chological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. http://dx.doi.org/10 Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The .1080/1047840X.2014.863723 association between partner- and self-enhancement Furman, W., & Wehner, E. (1994). Romantic views: and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Mar- Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relation- riage and Family, 71, 449–464. http://dx.doi.org/10 ships. In R. Montemajor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. .1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00612.x Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during ad- Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. olescence (pp. 168–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the Sage. individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Galovan, A. M., Holmes, E. K., & Proulx, C. M. Family Relations, 50, 308–316. http://dx.doi.org/ (2017). Theoretical and methodological issues in 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00308.x relationship research: Considering the common Busby, D. M., Ivey, D. C., Harris, S. M., & Ates, C. fate model. Journal of Social and Personal Rela- (2007). Self-directed, therapist-directed, and as- tionships, 34, 44–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ sessment-based interventions for premarital cou- 0265407515621179 ples. Family Relations, 56, 279–290. http://dx.doi Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, .org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00459.x hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. women on dating and mating today. New York, (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or NY: Institute for American Values. a field full of weeds. Personal Relationships, 20, Goodwin, P. Y., Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & the 706–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009 National Center for Health Statistics. (2010). Mar- Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The riage and cohabitation in the United States: A state of marriage and the family in America today. statistical portrait based on cycle 6 (2002) of the New York, NY: Knopf. National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Connolly, J., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic rela- Statistics, 23, 1–45. tionships in adolescence: The role of friends and Green, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Davis, J. L. (2007). peers in their emergence and development. In W. Ghosts from the past: An examination of romantic Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The relationships and self-discrepancy. The Journal of development of romantic relationships in adoles- Social Psychology, 147, 243–264. http://dx.doi cence (pp. 266–290). New York, NY: Cambridge .org/10.3200/SOCP.147.3.243-264 University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ Halford, W. K., Rahimullah, R. H., Wilson, K. L., CBO9781316182185.012 Occhipinti, S., Busby, D. M., & Larson, J. (2017). Cui, M., Ueno, K., Fincham, F. D., Donnellan, M. B., Four year effects of couple relationship education & Wickrama, K. A. (2012). The association be- on low and high satisfaction couples: A random- tween romantic relationships and delinquency in ized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clin- adolescence and young adulthood. Personal Rela- ical Psychology, 85, 495–507. http://dx.doi.org/10 tionships, 19, 354–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1037/ccp0000181 .1475-6811.2011.01366.x Halpern, C. T., & Kaestle, C. E. (2013). Sexuality in Dailey, R. M., Jin, B., Pfiester, A., & Beck, G. emerging adulthood. In D. L. Tolman, & L. M. (2011). On-again/off-again dating relationships: Diamond (Eds.). APA handbook on sexuality and What keeps partners coming back? The Journal of psychology: Volume 1 person-based approaches This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Social Psychology, 151, 417–440. http://dx.doi (pp. 487–522). Washington, DC: APA. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.503249 to be disseminated broadly. Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2013). Relationship G. (2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: churning in emerging adulthood: On/Off relation- How are they different from other dating relationships and sex with an Ex. Journal of Adolescent ships? Personal Relationships, 16, 23–47. http:// Research, 28, 166–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x 0743558412464524 Davies, P. T., & Windle, M. (2000). Middle adoles- Herzog, T., & Hill-Chapman, C. (2013). Relationship cents’ dating pathways and psychosocial adjust- formation and early risk exposure: Diverging as- ment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 90–118. sociations with romantic self-concept and attach- Dush, C. M. K., Cohan, C. L., & Amato, P. R. (2003). ment. Journal of Adult Development, 20, 1–15. The relationship between cohabitation and marital http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-012-9151-5 SEX OR THE ROMANCE 103

Holman, T. B., & Busby, D. M. (2011). Family of Family, 74, 377–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j origin, differentiation of self and partner, and adult .1741-3737.2012.00960.x romantic relationship quality. Journal of Couple & Meier, A., & Allen, G. (2009). Romantic relation- Relationship Therapy, 10, 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/ ships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evi- 10.1080/15332691.2010.539171 dence from the National Longitudinal Study of Jensen, T. M., Willoughby, B. J., Holman, T. B., Adolescent Health. The Sociological Quarterly, Busby, D. M., & Shafer, K. (2015). Associations 50, 308–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533- between family and interpersonal processes and 8525.2009.01142.x emerging adult marital paradigms: Does Adult At- Rauer, A. J., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Bates, J. E., tachment Mediate? Journal of Adult Development, & Dodge, K. A. (2013). Romantic relationship 22, 50–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014- patterns in young adulthood and their developmen- 9200-3 tal antecedents. Developmental Psychology, 49, Jose, A., O’Leary, D., & Moyer, A. (2010). Does pre- 2159–2171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031845 marital cohabitation predict subsequent marital sta- Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1986). The GRISS: A bility and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal psychometric instrument for the assessment of sex- of Marriage and Family, 72, 105–116. http://dx.doi ual dysfunction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, .org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x 157–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542223 Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation Saribay, S., & Andersen, S. M. (2007). Are past and children’s living arrangements: New estimates relationships at the heart of attachment dynamics? from the United States. Demographic Research, What love has to do with it. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 1663–1692. http://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes 18, 183–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ .2008.19.47 10478400701512786 Kim Halford, W., Pepping, C. A., Hilpert, P., Boden- Sassler, S., Addo, F. R., & Lichter, D. T. (2012). The mann, G., Wilson, K. L., Busby, D.,...Holman, tempo of sexual activity and later relationship T. (2015). Immediate effect of couple relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 708– 725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012 education on low-satisfaction couples: A random- .00996.x ized clinical trial plus an uncontrolled trial repli- Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of roman- cation. Behavior Therapy, 46, 409–421. http://dx tic development from adolescence to young adult- .doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.02.001 hood: Evidence of developmental sequence. Inter- Kuperberg, A. (2014). Age at coresidence, premarital national Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, cohabitation, and marriage dissolution: 1985– 519–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250 2009. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 352– 344000145 369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12092 Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of Leck, K. (2006). Correlates of minimal dating. The romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Re- Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 549–567. conceptualization of the ﬁeld. Emerging Adult- http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.5.549-567 hood, 1, 27–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common 2167696812467330 fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theo- Siebenbruner, J. (2013). Are college students replac- retically important but underutilized model. Jour- ing dating and romantic relationships with hooking nal of Family Psychology, 26, 140–148. http://dx up? Journal of College Student Development, 54, .doi.org/10.1037/a0026624 433–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0065 Leonhardt, N. D., Willoughby, B. J., Busby, D. M., Simpson, J. (1987). The dissolution of romantic re- Yorgason, J. B., & Holmes, E. K. (2018). The lationships: Factors involved in relationship stabil- signiﬁcance of the female orgasm: A nationally ity and emotional distress [Electronic version]. representative, dyadic study of newlyweds’ or- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. gasm experience. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15, 683–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not1140–1148. to be disseminated broadly. [Advance online publication.] http:// .4.683 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.018 Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Liu, G., Hariri, S., Bradley, H., Gottlieb, S. L., Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, mar- Leichliter, J. S., & Markowitz, L. E. (2015). Trends ital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a and patterns of sexual behaviors among adolescents large, random household survey. Journal of Fam- and adults aged 14 to 59 years, United States. Sexu- ily Psychology, 20, 117–126. http://dx.doi.org/10 ally Transmitted Diseases, 42, 20–26. http://dx.doi .1037/0893-3200.20.1.117 .org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000231 Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing Manning, W. D., & Cohen, J. A. (2012). Premarital commitment in personal relationships. Journal of cohabitation and marital dissolution: An examina- Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–608. http://dx tion of recent marriages. Journal of Marriage and .doi.org/10.2307/353245 104 BUSBY, WILLOUGHBY, AND MCDONALD

Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. promote young people’s healthy relationships and (2002). Communication, conflict, and commit- prevent misogyny and sexual harassment. Re- ment: Insights on the foundations of relationship trieved from https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse- success from a national survey. Family Process, mcc/files/mcc_the_talk_executive-summary.pdf 41, 659–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545- Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2016). On the 5300.2002.00659.x horizon: Marriage timing, beliefs, and conse- Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Kelmer, G., Scott, quences in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett S. B., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2018). (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adult- Unequally into “Us”: Characteristics of individuals hood (pp. 280–295). New York, NY: Oxford Uni- in asymmetrically committed relationships. Family versity Press. Process. [Advance online publication.] http://dx Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. .doi.org/10.1111/famp.12397 (2012). The different effects of “living together”: Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. Determining and comparing types of cohabiting (2006). Sliding vs. deciding: Inertia and the pre- couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- marital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, ships, 29, 397–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 499–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729 0265407511431184 .2006.00418.x Willoughby, B. J., & James, S. L. (2017). The mar- Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital co- riage paradox: Why emerging adults love mar- habitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dis- riage yet push it aside. New York, NY: Oxford solution among women. Journal of Marriage and University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof: Family, 65, 444–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j oso/9780190296650.001.0001 .1741-3737.2003.00444.x Woodger, M. J., Holman, T. B., & Young, K. A. Teachman, J. (2009). Premarital sex, premarital co- (2007). Latter-day Saint courtship patterns: Stud- habitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dis- ies in religion and the social order. Ann Arbor, solution among women. In N. B. Moore, J. J. MI: University Press of America. Davidson, Sr., & T. D. Fisher (Eds.), Speaking of Yoshida, K., & Busby, D. M. (2012). Intergenera- sexuality: Interdisciplinary readings (pp. 195– tional transmission effects on relationship satisfac- 223). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. tion: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Family Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (Eds.). (2013). Issues, 33, 202–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ APA handbook on sexuality and psychology: Vol- 0192513X11412883 ume 1. Person-based approaches. Washington, DC: APA. Received July 27, 2018 Weissbourd, R., Anderson, T. R., Cashin, A., & Revision received March 8, 2019 McIntyre, J. (2017). The talk: How adults can Accepted April 7, 2019 Ⅲ

E-Mail Notiﬁcation of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. portal/alerts/ and you will be notiﬁed by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!