Millennials Experience of Romantic Relationships during the period of Emerging Adulthood

in Relation to Attachment Style.

Thesis By Judith Bradley

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

The University of New York in Prague

May 2020

Declaration.

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

9th May 2020. Judith Bradley

2 Acknowledgments.

A special thank you to my mentor Dr Vartan Agopian who dedicated his time and expertise to supporting me through this process. He has been a constant source of motivation from beginning to end, and I am forever grateful. 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 and siblings for being there to support, guide and reassure me in reaching my academic goals.

And lastly, I want to thank my best friend, Valentina Berger, for your constant support and all the heartening talks I needed along the way.

3 Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine millennials’ experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood in relation to attachment style. This quantitative study gathered data on attachment style, partner conflict, relationship satisfaction and openness to consensual non-monogamy from 149 participants in the period of emerging adulthood (18-33 years), both male and female.

Results showed that attachment style influences romantic relationship attitudes and behaviours of this group. Secure attachment had high levels of relationship satisfaction and low levels of conflict, while fearful-avoidant attachment had low levels of relationship satisfaction and low levels of conflict. The results also showed that millennials have more liberal attitudes towards and experience of CNM than previous generations. Dismissive- avoidant, anxious-preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment have openness to CNM.

4 Table of Contents

1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….7

2 Literature Review……………………………………………………………10

2.1 Millennial Generation…………………………………………………….10

2.2 Emerging Adulthood………………………………………………………13

2.3 Adult Attachment Theory…………………………………………………15

2.4 Relationship Conflict and Satisfaction of Millennials……………………20

2.5 Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM………………………………………23

2.6 Importance of Understanding Millennials’ Experience of Romantic

Relationships for Psychological Wellbeing……………………………….28

3 Methodology……………………………………………………………………33

3.1 Participants…………………………………………………………………..33

3.2 Material………………………………………………………………………34

3.2.1 Demographic Information……………………………………………..34

3.2.2 Adult Attachment………………………………………………………34

3.2.3 Relationship Conflict…………………………………………………35

3.2.4 Relationship Satisfaction………………………………………………..36

3.2.5 Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)……………………………………36

3.3 Procedure……………………………………………………………………….37

3.3.1 Participant Recruitment…………………………………………………..37

3.3.2 Protection of Participants………………………………………………..37

3.3.3 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………38

3.3.4 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………38

4 Results……………………………………………………………………………….39

4.1 Quantitative Results………………………………………………………….39

5 4.2 Description of the Sample……………………………………………………39

4.3 Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality of the Variables………………41

4.3.1 Length of Relationship (in Months)…………………………………..42

4.3.2 Romantic Partner Conflict…………………………………………….42

4.3.3 Romantic Relationship Satisfaction…………………………………...42

4.3.4 Attitudes Towards Consensual Non-Monogamy………………………43

4.4 Hypothesis Testing……………………………………………………………..44

4.4.1 Attachment Style, Relationship Satisfaction, and Partner Conflict…….44

4.4.2 Openness to Consensual Non-Monogamy……………………………..49

5 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….54

6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………64

6.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………….64

6.2 Limitations of Study and Recommendations for Future Research…………….64

References…………………………………………………………………………….66

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………76

6 1. Introduction

This quantitative study focuses on millennials’ experience of romantic relationships, in terms of relationship satisfaction, partner conflict and openness to consensual non- monogamy, in relation to attachment style. Attachment theory originated in the 1950s, demonstrating 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 psychological functioning, and how they form and maintain relationships throughout their life.

Upon its development, attachment theory was chiefly concerned with infant and primary caregiver relationships, positing that forming attachments in infancy sets the foundation for all future relationships. As noted in my earlier qualitative study “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” (Bradley, 2020).

The study of attachment theory advanced over the decades, to focus on attachment styles in adulthood and the impact this has on an individual’s ability to form and maintain personal and romantic relationships. There is currently a substantial body of research in existence which argues that adult attachment styles are an important factor to consider in a person’s ability to form satisfying, healthy and long-lasting, intimate relationships with others. From a psychological perspective, our overall wellbeing is often dependent upon the

7 close, intimate relationships we form, as they provide us with security and support and benefit our overall psychological functioning. Therefore, it is important to understand the complex relationships between attachment style, and their associated behaviours as this will have implications for individual mental health.

This research will study individual attachment styles in relation to experience in romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood. Recently, the period of emerging adulthood has been identified as a new developmental stage within the life-course, between the years of adolescence and reaching full adulthood at approximately age twenty- nine. The millennial generation are currently in the emerging adulthood stage of their lives, and for many this period will include key developmental milestones such as forming significant romantic attachments to others for the first time. This generation may be considered as having non-traditional romantic relationship formations which may provide unique experiences in terms of romantic attachment. During the period of young adulthood, romantic relationships will play a significant role in the lives of many and therefore potentially impact on psychological functioning. It is important, as future psychological practitioners, to understand the complexities of millennials’ romantic attachments in order to provide the most effective, supportive service and treatment to our clients when it is needed

(Bradley, 2020).

This study is a continuation of the authors earlier qualitative research on millennials’ experience of romantic relationships. In order to explore the topic in greater depth, the author chose to conduct this quantitative study using a much larger sample size. This provides a more accurate picture of millennials’ experience of romantic relationships, specifically within

Western culture. 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.

8 The current body of research has primarily focused on romantic relationships in adolescence, specifically examining the impact of the dissolution of a romantic partnership at this key developmental period and the reasons why these relationships are typically not long- lasting. The author found no such study documenting this experience in the period of emerging adulthood. Current research speculates that there are similarities in the experience of adolescence and emerging adults including, lack of intimacy, boredom, distrust/ dishonesty, poor communication, infidelity, limited quality time together, substance abuse, absence of love and lack of physical attraction and sexual dissatisfaction (The Pew Centre,

2018). However, romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood potentially have their own unique characteristics and experiences that are not necessarily evident at other stages of adult life, as they often take place simultaneously with other major life transitions such as living outside of the family home, or embarking on a career.

The author aims to discover the types of romantic relationship formations experienced by millennials, and if attachment style influences partner conflict, relationship satisfaction and openness or willingness to engage in CNM practices.

9 2. Literature Review

This chapter documents the current literature on the millennial generation. It will highlight the key characteristics that distinguish the attitudes and behaviours of this group from previous generations. In addition, this chapter will examine the role of adult attachment and the factors which influence romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood.

2.1 Millennial Generation

The millennial generation, sometimes referred to as Gen Y, are the cohort of people born during the 1980’s up to the millennial. Strauss & Howe (1991) first assigned the term millennials to refer to individuals born between 1982- 2004, who would reach adulthood around the turn of the 21st century. As noted in my earlier study, presently, 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) are responsible for large-scale generational research, and they are the latest think tank to refine the birth dates for the millennial generation. They have 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, researchers acknowledge that generational cut-off points are not an exact science, and considering that a substantial body of research has been conducted using a broader age range for the millennial generation, the author has decided that this study will determine that millennials are the last generation born in the 20th Century, that is from 1982 up to the year 2000 (Bradley, 2020).

This generation, like others before, is defined by a generational persona, determined by common age, common beliefs and behaviour, a group moving through time that is shaped by the events of their life-time (Strauss & Howe, 1991). Attitudes, bahaviours and values are

10 different among generational groups, and they tend to remain the same over time; often they change in similar ways because of specific events, circumstances, and the cultural shifts they grow-up in.

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, 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 (Bradley, 2020).

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).

A variety of explanations have been put forward to explain the trend including their openness to or tolerance of premarital sex, preference of cohabitiation and postponement of marriage and a shift in attitudes towards the importance of marriage as a social institution as well as the lack of economic and financial stability. In addition, my recent qualitative study on millennials romantic relationships found that this generation aspire to have a family in the future however they prefer to wait until they are older before making such a serious commitment (Bradley, 2020).

11 Similarly to the decline in marriage rates, the same economic and financial pressures are likely to be the reason why millennials are having fewer children than Gen X and instead adopting a later life approach to childbirth. The UK has seen one of the biggest increases in first time birth to women between 35- 40 years. In 2015, for the first time the number of children born to women aged 40 and over was larger than the number born to those aged 20 and under (Ipsos, n.d.).

The latest thinktank data shows that on average, millennials lose their virginity aged

17, two years younger than the previous generation (Ipsos, n.d.). In terms of the frequency with which millennials engage in sex in comparison to older generations, the data is often contradictory. However, 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

(Ipsos, n.d.). There are a number of possibilities for this trend including overall more liberal attitudes towards sexual activity, an increase in dating apps, which often facilitates millennials’ self-exploration with sex and sexuality and lastly, women’s increased access to birth control. It should be likely that millennials’ lower frequency of sex may, in comparison to previous generations, is perhaps 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.

The expansive literature on millennial trends demonstrates that they are forging a distinct path into adulthood, not seen by previous generations. This group are considered to be the most liberal in terms of politics and social issues including abortion, gay marriage, and acceptance of the LGBT community (Pew Research Centre, 2014).

12 Jean Twenge, a psychologist who has extensively researched millennials (which she refers to as iGen), describes them as “tolerant, confident, open-minded, and ambitious, but also disengaged, narcissistic, distrustful, and anxious” (Twenge, 2014, p. 1). Twenge’s argument rests on cultural changes, whereby this generation were raised by parents who emphasized self-esteem, self-love, and happiness and encouraged greater individuation rather than civic collectivist duty. She claims that millennials are fundamentally maladjusted and irresponsible. However, many are divided on this point and consider millennials to be victims of the time, being labelled similarly to past generations where youth are considered in a negative light because they hold significantly different views and attitudes to older generations.

2.2 Emerging Adulthood

As noted in my earlier study, 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). It is during these years that young adults experience frequent change, characterised by identity exploration in the areas of romantic relationships, love, sex, work, and worldviews (Arnett,

2015), these are significant developmental milestones that are reached before settling into adult roles. Relationships mature in the lives of individuals at this time, specifically with romantic partners, these relationships play a central role in their lives (Allen & Land, 1999), more than friendships or relationships within the family unit. Currently, the majority of the millennial generation is in the period of emerging adulthood.

In previous generations, adolescence was the period in which many people experienced their first committed, intimate, romantic relationship, and continued to experiment with this new relationship formation into adulthood. Exposure to forming

13 romantic attachments at this time is often considered as the learning or training needed for successful future romantic relationships. Through this experience, individuals develop the necessary skills needed to form mature intimacy with romantic partners as they progress into adulthood (Allen & Land, 1999). However, as noted in my earlier study, “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” (Bradley, 2020). Evidence indicates that due to the financial instability associated with this period in the life-span, the current cohort of emerging adults in fact prefer short-term romantic and sexual encounters rather than the responsibility of a serious commitment (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). It has been suggested and debated that this change in attitudes within the millennial generation has resulted in greater sexual permissiveness and sexual freedom, more liberal views and openness to experience, as well as increased societal tolerance of casual and premarital sex, compared to previous generations

(Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). A number of explanations have been provided to account for this shift in attitudes among the millennial generation as being driven by a greater focus on attaining higher education, focusing on career aspirations, more women participating in the labour market, delaying marriage and family life, and individual desire to travel and have greater independence (Lyons, Manning, Longmore & Giordano, 2014).

Longitudinal studies show that, despite the fact that increasing numbers of emerging adults are in casual or fluid romantic relationships, the vast majority still consider marriage as an important goal in their lives (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001), and for many they will move through this unstable period to commit to a long-term romantic partner (Cohen et al., 2003).

It is clear that millennials’ relationships differ in terms of the formation, duration, and types

14 of romantic love, however, they still have basic human desires to form and maintain an attached affectional bond to a romantic partner like all other generations before them.

2.3 Adult Attachment Theory

As noted in my earlier study, millennials may have a different perspective about romantic commitment compared to previous generations, however their basic human desire to be attached to a significant other has remained the same, and from a psychological point of view this need is grounded in attachment theory.

My previous study gave an account of the development and characteristics of attachment theory as outlined by renowned psychologist John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980,

1982). He developed 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 is formulated on the idea that a secure mother-infant bond is important to ensure healthy physical and emotional development of a child, 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” (Bradley,

2020).

Human attachment provides four main functions: enables a sense of security, regulates affect and arousal, supports the expression of feelings and communication, and provides a safe base for exploration (Davis, 2011). Bowlby’s theory was based on the hypothesis that if these essential needs of the child are met by the primary caregiver then the child can feel safe and secure while exploring their surrounding environment.

15 Bowlby (1994) emphasized that attachment is a key component of human experience 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 are fundamental for psychological functioning, (Rice et al., 1997), higher levels of life satisfaction (Ma &

Huebner, 2008; Nickerson & Nagle, 2004), higher levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy

(Arbona & Power 2003; Huntsinger & Luecken, 2004; Thompson, 1999). These individual attributes can be considered as a prerequisite to forming stable, long-term romantic attachments in adulthood.

Bowlby (1969, 1982) theorised that the quality of intimate relationships with partners during emerging adulthood is heavily influenced by childhood experiences with caregivers

(Guarnieri, Smorti & Tani 2014; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). As detailed in my previous study, “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 (Guarnieri, Smorti & Tani 2014), hence attachment representations formed in infancy are generalised to future adult relationships” (Bradley,

2020).

In addition, Bowlby also examined the role attachment plays in the emotional lives of adults, because it is during the formation, maintenance and dissolution of romantic relationships that people experience some of the most powerful human emotions. The

16 complexity of human emotions involved in falling in love, loving someone and grieving over the loss of a partner according to Bowlby, are often expressed by individuals as a reflection of their affectional bonds (Bowlby, 1980).

Psychologists continued to study attachment theory and further developed Bowlby’s approach. Ainsworth et al., (1978) utilised 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. Firstly, anxious attachment whereby the caregiver is slow to respond or inconsistent with their attention to the infant, depriving the child of constant and dependable care. Second, avoidant attachment is formed when mothers ignore or reject their infants’ attempts at physical closeness, whereby the infant tends to withdraw and not seek support. Lastly, a secure attachment is formed when the caregiver adopts a nurturing approach in the care of the infant, enabling to child to feel secure that their essential needs will be met unconditionally.

Interest in the role of attachment and human relationships was further developed by

Hazan and Shaver (1987) when they applied attachment theory to adult relationships, after having noticed similarities in the interaction between infants and caregivers and interaction of adults. They argued that like infant and caregiver attachments, romantic love is essentially an attachment process through which affectional bonds are formed (Shaver, Hazan & Bradshaw,

1988). They acknowledged differences between infant and adult attachment, and determined that the function of adult attachment is to enable 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). As noted in my previous study, “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

17 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 characterized as friendly, happy, trusting, and accepting partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) which are not dependent on nor determined by their partners faults” (Bradley, 2020).

Adult relationships in relation to attachment theory has been the subject of endless studies over the last thirty years. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) were key figures in expanding on previous works on adult attachment. Through their research they determined that there are four specific types of attachment evident in adulthood, and these have remained the most widely used today. As outlined in my earlier study, “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

18 from their partner and often display high levels of emotional expression, emotional dysregulation, and impulsive behaviour.” (Bradley, 2020).

These three attachment styles are considered as a form of insecure attachment, however it is their unique behaviour and coping mechanisms which make them distinctly different from each other. The overarching theme of insecure attachment is characterised by a lack of trust and low level of relationship satisfaction, which is associated with poor psychological adjustment in individuals (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,

1998; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Conley et al., 2013).

Insecure attachment is the last attachment style defined by Bartholomew and

Horowitz (1991). They used a similar description of secure attachment as identified by previous researchers, and consider it to be 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 associated with overall health and wellbeing (Torquati & Raffawlli, 2004) and general life satisfaction (La

Guardia Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Wei Liao, Ku, & Shaffer, 2011).

Attachment theory is not a direct science, and while there is evidence that 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). As with other areas of psychology and human development, the complex interplay between a person’s level of resilience and the way in which social and environmental factors interact, will significantly influence how individuals process their relationships and childhood experiences.

A number of studies have provided evidence that the likelihood of emerging adults successfully transitioning into adult roles is to some extent dependent on their relationship quality and secure attachment bonds specifically with a romantic partner (O’Connor, Allen,

19 Bell, & Hauser1996; Arnett, 2000). Romantic relationships play an important role in determining individual wellbeing and life satisfaction overall (Nickerson and Nagle 2005; Ma and Huebner 2008; Wei et al. 2011; Guarnieri et al., 2014;), and it is the ability of individuals to balance autonomy and dependence with significant others which will predict relationship quality.

2.4 Relationship Conflict and Satisfaction of Millennials

As discussed in my earlier study, “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” (Bradley, 2020).

Typically, as relationships progress, they develop increased levels of intimacy, creating a deeper bond and closeness between partners (Shulman & Scharf, 2000). However, it is common during the period of emerging adulthood for relationships to start and end abruptly and repeatedly. 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). It’s been found that although higher levels of closeness and intimacy between partners is predictive of stability in romantic relationships, it

20 is also associated with greater emotional affliction should the relationship end

(Simspon,1987; Halpern-Meeking et al., 2013).

The literature demonstrates that stable, healthy, and functional are all terms synonymous with relationship satisfaction, and consider satisfaction as having positive feelings about a romantic partner and the relationship overall (Rusbult, 1983). In comparison, unstable, unhealthy, dysfunctional, dissatisfied, and distressed are used to characterise relationship conflict, which is essentially a combination of negative emotions experienced by an individual when another person’s actions cause distress or unpleasant situations (Peterson,

1983; Gunnar & Collins, 2013). Conflict most often occurs when an individual feels threatened or insecure as a result of another person’s actions or when their goals or beliefs are incompatible and cause tension or discomfort.

A long-term commitment that is satisfying for both partners can be achieved if partners learn how to effectively approach and resolve conflicts in their relationship because how they 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 one or both partners feeling disrespected or inferior. Conflict can take on two forms, either it is perpetual, (ongoing over a long period of time) or solvable, meaning a resolution can be found, which tend to be less painful or intense as perpetual problems

(Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Silver, 1999).

Conflict resolution skills, a balance between negotiating self and partner needs, are necessary in romantic relationships to increase in stability and durability and make long-term, satisfying commitment more likely. Couples who have the capability to resolve their problems strengthen their relationship, potentially turning it into one of the most important

21 sources of support in the lives of both partners (Adams, Laursen & Wilder, 2001; Connolly &

McIsaac, 2009).

As outlined in my earlier study, “emerging adults often have fluid and unstable romantic relationships. Relationship churning has been termed to describe the 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; Bradley, 2020).

On/off relationships tend to 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). Research suggests this is due to communication problems, whereby couples in on/off relationships are less likely to adopt healthy strategies such patience towards their partner, taking the time to be understanding and considerate, and ensuring they are polite in their approach when discussing their issues together (Halpern-Meekin et al.,

2013). Oppositely, churning relationships tend to have higher levels of intimate self- disclosure, which deepens love and attachment between partners and is consider one essential aspect of relationship satisfaction. Despite the presence of conflict, this intimate and enduring bond may account for the repeated pattern of separating and reuniting with each other. In fact, some authors hypothesize that couples reunite because the level of comfort or familiarity

22 they experience together would be difficult or impossible to have with another person (Dailey et al., 2009 and Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013).

It is also worth noting poorly managed conflict, which is perpetual, is a risk factor for intimate partner violence (IPV) in young adult relationships (Follette & Alexander, 1992;

Riggs, O’Leary & Breslin, 1990). IPV includes verbally abusive or aggressive behaviour and physical violence, with mutual violence being the most common form (Halpern- Meekin et al., 2013; Giordano et al., 2010; Whitaker et al., 2007). 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. Therefore, conflict and satisfaction are interconnected in millennials experience of romantic relationships and no study could provide a detailed analysis without taking these two factors into consideration.

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.

As discussed in detail in my previous study, “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) “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”(CDC, 2020, para. 4). 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

23 & 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”

(Bradley, 2020).

A cross-culture study conducted by Schmitt (2005) 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). In many cultures monogamy is a continuum whereby people adopt behaviours from exclusively monogamous to completely non-monogamous (Schmitt,

2005). In Western societies monogamy is considered as the ideal form of romantic relationship, however, high rates of infidelity and divorce, calls into question the universal applicability of monogamy today (Conley et al., 2013). It is important to note that Western experiences of monogamy does not necessarily mean a person will have only one sexual partner throughout their life but rather they may have only one concurrent partner at a time.

For example, as demonstrated by a recent study (Superdrug, 2018) surveyed 2000 men and women in the United States and Europe, the average number of sexual partners overall is 7.2, but this number varies depending on the specific country or state. The author found that there is little to no research in existence which empirically shows if people in modern society are psychologically or relationally advantaged by monogamy relative to other relationship styles.

There are studies showing benefits to monogamy which include more frequent, exciting, and meaningful sex; and overall high rates of relationship quality, satisfaction, and trust, perhaps because it reduces feelings of jealousy and insecurities between partners

(Conley et al., 2013). Current data also indicates that on average, sexual frequency deceases over the course of a monogamous relationships (Beck, 1999; Clement, 2002; Levine, 2003;

Brewis & Meyer, 2005), which has potentially negative side-effects, and in fact, one of the

24 predominant reasons couples seek sex and relationship therapy is the result of unsatisfying or infrequent sexual activity (Frank, Anderson, & Kupfer, 1976; Hawton, 1982).

My previous study discussed in-depth the concept of Consensual non-monogamy

(CNM). “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” (Bradley, 2020).

CNM is generally considered a taboo subject for the majority of the population. The limited data on this practice found that in America 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). Two nationally representative samples suggest that this figure is a conservative estimate of the number of people who participate in CNM, and that 20% is a more accurate approximation (Haupert, Gesselman,

Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2016).

25 Empirical data does not support the perception that CNM relationships cause more acute feelings of jealousy. Oppositely, studies have found that CNM couples in comparison to monogamous relationships experience lower and more manageable levels of jealousy, and these individuals are not typically jealous people (Pines & Aronson, 1981; Pines & Aronson,

1983; Jenks, 1985). It is thought that the cause of jealousy in monogamous relationships is fear that one partner may engage in sex with others which causes distress, CNM couples do not have this specific issue.

There is a gap in the research literature on CNM in relation to attachment style, as most research on adult attachments have focused primarily on dyadic relationships. The few studies that do exist on CNM and attachment do not have consistent findings. One such study by Allen & Baucom (2004), examined attachment style and the likelihood of engaging in extradyadic involvement (EDI) and discovered that fearful and preoccupied styles

(characterized by anxiety) are willing to engage in CNM, as it will fulfil their need for high levels of intimacy. On the other hand, Conley et al., (2012) found that anxious attached individuals will experience distress and be uncomfortable with this from of romantic relationship as it will exacerbate their fear of losing their primary partner.

As previously evidenced, “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 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

26 challenging than they first appear (Conley et al., 2013). Furthermore, a recent study found those with dismissive avoidant attachment will not be open to CNM because their partner desiring another sexual partner can negatively impact on their positive views of self (Bradley,

2020).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” (Bradley, 2020).

Millennials perhaps have greater sexual freedom that any generation before, which may make them more open to experiencing different forms of romantic relationships, or make

CNM an appealing alternative (Conley et al., 2013). 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 may enable this group to explore their sexuality and help them to determine what form of romantic relationships is best for them.

I recently conducted the first qualitative study on millennials’ experience of CNM to date (Bradley, 2020) and found that it is common for millennials to participate in some form of CNM as a means of exploring their sexuality, enjoying their sexual freedom and also maintaining a level of independence from romantic partners until they reach adulthood and are prepared to have a monogamous commitment.

‘Hooks ups’ which are sexual relations that occur outside of a committed or romantic relationship, and are motivated by sexual satisfaction (Fielder, Walsh, Carey & Carey, 2014), are endorsed by and frequently engaged in by those in emerging adulthood. A recent study quantified that between 54 and 67% of emerging adults engage in casual sex or other types of hook-ups (Lyons et al., 2014). Hook-ups are also the cause of infidelity and may or may not be disclosed to partners e.g. a monogamy study on college campuses found that 20% of women and 27% of men had extradyadic sexual experiences resulting in infidelity (Vail-

27 Smith, Whetstone & Knox, 2010). There are other forms of sexual and relational non- monogamy which is characteristic of this generations including ‘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).

It is considered that permissive attitudes towards casual sex results in willingness to engage in non-consensual extradyadic relationships (infidelity) or other forms of casual sex during emerging adulthood (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). The millennial ‘hook-up’ culture 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). Bradley (2020) found that millennials can separate physical and emotional intimacy and view sex as basic human need rather than purely an act of love.

Engaging in extradyadic sex while in a committed relationship is acceptable among this generation on the condition that the emotional boundaries of the partnership are maintained and the extradyadic sex is purely for sexual satisfaction (Bradley, 2020). Considering this shift in how this generation of emerging adults view romantic relationships, and the unique 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

A key developmental task in young adulthood is the ability to form and maintain intimate relationships, which in turn has consequences for adult attachments and overall emotional and physical health (Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002; Umberson, Crosnoe & Reczek,

2010; Bonnie, Stroud & Breiner, 2015). There exists a strong research base demonstrating

28 that those individuals with insecure attachment to romantic partners have lower self-esteem and emotional wellbeing and experience greater feelings of loneliness and stress (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007; Lafontaine, Bélanger, & Gagnon, 2009;

Caron, Lafontaine, Bureau, Levesque, Johnson, 2012), which often results in difficulties with conflict management and poor communication skills, causing higher levels of distress and feelings of isolation within their romantic relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Caron et al., 2012). The combination of these factors can result in mental health problems including anxiety and depression, indicating that attachment styles can have a profound effect on psychological functioning.

Romantic relationships have many psychological benefits, including enhancing self- esteem and self-worth, and providing security and comfort (Simon & Barrett, 2010), but they also can induce feelings of distress which can be potentially harmful to mental and physical health. The negative consequences are experienced most during times of conflict or as a result of relationship breakdown and loss of significant other.

The benefits of marriage and other forms of long-term commitment are well documented in the literature to include reducing the risk of adverse health behaviour and overall higher levels of psychosocial functioning (Waite, 1995; Umberson and Montez, 2010;

Bonnie et al., 2015), and therefore it is important to consider how alternative relationship formation, evident particularly in the millennial generation, may impact on individuals psychological health. The literature has demonstrated that CNM, hook ups, on/off relationships and delayed marriage are relatively common today however, there is the potential that these unstable or emotionally erratic relationships carry adverse psychological consequences. As previously mentioned, no such study has focused on the period of emerging adulthood in relation to this, but research on the adolescent population found increased depression and substance abuse problems as a result of relationship instability

29 (Joyner & Udry, 2000; Davila et al., 2004; Simon & Barrett, 2010), which ultimately further increases the risk future relationship problems. This suggests that early romantic experiences could be potentially harmful and make it more difficult to develop a stable and satisfying romantic partnership in adulthood.

As noted in my earlier study “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 (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2013), to help support the development of healthy romantic relationships” (Bradley, 2020). 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.

The literature presented in this study has demonstrated that engaging in non- traditional sexual and romantic relationships is often stigmatised as it deviates from the cultural norms of Western societies, which promote heterosexual monogamy as the ethical and moral ideal relationship formation. Those individuals who chose to engage in CNM, may be marginalised or subjected to negative bias, not only in their social interactions but also within the confines of therapeutic or psychological services (Johnson, 2013). There is a concern that the needs of these clients are not being met because there is a severe lack of training options available, at both graduate and post-graduate levels, for therapists to gain an understanding of CNM relationships (Henrich & Trawinski, 2016; Weitzman, 2006). This is further compounded by the fact that traditionally, non-monogamy was considered infidelity, which leads to the erosion of trust between partners and ultimately unhappy relationships. It has therefore long been the case that the appropriate response of the therapist was to work to stop, not to accommodate, non-monogamous practices (Berry & Barker, 2014). A multitude

30 of problems can arise from this approach, not least the therapist acting as a figure of authority over a client’s life-choices, which is the antithesis of therapy.

Studies reporting on polyamorous clients experience of therapy have highlighted several concerns about access to and quality of psychological services provided. For example, one such study by Weitzman (2006) found that polyamorous clients perceive that practitioners are not fully informed about their needs and fear they will be judged, or their lifestyle choices condemned. Furthermore, some therapists struggle to accept that CNM partnerships are fulfilling, but instead consider CNM responsible for fuelling relationship problems (Orion, 2018), making it difficult to provide effective therapeutic support. In addition, Henrich and Trawinski (2016) argue that therapists who endorse conformity to monogamy or who have had personal experience of infidelity, increases the risk of countertransference, which has been shown to negatively impact the therapeutic relationship and result in ineffective treatment. Therapist and client relationships filled with tension or a lack of understanding are not conducive to the therapeutic process and will potentially cause greater distress or anxiety to the patient.

One psychological clinician, Rhea Orion, has decades of experience working with a range of couples and individuals who actively participate in CNM, and she provides guidance to therapists on how to effectively engage with clients and their families. Orion argues that the monogamy-centric training, which has been somewhat standard in psychological training until recently, has tended to label CNM as problematic. She cautions that therapists should take extra care not to pathologize CNM, by assuming clients are unable to form intimate attachments resulting in diagnosing some form of attachment disorder (Orion, 2018). This is perpetuated by the belief of some experts that individuals who are in CNM relationships are typically neurotic or unsatisfied beings that have some form of psychological problem

(Orion, 2018; Rubel and Bogaert, 2015). One study by Rubel and Bogaert (2015) found that

31 the additional stress or difficulties experienced by CNM individuals is the result of stigma, fear of discrimination or rejection from family and the discontent of having to hide their true self or significant romantic relationships.

As discussed earlier, CNM is on the rise, but current estimates are believed to be conservative. It is possible that soon more clients will present who have chosen to adopt this lifestyle but require support to manage the practical and emotional difficulties associated with it. As the literature has demonstrated, there is currently a lack of therapeutic training for counsellors but there are a number of mental health practitioners and researchers who advise clinicians focus on their clients sexual identity and reaffirm the importance of freedom and belonging in their choices, through empathy and respect (Henrich and Trawinski, 2016; Berry

& Barker, 2013). One study found that practitioners who are CNM affirming, utilising inclusive therapeutic practices, avoiding pathologizing CNM, by challenging the privilege status of monogamy, are the best suited to working with this group of clients (Finn, Tunariu and Lee, 2012). In addition, as is a necessity when working with all clients, it is of paramount importance that counsellors are aware of their own biases and do not allow this to interfere with the therapeutic process.

The unique issues associated with CNM, combined with millennial’s generational specific attitudes and experiences of romantic relationships, need to be explore in-depth, to create an evidence-base model for future therapy practice. This is necessary to ensure therapeutic practice reflects the needs of this group who face their own unique set of challenges with their life-choices.

32 3. Methodology

This research on millennials’ experience of romantic relationships has been designed as a quantitative study. On completion of the literature review, the author designed the study in order to assess identified factors which impact on millennials’ experiences of romantic relationships including attachment style, partner conflict, levels of satisfaction, and openness to consensual non-monogamy (CNM). The data were collected using questionnaires addressing each specific factor, using four inventories as well as demographic participant information. A one- way between subjects MANOVA, one- way between-subjects ANOVA and Chi Square were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the depend variables in relation to attachment style.

The focus of this study is on millennials living in Western culture. The literature shows that there are vast differences in young adult romantic relationships across cultures, and millennials are a generational group specific to Western culture in terms of the unique characteristics that define them. The data collected through the chosen inventories therefore could not be applied to cultures outside of this. The author believed that it would decrease the significance of the study to attempt to capture culture differences and therefore chose to focus only on one culture.

3.1 Participants

One hundred and forty-nine participants in the period of emerging adulthood (18-33 years), both male and female, took part in this quantitative study on millennials’ experience of romantic relationships. Participants were recruited through the University of New York in

Prague and from contacts in other Western European countries as well as the USA.

Participants who are currently in a romantic relationship, who have previously been in a romantic relationship or who have never been in a romantic relationship were recruited to the

33 study. Participants were recruited also based on their proficiency in the English language so that they could read and understand the directions and inventory items.

3.2 Materials

The data were collected by participants completing one questionnaire which included demographic information and the four inventories, Experience in Close Relationships-

Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire, Relationship Assessment Scale, Romantic Partner Conflict

Scale and Willingness to engage in Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM). The questionnaire was distributed either online using Google Forms or in paper form by participants who completed it anonymously.

3.2.1 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.

3.2.2 Adult Attachment

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

34 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).

3.2.3 Relationship Conflict

Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS) (Zacchilli, Hendrick & Hendrick, 2012), 39- item assessing six subscales; Compromise (α= .95), Avoidance (α=.82), Separation (α=.83),

Interactional Reactivity (α= .82), Domination (α= .87) and Submission (α= .82). The purpose of this scale is to measure everyday conflict experienced by individuals in romantic relationships. Compromise reflect ability to be collaborative and negotiate with goal of achieving both partners satisfaction. Avoidance entails precluding conflict situations before they arise. Separation is the ‘cooling-off’ period with the intention of discussing issues later.

Interactional Reactivity is characterised by verbal aggressions, emotional volatility and lack of trust between partners. Domination is an attempt by one person to be in control and win any argument or dispute. Finally, submission is characterised by one partner giving in to the other partner’s wishes in order to satisfy the partner and / or simply end the conflict. The subscales are intended to demonstrate a range of constructive or destructive strategies.

Constructive strategies are those that promote or enhance the relationships and destructive are those that harm, erode or eventually destroy the relationship.

Sample items include; “My partner and I collaborate to find a common ground to solve problems between us” (Compromise); “I avoid disagreements with my partner”

(Avoidance); “When we have conflict, we separate but expect to deal with it later”

(Separation); “I become verbally abusive to my partner when we have conflict” (Interactional

Reactivity); “I try to take control when we argue” (Dominance) and lastly, “When we argue, I usually try to satisfy my partners needs rather than my own” (Submission). Participants rated

35 agreement with each statement using a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree with statement) to 5 (strongly agree with statement). Previous research has shown strong test-retest reliabilities for the factors/ subscales (Zacchilli, Hendrick & Hendrick,

2009).

3.2.4 Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) (Hendrick, 1988) a 7-item scale designed to measure general relationship satisfaction. The scale is unique in that the items are worded so that they are not specific to marriages and are general enough to apply to all relationships.

Participants were asked to score between 1 (low) and 5 (high) satisfaction for each of the 7 questions. Sample questions include “How well does your partner meet your needs?” and

“How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?”. Studies have shown that the RAS (α= .89) has good test-retest reliability and is an appropriate, useful and brief measure for partnered love relationships in a wide variety of research settings (Hendrick,

Dick & Hendrick, 1998).

3.2.5 Attitudes towards Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)

Attitudes towards CNM was assessed using a scale composed of the following eight items (α= .79); “You must be in a monogamous relationship to be in love” (reverse scored),

“I can see myself entering into a non-monogamous relationship”, “A monogamous relationship is the most satisfying type of relationship” (reverse scored), “Intimate relationships with more than one person are too complicated” (reverse scored), “It is possible to have several satisfying intimate relationships at the same time” and “It is possible to date other people while in a loving relationship with your partner”, “It is possible to have sexual relationships with other people while in a loving relationship with your partner”, “It is possible for one partner in a relationship to be monogamous while the other partner is not

36 monogamous”. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each statement using a

7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward CNM.

3.3 Procedure

The procedure used to conduct this qualitative study is outlined below. It includes the method of participant recruitment, steps taken to ensure the protection of study participants and finally the statistical analysis used to test the study hypotheses.

3.3.1 Participant Recruitment

Questionnaires to collect data were distributed over a two-week period in November

2018. This was done in person by the principle researcher at the University of New York in

Prague and online using a link shared on Facebook.

3.3.2 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 submissions, and the contact information of the principle researcher and thesis supervisor. After the participants provided their individual consent, data were collected anonymously from questionnaires reporting on their romantic or perceived experience of romantic relationships in relation to attachment style, conflict, level of satisfaction and openness to CNM.

37 3.3.3 Data analysis

A spreadsheet was created to input all the data from the questionnaires. This data was then inputted in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and analyzed using a range of statistical tests. Descriptive statistics were computed for each variable to understand the characteristics of the study sample. This was followed by checking the assumptions of normality using the Shapiro-Wilk’s test. Afterwards, MANOVA was conducted, including

Box’s Tests assumption of covariance and Pillai’s Trace robust test, to determine the effect of attachment style on relationship satisfaction and partner conflict. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 were tested using Chi Square to look specifically at the relationship between the independent and two dependent variables of these hypotheses. Hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 were tested using a one-way between-subjects effect ANOVA to analyse the relationship between romantic attachment style and openness towards CNM.

3.4 Hypotheses

Based on review of the literature, the following hypotheses were formed.

1. Secure attachment will have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and lower levels

of conflict.

2. Fearful-avoidant attachment will have lower levels of relationship satisfaction and

lower levels of conflict.

3. Anxious-preoccupied attachment will have lower levels of relationship satisfaction

and higher levels of conflict.

4. Dismissing- avoidant attachment will have lower levels of conflict and lower levels of

relationship satisfaction.

5. Dismissing-avoidant attachment will have openness to CNM.

6. Anxious-preoccupied attachment will not have openness to CNM.

7. Fearful-avoidant attachment will not have openness toward CNM.

38 4. Results

This is a quantitative study on millennials’ experience of romantic relationships, the results of which are presented below. The independent variable is attachment style which has four groups: secure, anxious-preoccupied, fearful avoidant, and dismissive-avoidant. There are three dependent variables: relationship satisfaction, partner conflict and attitudes towards consensual non-monogamy.

4.1 Quantitative Results

The quantitative findings begin with a descriptive analysis and normality tests of the factors being tested. This is followed by an analysis of between-subjects multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests to determine if there is a difference in conflict and relationship satisfaction among different attachment styles. Next are the results of the Chi Square test, which was conducted to determine the effect of attachment style on relationship satisfaction and partner conflict A final between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted on attachment style and openness to CNM, in order to determine if there are significant differences between the means of the four attachment styles on openness to CNM.

4.2 Description of the Sample

Prior to conducting the primary statistical analysis, the demographic information was analysed. The final sample totalled 149 participants. There were 46 males and 103 females who took part in the study (see Table 1). The participants ranged in age from 18 to 36 years with a mean age of 22.12 (SD= 3.147) (see Table 2). The sample was comprised of participants from across Europe and the United states including 26 (17.4%) from west

Europe, 71 (47.7%) from central Europe, 35 (23.5%) from east Europe, 15 (10.1%) from

America and 2 (1.3%) from another area representing western culture (see Table 3).

39 Other demographic information that was gathered related to participants relationship status. A total of 81(54.4%) of participants stated they are currently in a relationship, a further

63 (42.3%) stated they were single and finally 5 (3.4%) participants stated ‘other’ which can refer to engagement in many different forms of romantic relationships including casual sex or

‘hook-ups’ and other types which are not the traditional form of commitment (see Table 4).

Lastly, information was collected to assess the attachment style of participants which were divided into four types including secure, anxious preoccupied, fearful avoidant and dismissive avoidant. In total 47 (31.5%) of participants had a secure attachment, 27 (18.1%) had anxious preoccupied attachment, 49 (32.9%) had a fearful avoidant attachment and lastly

26 (17.4%) of participants had a dismissive avoidant attachment style (see Table 5).

Table 1 Gender Statistics of Participants Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 46 30.9 30.9 30.9 female 103 69.1 69.1 100.0

Total 149 100.0 100.0

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Normality Test of Participants Age

Shapiro- Wilk

N M Md SD Min Max (p)

Age 149 22.12 22.00 3.147 18 36 .000

40 Table 3

Nationality Statistics of Participants Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid West Europe 26 17.4 17.4 17.4 Central Europe 71 47.7 47.7 65.1 Eastern Europe 35 23.5 23.5 88.6 America 15 10.1 10.1 98.7 Other 2 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 149 100 100

Table 4

Relationship Status Statistics of Participants Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid in a relationship 81 54.4 54.4 54.4

Single 63 42.3 42.3 96.6 Other 5 3.4 3.4 100.0 Total 149 100.0 100.0

Table 5

Attachment Style Statistics of Participants Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Secure 47 31.5 31.5 31.5 anxious 27 18.1 18.1 49.7 preoccupied fearful avoidant 49 32.9 32.9 82.6 dismissive 26 17.4 17.4 100.0 avoidant Total 149 100.0 100.0

4.3 Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality of the Variables.

The factors examined in this study were positive and negative experiences of romantic relationships and openness to alternative relationship styles in relation to adult

41 romantic attachment style. Negative experiences were categorised as partner conflict and positive experiences categorised as overall relationship satisfaction, while CNM activities were used to categorise openness to alternative relationship styles. All these variables were examined in relationship to attachment style to determine the extent to which this influences experience of romantic relationships.

4.3.1 Length of Relationship (in Months)

Length of relationship has a mean score of 20.76 and a median value of (Mdn =

12.00). The standard deviation is (SD= 21.937). Length of relationship has a minimum score of 0 months and a maximum score of 120 months. The Shapiro Wilk’s test indicates that the data are not normally distributed (p < .001) (see Table 6).

4.3.2 Romantic Partner Conflict

Partner conflict has a mean score of (M= 84.01). This score is very close to its median value (Mdn = 83.00). The standard deviation for this variable is (SD= 15.659). It has a minimum score of 46 and a maximum score of 131. The Shapiro Wilk’s test indicates that the data for partner conflict are normally distributed (p= .275) (see Table 7).

4.3.3 Romantic Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction has a mean score of (M= 24.40). This score is very close to its median value (Mdn = 25.00). The standard deviation for this variable is (SD= 3.718). This variable has a minimum score of 7 and a maximum score of 33. The Shapiro Wilk’s test indicates that the data for relationship satisfaction are not normally distributed (p < .001) (see

Table 8).

42 4.3.4 Attitudes Towards Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM)

This scale has a mean score of (M= 23.0604) and a median value of (Mdn = 21). The standard deviation for CNM scale is (SD= 12.43862). This variable has a minimum score of 8 and a maximum score of 56. The Shapiro Wilk’s test indicates that the data for attitudes towards CNM are not normally distributed (p < .001). (see Table 9).

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for the Length of Relationship (in Months).

Shapiro-

N M Md SD Min Max Wilk (p) Length of Relationship 149 20.76 12.00 21.937 0 120 .000

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics and Test of Normality for Romantic Partner Conflict Scale

Shapiro- Wilk

N M Md SD Min Max (p) Romantic Partner Conflict Scale 149 84.01 83.00 15.659 46 131 .275

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Satisfaction Scale

Shapiro-

N M Md SD Min Max Wilk (p) Relationship Assessment 149 24.40 25.00 3.718 7 33 .000

43 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes Towards Consensual Non- Monogamy Scale

Shapiro- Wilk

N M Md SD Min Max (p) CNM 149 23.06 21.00 12.43 8 56 .000

4.4 Hypothesis Testing

In order to test the hypotheses of this study a one-way between-subjects MANOVA analysis was conducted to determine the effect of attachment style on relationship satisfaction and partner conflict, and one-way between-subjects ANOVA analyses were conducted to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between the means of the four different attachment styles and attitudes towards CNM. A Chi Square analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between attachment style, partner conflict, and relationship satisfaction together.

4.4.1 Attachment Style, Relationship Satisfaction, and Partner Conflict

A one-way between-subjects MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of attachment style on relationship satisfaction and partner conflict. Participants were grouped according to their identified attachment style, secure (n=47), anxious preoccupied (n=27), fearful avoidant (n=49), and dismissive avoidant (n=26) (see Table 10). The assumption of equality of covariance was violated, as assessed by Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices (p < .001) (see Table 11). The results show attachment style has a significant effect on relationship satisfaction and romantic partner conflict combined, Pillai’s F (6, 290) =

8.030, p < .001 η2 = .142 (see Table 12). Additionally, relationship satisfaction was highest for participants with secure attachment (M= 26.64, SD= 2.141), in comparison to those with anxious preoccupied (M= 25.07, SD= 2.433), dismissive avoidant (M= 24.12, SD= 3.037) and

44 lastly fearful avoidant (M= 22.02, SD= 4.385) (see Table 10). Moreover, the differences between these groups was statistically significant, F (3, 145) = 16.786, p < .001 η2 = .258 (see

Table 13). Romantic partner conflict was highest for those participants with anxious preoccupied attachment style (M= 88.26, SD= 17.728), followed by fearful avoidant attachment (M= 84.35, SD= 13.902) and secure attachment (M= 82.64, SD= 16.451), in comparison to participants with a dismissive avoidant attachment who had the lowest rates of conflict (M= 81.46, SD= 15.023) (see Table 10). However, the difference between these groups was not statistically significant F (3, 145) = 1.020, p = .385 (see Table 13).

A Chi Square test was then run to determine if there was a relationship between attachment style and relationship satisfaction and partner conflict, in addition to seeing mean differences among four different groups: low conflict and low satisfaction, low conflict and high satisfaction, high conflict and low satisfaction and high conflict and high satisfaction.

The analysis showed that there was statistically significant difference between attachment style and relationship satisfaction and partner conflict χ² (3, 149) = 39.139, p < .001 (see

Table 14). The cross tabulation showed that the majority of participants with secure attachment had low conflict and high satisfaction (15.4%) in their relationships as did the majority of those with dismissive avoidant attachment (6%). In contrast, those with fearful avoidant attachment had almost equal low conflict and low satisfaction (12.1%) and high conflict and low satisfaction (11.4%) in their romantic relationships, low satisfaction being the dominant feature. Furthermore, participants with anxious preoccupied attachment were also almost equally divided in their relationship characteristics with high conflict and low satisfaction (5.4%) and high conflict and high satisfaction (6%) (see Table 15).

Therefore, hypothesis 1, secure attachment results in greater levels of relationship satisfaction and lower levels of conflict, was confirmed and hypothesis 2, fearful avoidant attachment will have less relationship satisfaction and low levels of conflict, was also

45 confirmed. However, hypothesis 3, anxious-preoccupied attachment will have low levels of relationship satisfaction and higher levels of conflict, was not confirmed and hypothesis 4, dismissive-avoidant attachment will have low levels of satisfaction and low levels of conflict, was also not confirmed.

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics Means of Attachment Attachment Mean Std. Deviation N Secure 26.64 2.141 47 anxious preoccupied 25.07 2.433 27 fearful avoidant 22.02 4.385 49 dismissive avoidant 24.12 3.037 26 Total 24.40 3.718 149 Secure 82.64 16.451 47 anxious preoccupied 88.26 17.728 27 fearful avoidant 84.35 13.902 49 dismissive avoidant 81.46 15.023 26 Total 84.01 15.659 149

Table 11

Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricesa Box's M 33.436 F 3.613 df1 9 df2 91534.780 Sig. .000 Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + Attachment

46 Table 12

Multivariate Testsc Effect Hypothesis Partial Eta Value F df Error df Sig. Squared Intercept Pillai's Trace .986 5114.820a 2.000 144.000 .000 .986 Wilks' Lambda .014 5114.820a 2.000 144.000 .000 .986 Hotelling's 71.039 5114.820a 2.000 144.000 .000 .986 Trace Roy's Largest 71.039 2.000 144.000 .000 .986

Root Attachmen Pillai's Trace .285 8.030 6.000 290.000 .000 .142 t Wilks' Lambda .720 6.000 288.000 .000 .151 Hotelling's .381 9.076 6.000 286.000 .000 .160 Trace Roy's Largest .360 3.000 145.000 .000 .265

Root a. Exact statistic b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level. c. Design: Intercept + Attachment

47 Table 13 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Relationship Satisfaction and Partner Conflict Source Dependent Type III Sum Partial Eta Variable of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Corrected Model Relationship 527.301a 3 175.767 16.786 .000 .258 Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 3 250.124 1.020 .385 .021

Conflict Scale Intercept Relationship 81703.285 1 81703.285 7802.603 .000 .982 Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 967466.526 1 967466.526 3947.221 .000 .965 Conflict Scale Attachment Relationship 527.301 3 175.767 16.786 .000 .258 Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 750.373 3 250.124 1.020 .385 .021 Conflict Scale Error Relationship 1518.336 145 10.471

Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 35539.600 145 245.101

Conflict Scale Total Relationship 90725.000 149

Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 1.088E6 149

Conflict Scale Corrected Total Relationship 2045.638 148

Assessment Scale Romantic Partner 36289.973 148

Conflict Scale a. R Squared = .258 (Adjusted R Squared = .242) b. R Squared = .021 (Adjusted R Squared = .000)

Table 14

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 39.139a 9 .000 Likelihood Ratio 43.375 9 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.468 1 .063

N of Valid Cases 149 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.41.

48 Table 15

Attachment * Conflict_Satisfaction Crosstabulation Conflict_Satisfaction Low Low High High conflict - conflict - conflict - conflict - low high low high satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction Total Attachme Secure Count 3 23 4 17 47 nt % of 2.0% 15.4% 2.7% 11.4% 31.5% Total anxious Count 3 7 8 9 27 preoccupied % of 2.0% 4.7% 5.4% 6.0% 18.1% Total fearful Count 18 3 17 11 49 avoidant % of 12.1% 2.0% 11.4% 7.4% 32.9% Total dismissive Count 7 9 4 6 26 avoidant % of 4.7% 6.0% 2.7% 4.0% 17.4% Total Total Count 31 42 33 43 149 % of 20.8% 28.2% 22.1% 28.9% 100.0% Total

4.4.2 Openness to Consensual Non-Monogamy

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA test was used to analyse the relationship between adult romantic attachment style and attitudes towards CNM. This variable is specifically measuring openness or willingness to engage in this form of romantic relationship. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated, as assessed by

Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (p > .05) (see Table 16). Participants with dismissive avoidant attachment style had the greatest openness to or positive attitude toward

CNM romantic relationships (M= 27.84, SD= 13.534) closely followed by participants with fearful avoidant attachment (M= 25.85, SD= 10.80), in comparison to those with secure attachment having much lower levels of openness to CNM (M= 19, 8511, SD= 11.77687) and

49 finally anxious preoccupied having the least positive views of CNM romantic relationships

(M= 18.9630 SD= 13.03688) (see Table 17). Furthermore, the difference between these groups was statistically significant, F (3, 145) = 4.414, p < .001, η2 = .084 (see Table 18).

The Tukey post hoc analysis revealed that the mean difference between dismissive avoidant to secure attachment (8.8832) was statistically significant (p < .001) (see Table 19). However, none of the other group differences were statistically significant. Therefore hypothesis 5, individuals with dismissive avoidant attachment will have openness to CNM was confirmed, and hypothesis 6, individuals with anxious-preoccupied attachment will not have openness to

CNM was also confirmed. However, hypothesis 7, individuals with fearful-avoidant attachment will not have openness to CNM, was not confirmed.

Table 16

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable: Consensual non-monogamy F df1 df2 Sig. 1.288 3 145 .281 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + Attachment

Table 17

Descriptive Statistics for Attachment and Consensual Non-Monogamy Attachment Mean Std. Deviation N Secure 19.85 11.77 47 anxious preoccupied 18.96 13.03 27 fearful avoidant 25.85 10.80 49 dismissive avoidant 27.84 13.53 26

Total 23.0604 12.43 149

50 Table 18

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Consensual non-monogamy Source Type III Sum Partial Eta of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared Corrected 1916.151a 3 638.717 4.414 .005 .084 Model Intercept 73043.280 1 73043.280 504.772 .000 .777 Attachment 1916.151 3 638.717 4.414 .005 .084 Error 20982.305 145 144.706 Total 102134.000 149 Corrected Total 22898.456 148 a. R Squared = .084 (Adjusted R Squared = .065)

51 Table 19 Post Hoc Tukey Test for Difference between Attachment Style and Openness to Consensual Non-Monogamy Dependent Variable: Consensual non-monogamy (I) (J) 95% Confidence Attachment Attachment Mean Interval Difference Std. Lower Upper (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound Tukey HSD Secure anxious .8881 2.90488 .990 -6.6619 8.4381 preoccupied fearful -6.0061 2.45602 .073 -12.3894 .3773 avoidant dismissive 2.94014 .037 -15.6367 -.3534

avoidant anxious secure -.8881 2.90488 .990 -8.4381 6.6619 preoccupied fearful -6.8942 2.88316 .083 -14.3877 .5994 avoidant dismissive 3.30531 .040 -17.4739 -.2925

avoidant fearful secure 6.0061 2.45602 .073 -.3773 12.3894 avoidant anxious 6.8942 2.88316 .083 -.5994 14.3877 preoccupied dismissive -1.9890 2.91869 .904 -9.5749 5.5969 avoidant dismissive secure 8.8832* 2.94014 .037 .3534 15.6367 avoidant anxious 3.30531 .040 .2925 17.4739

preoccupied fearful 1.9890 2.91869 .904 -5.5969 9.5749 avoidant Games- Secure anxious .8881 3.04069 .991 -7.1934 8.9696 Howell preoccupied fearful -6.0061 2.30946 .052 -12.0485 .0363 avoidant dismissive -7.9951 3.16167 .069 -16.4229 .4327 avoidant anxious secure -.8881 3.04069 .991 -8.9696 7.1934 preoccupied fearful -6.8942 2.94575 .104 -14.7470 .9587 avoidant dismissive -8.8832 3.65240 .084 -18.5851 .8188 avoidant secure 6.0061 2.30946 .052 -.0363 12.0485

52 fearful anxious 6.8942 2.94575 .104 -.9587 14.7470 avoidant preoccupied dismissive -1.9890 3.07048 .916 -10.2004 6.2224 avoidant dismissive secure 7.9951 3.16167 .069 -.4327 16.4229 avoidant anxious 8.8832 3.65240 .084 -.8188 18.5851 preoccupied fearful 1.9890 3.07048 .916 -6.2224 10.2004 avoidant Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 144.706. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

53 5. Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate millennials’ experience of romantic relationships during the period of emerging adulthood in relation to attachment style. This chapter will discuss the results of each of the hypothesis in relation to the current literature and highlight new findings. Recommendations for future research will be outlined as well as the limitations of this study.

The literature identified specific factors which contribute to millennials experience of romantic relationships including partner conflict, satisfaction, and openness towards CNM.

The quantitative data provided insight into the role of attachment on these factors and new findings emerged which have not been documented by any previous study on the topic.

The study sample was representative of Western culture across Europe and the United

States. The sample size enabled the researcher to gather data representing the four defined attachment styles of both males and females, which was essential to ensure the aims of the study could be met. Furthermore, the study includes participants across the entire span of emerging adulthood demonstrating the sample is representative of the millennial generation.

In addition, the study has captured the experience of those in many different relationship formations including those who are in long-term relationships, those who are currently single and engaging in non-traditional relationship formations such as ‘hook-ups’ and ‘friends with benefits’, all of which have been documented in the literature as characteristic of millennials romantic relationships. No participants are married nor have any children, which supports previous findings that this generation of emerging adults are postponing marriage and parenthood on average until much later than previous generations (Pew Research Center,

2018).

54 The current cohort of emerging adults demonstrate greater tolerance and open- mindedness to pre-marital sex and sexual exploration than any generation before (Ipsos, n.d.), which is evident in this study by the high response rate, and participants willingness to disclose their experiences and attitudes of romantic relationships. As a group, millennials have more liberal attitudes towards sex, sexuality, and self-exploration (Pew Research

Centre, 2018), which is evidenced in this study by participants engagement in CNM practices and non-traditional romantic relationship formations.

Individuals with secure attachment style tend to have relationships that are trusting, where partners develop healthy boundaries allowing each other freedom to explore the world but also being there to offer support and comfort when needed. Secure individuals are comfortable expressing intimacy, but also secure in individual independence (Hazan and

Shaver, 1987). The results of this study support previous research that those with secure attachment have greater levels of relationship satisfaction and lower levels of conflict. As shown, conflict is usually the result of dissatisfaction, a lack of communication or unhealthy boundaries and behaviours (Simspon,1987; Halpern-Meeking et al., 2013), therefore it is not surprising that secure attachment reported lower levels of conflict as these individuals commonly have relationships that are friendly, happy, trusting and accepting partners, regardless of their faults. This low level of conflict, combined with positive feelings towards a romantic partner and the relationship overall, results in greater levels of satisfaction. These characteristics are key to longevity and stability in romantic relationships and from the evidence, attachment style is a predominant factor in determining this. Furthermore, this form of attachment is typically associated with greater levels of overall life satisfaction and adjustment, both of which are necessary for psychological wellbeing. This is perhaps due to the fact romantic relationships tend to become the primary source of support during the

55 period of emerging adulthood, therefore a healthy, stable relationship will enhance psychological wellbeing.

The literature demonstrated that fearful-avoidant attachment is characterized by jealousy and fear of intimacy and often these individuals experience frequent emotional highs and lows in their romantic relationships (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991). Ultimately, these individuals desire emotional closeness but tend to be overwhelmed by deep emotional connections and believe they will be hurt. Fearful-avoidant individuals often distrust their partner, experience a lot of inner conflict and struggle with expressing emotions. This study found that fearful-avoidant attachment has less romantic relationship satisfaction and low levels of conflict. Satisfaction in romantic relationships is often determined by partners ability to be open and honest with each other, having a foundation built on trust. However, given that fearful-avoidant individuals are suspicious of others, and fear intimacy, it is expected that they will experience lower levels of satisfaction which can lead to the dissolution of a relationship. In addition, the need for these individuals to suppress feelings and internalise emotions will make it difficult for them to articulate their needs or concerns to their partner. This results in lower levels of conflict, as they tend to remain quiet or avoidant out of fear their partner will abandon them.

Individuals with anxious-preoccupied attachment are high in anxiety. They tend to seek high levels of intimacy and approval from their partners (Hazan and Shaver, 1987), exhibiting jealousy, possessiveness, obsessiveness, and heightened sensitivity. In addition, these individuals tend to have emotionally unstable romantic relationships, have a continuous need for validation, reassurance and acceptance from their partner and may even create problems within the relationship that are not there. This study found that these individuals have high conflict and high satisfaction in their romantic relationships, and not low satisfaction as would have been expected. Anxious- preoccupied individuals often feel anger

56 or resent their partner when they do not receive the attention and reassurance they need and therefore they dramatically express their anxiety or frustrations to gain their partners attention. This high level of conflict may result in high satisfaction among anxious- preoccupied individuals because during the argument they have their partners attention which may give them a sense of validation and security knowing their partner cares about them by engaging in a quarrel, despite the instability of the relationship.

Furthermore, anxious-preoccupied individuals fear expressing their emotions to their significant other because of the potential for rejection. The continuous suppression of emotions creates a cycle of emotional outbursts followed by cries for forgiveness or reassurance. This can create toxic or unstable romantic relationships. Research shows that the predominant reason for couples breaking up is arguing or fighting a lot (Dailey et al., 2009;

Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2013), but couples who can master conflict resolution skills are more likely to have long-lasting relationships that are satisfying for both partners (Cramer, 2004). However, for anxious-preoccupied individuals this can be exceptionally challenging. This form of attachment may account for millennials’ high rates of relationship churning, on/off relationships, and other practices such as ‘sex with an ex’, moving between committed relationships and sporadic romantic encounters (Arnett, 2004;

Cohen, Kasen, Chen, Hardmark, & Gordon, 2003) rather than long-term commitment to one partner. These forms of romantic relationships are typically unstable and fraught with problems, but they enable anxious-preoccupied individuals to meet their high intimacy needs.

Dismissive-avoidant attachment style has a desire for independence, with a tendency to suppress feelings and emotionally distance from romantic partners to avoid rejection

(Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Previous research has demonstrated that higher levels of closeness and intimacy between partners is predictive of stability and satisfaction in romantic relationships (Simspon,1987;

57 Halpern-Meeking et al., 2013). Therefore, it would be expected that dismissive-avoidant individuals would experience low levels of relationship satisfaction, and low levels of conflict as a result of their avoidant and defensive behaviour. However, the results of this study show that these individuals have low conflict and high levels of satisfaction. Perhaps this is because dismissive-avoidant participants in this study also had partners with this attachment style and therefore satisfaction levels are high because there is no pressure to express emotions or vulnerability within the relationship. This would also account for low levels of conflict, as this attachment style tends to disengage from arguments or disagreements with significant others, demonstrating their independence and self-sufficiency.

It is important to note that previous research has shown that 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 (Adams, Laursen

& Wilder, 2001; Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). The nature of dismissive-avoidant attachment makes it difficult to master conflict resolution skills, meaning the longevity of the relationship is put at risk over time, which may also account for the high rates of millennials fluid and on/off relationships. The high levels of relationship satisfaction among this group may also be an indication of greater acceptance and tolerance within the millennial generation to form non-traditional romantic relationships, whereby partners have freedom to explore the world or their sexuality, which can increase relationship and overall life satisfaction.

As discussed in the literature review, the author found very few studies on attachment and CNM and none regarding emerging adulthood. In Western culture, monogamy has historically been considered the norm, if not optimal relationship formation, however there is evidence that millennials are open to or have had experience of CNM, during the period of emerging adulthood. The author expected there to be differences in terms of which

58 attachment style would influence an individual’s openness to CNM, however findings of this study demonstrate that dismissive-avoidant, fearful-avoidant and anxious-preoccupied individuals all had some degree of openness to CNM.

There is currently no empirical evidence that CNM causes more acute feelings of jealousy, compared to monogamous relationships. In fact, 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).

The belief is that jealousy results from fear that one partner will commit infidelity. It is thought that those who choose to engage in CNM are not typically jealous individuals.

However, both fearful-avoidant and anxious-preoccupied attachments experience insecurities in their relationships as a result of jealousy and their own lack of self-worth. Fearful-avoidant individuals often distrust their partner and therefore it would be expected they would not have openness to CNM because this form of romantic relationships requires a great deal of trust and security for both partners to be satisfied. On the other hand, it is possible that CNM provides fearful-avoidant attachment to have less intensity or intimacy with partners, as this is diluted over multiple relationships, and enables them to supress or deny their feelings, as they struggle internally with these emotions. Additionally, fears of abandonment may also be reduced when an individual is involved with more than one partner, which may reassure them that someone will always be there to support them.

Previous research on CNM and anxious-preoccupied attachment is contradictory.

Conley et al., (2012) found these individuals are unlikely to engage in CNM for fear they will lose their partner, while Allen & Baucom (2004), found that these individuals are more likely to engage in this form of relationship due to their need for high levels of intimacy. This study supported the latter finding. Furthermore, millennials with anxious-preoccupied attachment may be open to CNM because it is another form of seeking approval and validation from

59 others. It may also be a method by which they can disguise their dependency and personal insecurities, by relying on more than one person to fulfil their needs.

Dismissive-avoidant participants in this study also had openness or positive attitudes towards CNM. This outcome was expected because these individuals are generally uncomfortable with intimate attachments and fight to maintain their independence within romantic relationships. CNM may enable these people to maintain emotional distance from partners, making it easier for them to suppress their feelings and displays of vulnerability.

(Conley et al., 2013) found that these individuals may struggle to manage and become unsatisfied with CNM relationships which may be more time-consuming and challenging than they first appear. This study did not support this hypothesis, but oppositely the author believes CNM may enhance their freedom and independence and therefore result in greater relationship satisfaction.

This study has demonstrated that the society in which millennials live and experience emerging adulthood is heavily influencing their experience of romantic relationships. This delay into full adulthood, in terms of financial stability and entering the job market, is enabling many people the freedom to explore their sexuality and move beyond traditional monogamous relationships. Millennials are the most tolerant and open-minded generation in relation to sexuality and this enables many to freely engage in practices that would be considered taboo in previous generations. This study demonstrates that there is a complex interplay between psychological theory of adult attachment and the environment, which combined, influences millennials attitudes and experiences of romantic relationships. Perhaps this shows that traditional theories of adult attachment need to be reviewed and studied through the lens of changing societal norms, as the environment has a significant role to play.

60 The specific experiences of millennials romantic relationships will have implications for therapeutic practice. Millennials experience high levels of relationship churning, on/off relationships, hook ups, and sex with an ex, all of which are characterised by instability, which over a prolonged period, can impact on psychological wellbeing. Insecurity in intimate relationships or loss of a significant person has the potential to cause a great deal of distress and increases the risk of mental and emotional health problems. This study suggests that millennials are faced with greater instability during the period of emerging adulthood in both their personal and professional lives, and perhaps face new challenges in forming intimate relationships as a result of changing attitudes and expectations of romantic partners, and increased use of technology in forming romantic attachments.

The challenge for future practice will be to minimize the harm this instability can cause to clients, to help them to develop the skills and resilience to navigate uncertainties within their romantic relationships, while recognising this instability will likely be a feature of their significant relationships, to some extent, until they reach adulthood. As new relationship formations emerge and are actively engaged in by this group, the therapist’s challenge will be to gain a deep understanding of the social and environmental pressures clients are experiencing and to recognise that these combined with individual attachment style, may require creative approaches to lessen distress and help clients to feel confident and secure within themselves and their relationships. Therapists should also be aware that, given the importance of romantic relationships at this stage of development, combined with high levels of instability, clients may present with concurrent problems across multiple intimate relationships. The challenge to the therapist may be in understanding the nuances associated with this group’s experience of romantic relationships and being able to empathise and offer support when presented with information or scenarios that they struggle with on a personal or moral level.

61 One such issue that might be pertinent is how clients create personal boundaries, to protect their mental wellbeing, while lacking the basic foundations within traditional romantic relationships, such as commitment. When the boundaries of commitment or sexual relationships are not clearly expressed and understood by both partners, misunderstandings and uncertainty can result. This might be particularly challenging for clients with anxious- preoccupied attachments as they often need reassurance and validation from partners. This is much more difficult to achieve when the relationship lacks the traditional commitment boundaries, as is such in hook ups or relationship churning. Clients may present at therapy distressed and unable to manage the emotions associated with these relationship styles while also feeling a deep bond to the other person.

The unique issues associated with millennials and CNM also warrant further investigation in terms of implications for practice. The challenge of therapy will be to distinguish between clients who are unable to form intimate relationships due to some attachment disorder, and those who prefer CNM relationships, which provide them with greater interpersonal satisfaction and overall wellbeing. It is likely, based on the literature, that clients will seek therapy due to the stress caused by external CNM factors, such as stigma, discrimination and fear of ridicule or rejection by friends and family. This requires empathy from the therapist and ability to utilise inclusive therapy practices which are CNM affirming. This approach could be comparable to those used with LGBTQ clients, who face similar external challenges because of their sexuality. The goal of this therapy is not to work to suppress their sexuality but to limit the distress caused by their environment.

The lack of robust, empirical data on CNM, and implications for psychological functioning, creates difficulties in developing an evidence-based model for therapeutic practice. Currently, the limited training opportunities available to therapists working with these clients is impacting on the efficacy of therapy for this group and potentially subjecting

62 clients to negative bias, both of which can be detrimental to the client. Without adequate training there is a risk of pathologizing CNM without cause, which is likely to result in inappropriate treatment and poor patient outcomes.

This study has highlighted several gaps in the psychological literature regarding attachment style and new emerging relationship formations during the period of young adulthood. The implications for practice are considerable but currently lacking a strong evidence-base. On the whole, this is a research area that has not been explored in-depth, and requires further investigation for the benefit of clients.

63 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 quantitative data showed how attachment style influences levels of conflict and satisfaction in romantic relationships and openness to CNM. The study has shown that millennials experiences are influenced by generational trends, including liberal and tolerant views on the exploration of sexuality, this period being a time for freedom and experimentation in romantic relationships.

6.2. Limitations of Study and Recommendations for Future Research

There are several limitations to this study which need attention. Firstly, the sample size may mean that the data is not completely representative of all millennial’s experiences of romantic relationships. Furthermore, the ratio of male to female participants may have impacted the data, because on issues of romantic relationships, and sexual experiences, there is evidence of differences between genders.

Secondly, due to time constraints other important variables within this study had to be discounted. The author was unable to examine the differences in experiences between genders, sexual orientations, and lengths of relationships. In addition, it was not possible to quantify sexual experiences in relation to attachment style nor to determine if millennials are more fluid in the sexuality than previous generations, as shown by the literature review.

Lastly, the quantitative methodology meant that the reasons or motivations why this generation of emerging adults choose to engage in different forms of romantic relationships such as CNM and the high rates of relationship churning or other phenomenon’s characteristic of the millennial generation including ‘hook-ups’ and ‘sex with an ex’ could

64 not be explored. These questions would need to be addressed through an in-depth qualitative study.

A combined mixed-method study, utilising both qualitative and quantitative data, would provide a deeper understanding of millennials experience of romantic relationships.

Ideally, the sample size would be much larger, and a follow-up study conducted five years later, following participants journey through emerging adulthood would provide rich in-depth data, filling the current gaps in empirical data. It would also be necessary to explore the implications for practice. It would be worthy to conduct a study with psychological therapists and other professionals to establish current trends among clinicians working with CNM clients to determine attitudes, knowledge and gaps in training, as a starting point. It might also be useful to conduct a comparative study on the experiences of LGBTQ community and

CNM community in terms of the external biases, stereotypes and discrimination they face as this might provide further insight into best practice approach for these clients.

65 References

Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult Attachment and Patterns of Extradyadic

Involvement. Family Process, 43(4), 467–488. doi:10.1111/j.1545-

5300.2004.00035.x

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

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

and Clinical Psychology, 63, 919-927.

Berry, M.D., & Barker, M. (2014). Extraordinary interventions for extraordinary clients:

Existential sex therapy and open non-monogamy. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,

29, 21-30.

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

Bonnie, R. J., Stroud, C., Breiner, H., Committee on Improving the Health, Safety, and Well-

Being of Young Adults, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Institute of

Medicine, & National Research Council (Eds.). (2015). Investing in the Health and

Well-Being of Young Adults. National Academies Press (US).

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.

Bradley, J. (2020). Millennials Experience of Romantic Relationships during the period of

Emerging Adulthood in Relation to Attachment Style: A Qualitative Study.

University of New York in Prague.

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

67 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 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

Centre for Disease Control. (March 2020). How you can prevent sexually transmitted

diseases. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/prevention/default.htm

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.

68 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

Finn, M.D., Tunariu, A.D., & Lee, K.C. (2012). A critical analysis of affirmative therapeutic

engagements with consensual non-monogamy. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 27,

205-216.

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

69 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.

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

Henrich, R., & Trawinski, C. (2016). Social and therapeutic challenges facing polyamorous

clients. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 1–15. doi:10.1080/14681994.2016.1174331

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

Vintage Books

70 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.

Ipsos Mori. (n.d.) https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/ipsos-mori-millennial-

myths-realities-full-report.pdf

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

27 (5),507-521.

Johnson, A, (2013). Counseling the Polyamorous Client: Implications for Competent

Practice. Vista Online, 50, 1-10

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.

71 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.

Orion, R. (2018). A Therapists Guide to Consensual Nonmonogamy: Polyamory, Swinging

and Open Marriage. Routledge.

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

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.

Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being

and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–

982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722

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

deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal

72 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

Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships and mental health

in early adulthood: does the association differ for women and men?. Journal of health

and social behavior, 51(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510372343

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

relationships. New York, NY: Guilford.

Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2017). A systematic review of research on attitudes

towards and willingness to engage in consensual non-monogamy among emerging

adults: methodological issues considered. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1-2), 4–

23. doi:10.1080/19419899.2017.1319407

73 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

The Pew Research Centre. (2019). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-

millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Twenge, J. (2014). “Generation Me- Why today’s young American’s are more confident,

assertive, entitled- and more miserable than before.” Atria Books.

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

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.

Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of

Bisexuality, 6, 137-164.

74 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:10.5993/AJHB.34.1.2

75 Appendix 1

INFORMED CONSENT

1. Summary: This research study will examine Millennials experience of romantic relationships. If you decide you would like to participate, you will be asked to fill out 4 questionnaires with that ask about your experience/ attitudes of romantic relationships.

2. Your right to withdraw/discontinue: You are free to ask questions or to discontinue your participation at any time without penalty. You may also skip any survey questions or study procedures that make you feel uncomfortable.

3. Benefits: Participation in this research study does not guarantee any benefits to you. However, possible benefits include the fact that you may learn something about how research studies are conducted and you may learn something about this area of research (i.e. attachment & romantic relationships).

4. Additional information: You will be given additional information about the study after your participation is complete. 5. Time commitment: If you agree to participate in the study, it may take up to 20 minutes to complete the survey. 6. Guarantee of Confidentiality: All data from this study will be kept from inappropriate disclosure and will be accessible only to the researchers. The researchers are not interested in anyone’s individual responses, only the average responses of everyone in the study. Risks: The present research is designed to reduce the possibility of any negative experiences as a result of participation. Risks to participants are kept to a minimum. However, if your participation in this study causes you any concerns, anxiety, or distress, please contact the UNYP Student Counseling Center at [email protected] to make an appointment to discuss your concerns. 8. Researcher Contact Information: This research study is being conducted by Jude Bradley, in fulfillment of MA Psychology Program. Jude’s supervisor is Mr Vartan Agopian, Lecturer in the Psychology department at the University of New York in Prague. If you have questions or concerns about your participation in this study, you may contact the researcher at [email protected] 9. Results of the Study: You may obtain information about the outcome of the study at the end of the Spring 2019 semester by contacting the researcher listed above. 10. Personal Copy of Consent Form: You will be provided with a blank, unsigned copy of this consent form at the beginning of the study. 11. Verification of Adult Age: By signing below, you attest that you are 18 years old or older and 35 years or younger and that you have freely consented to participate in this research study.

PARTICIPANT’S FULL NAME (printed): PARTICIPANT’S FULL NAME (signed): Date:

76 Appendix 2 THE EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS-REVISED (ECR-R) QUESTIONNAIRE The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by circling a number to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.

Question 1= Strongly Disagree 7= Strongly Agree

1. I'm afraid that I will lose my partner's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 love. 2. I often worry that my partner will not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 want to stay with me. 3. I often worry that my partner doesn't 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 really love me. 4. I worry that romantic partners won’t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 care about me as much as I care about them. 5. I often wish that my partner's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him or her. 6. I worry a lot about my relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. When my partner is out of sight, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 worry that he or she might become interested in someone else. 8. When I show my feelings for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the same about me. 9. I rarely worry about my partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 leaving me. 10. My romantic partner makes me doubt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 myself. 11. I do not often worry about being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 abandoned. 12. I find that my partner(s) don't want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 get as close as I would like. 13. Sometimes romantic partners change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 their feelings about me for no apparent reason. 14. My desire to be very close sometimes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 scares people away. 15. I'm afraid that once a romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who I really am. 16. It makes me mad that I don't get the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

77 affection and support I need from my partner. 17. I worry that I won't measure up to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 other people. 18. My partner only seems to notice me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 when I’m angry. 19. I prefer not to show a partner how I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feel deep down. 20. I feel comfortable sharing my private 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thoughts and feelings with my partner 21. I find it difficult to allow myself to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 depend on romantic partners. 22. I am very comfortable being close to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 romantic partners. 23. I don't feel comfortable opening up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to romantic partners. 24. I prefer not to be too close to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 romantic partners. 25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 partner wants to be very close. 26. I find it relatively easy to get close to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my partner. 27. It's not difficult for me to get close to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my partner. 28. I usually discuss my problems and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 concerns with my partner. 29. It helps to turn to my romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 partner in times of need. 30. I tell my partner just about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 everything.

31. I talk things over with my partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. I am nervous when partners get too 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 close to me. 33. I feel comfortable depending on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 romantic partners. 34. I find it easy to depend on romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 partners. 35. It’s easy for me to be affectionate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with my partner. 36. My partner really understands me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and my needs.

78 Appendix 3

Romantic Partner Conflict Scale

Think about how you handle conflict with your romantic partner. Specifically, think about a significant conflict issue that you and your partner have disagreed about recently. Using the scale below, fill in which response is most like how you handled conflict. If you do not have a romantic partner, respond with your most current partner in mind. If you have never been in a romantic relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be.

For each item, answer as follows:

Strong Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree Strongly Agree

0 1 2 3 4

1. We try to find solutions that are acceptable to both 0 1 2 3 4 of us.

2. We often resolve conflict by talking about the 0 1 2 3 4 problem.

3. Our conflicts usually end when we reach a 0 1 2 3 4 compromise.

4. When my partner and I disagree, we consider both 0 1 2 3 4 sides of the argument.

5. In order to resolve conflicts, we try to reach a 0 1 2 3 4 compromise.

6. Compromise is the best way to resolve conflict 0 1 2 3 4 between my partner and me.

7. My partner and I negotiate to resolve our 0 1 2 3 4 disagreements.

8. I try to meet my partner halfway to resolve a 0 1 2 3 4 disagreement.

9. The best way to resolve conflict between me and my 0 1 2 3 4 partner is to find a middle ground.

79

10. When we disagree, we try to find a solution that 0 1 2 3 4 satisfies both of us.

Strong Disagree Moderately Disagree Neutral Moderately Agree 0 1 2 StronglyAgree 4 5

11. When my partner and I have conflict, we 0 1 2 3 4 collaborate so that we are both happy with our decision.

12. My partner and I collaborate to find a common 0 1 2 3 4 ground to solve problems between us.

13. We collaborate to come up with the best solution 0 1 2 3 4 for both of us when we have a problem.

14. We try to collaborate so that we can reach a joint 0 1 2 3 4 solution to a conflict.

15. My partner and I try to avoid arguments. 0 1 2 3 4

16. I avoid disagreements with partner. 0 1 2 3 4

17. I avoid conflict with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4

18. When my partner and I disagree, we argue loudly. 0 1 2 3 4

19. Our conflicts usually last quite awhile. 0 1 2 3 4

20. My partner and I have frequent conflicts. 0 1 2 3 4

21. I suffer a lot from conflict with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4

22. I become verbally abusive to my partner when we 0 1 2 3 4 have conflict.

23. My partner and I often argue because I do not trust 0 1 2 3 4 him/her.

24. When we have conflict, we withdraw from each 0 1 2 3 4 other for awhile for a “cooling off” period.

25. When we disagree, we try to separate for awhile so 0 1 2 3 4 we can consider both sides of the argument.

80 26. When we experience conflict, we let each other 0 1 2 3 4 cool off before discussing it further.

27. When we have conflict, we separate but expect to 0 1 2 3 4 deal with it later.

28. Separation for a period of time can work well to let 0 1 2 3 4 our conflicts cool down.

29. When we argue or fight, I try to win. 0 1 2 3 4

30. I try to take control when we argue. 0 1 2 3 4

31. I rarely let my partner win an argument. 0 1 2 3 4

32. When we disagree, my goal is to convince to my 0 1 2 3 4 partner that I am right.

33. When we argue, I let my partner know I am in 0 1 2 3 4 charge.

34. When we have conflict, I try to push my partner 0 1 2 3 4 into choosing the solution that I think is best.

35. When we have conflict, I usually give in to my 0 1 2 3 4 partner.

36. I give in to my partner’s wishes to settle arguments 0 1 2 3 4 on my partner’s terms.

37. Sometimes I agree with my partner so the conflict 0 1 2 3 4 will end.

38. When we argue, I usually try to satisfy my 0 1 2 3 4 partner’s needs rather than my own.

39. I surrender to my partner when we disagree on an 0 1 2 3 4 issue.

81 Appendix 4

Relationship Assessment Scale

Please answer each question, scoring between 1 (low) and 5 (high) satisfaction for each of the 7 questions in relation to your romantic relationship. If you do not have a romantic partner, respond with your most current partner in mind. If you have never been in a romantic relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be.

Question Low High 1. How well does your partner meet 1 2 3 4 5 your needs? 2. In general, how satisfied are you 1 2 3 4 5 with your relationship? 3. How good is your relationship 1 2 3 4 5 compared to most? 4. How often do you wish you hadn’t 1 2 3 4 5 gotten into this relationship? 5. To what extent has your 1 2 3 4 5 relationship met your original expectations? 6. How much do you love your 1 2 3 4 5 partner?

7. How many problems are there in 1 2 3 4 5 your relationship?

82 Appendix 5

Attitudes Towards Consensual Non-Monogamy

Please answer the following questions by scoring how much you agree or disagree with each statement.

Strongly Disagree……………………… .Strongly Agree

Statement Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree You must be in a monogamous relationship to be in love. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I can see myself entering into a non-monogamous relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A monogamous relationship is the most satisfying type of relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Intimate relationships with more than one person are too 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 complicated.

It is possible to have several satisfying intimate relationships at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the same time.

It is possible to date other people while in a loving relationship with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 your partner.

It is possible to have sexual relationships with other people while in a loving relationship with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 your partner.

It is possible for one partner in a relationship to be monogamous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 while the other partner is not monogamous.

83 Appendix 6

Demographics

What is your gender? (please circle your answer)

Male

Female

Other

What age are you?

What is your nationality? (please circle your answer)

Western European Central European Eastern European American

Other

Relationship status (please circle your answer)

In a relationship

Single

Other

How long have you been in your current/ most recent relationship (please state).

84