Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Explain the relationship between the development of identity and intimacy
- Describe the characteristics of intimate relationships in early adulthood
- Describe the search for, establishment of, and maintenance of romantic relationships
- List the considerations young adults face in starting a family
Sara stares at her phone as she tries to set up her profile on a new dating app. No wonder she is having so much trouble finding love; she cannot even decide what she is looking for. She knows she wants a partner who will be there for her when she needs support. Someone she can talk to and trust. But also someone funny she can hang with, with whom she has things in common. And at the same time, Sara is looking for a person who appreciates her individuality and independence, who can help her achieve her goals and dreams without being suffocating or controlling. She wants to be connected to her partner but independent. Similar but not the same. Is that too much to ask?
According to Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development, adolescents and emerging adults should prioritize self-focused identity development to prepare for the other-focused stages of adulthood, starting with the challenge of intimacy versus isolation. As Erikson put it, “the condition of twoness is that one must first become oneself” (Erikson, 1982, p. 101). In this section we explore how modern young adults navigate Erikson’s developmental challenge of “twoness.”
The Search for Intimacy
Recall that Erikson described intimacy as the young adult challenge of establishing close and trusting relationships with others. Researchers like Carol Gilligan, who noted that Erikson did not take into account women's experiences, have argued that Erikson’s proposed developmental sequence of identity first, intimacy second is outdated and gender-biased (Gilligan, 1982). Given that emerging adulthood is both longer and more flexible in the 21st century, we may ask whether identity and intimacy can develop together, or even whether women, who exhibit intimate mutual sharing earlier within their adolescent friendships than do men, might develop them in the reverse order (Rudolph & Dodson, 2022). However, research has not consistently substantiated these criticisms. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have found that identity development in adolescence and emerging adulthood predicts intimacy and romantic partnership quality in early adulthood for both men and women, though women do report higher levels of intimacy (Bakken & Huber, 2005; Montgomery, 2005; Kerpelman et al., 2008; Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010; Kroger, 2015; Czyżowska et al., 2019).
According to intimacy researcher Ruth Sharabany (1994), high-quality intimate relationships are characterized by frankness and spontaneity, sensitivity and knowing, exclusivity, giving and helping, imposing and taking, common activity, trust and loyalty, and secure attachment (Figure 12.24). While the security provided by attachment was originally studied as an aspect of infant-caregiver relationships, Hazan & Shafer (1987) proposed that it continues to have value throughout the lifespan and in other close relationships, including adult romantic relationships. Indeed, secure adult attachment style is predictive of improved conflict resolution, mutual caring and trust, emotional closeness, and relationship satisfaction within young adult romantic relationships. (Haydon et al., 2012; Waters et al., 2018).
Given the effort of forming truly intimate romantic relationships and their apparent psychological depth, young adults meeting potential mates may find themselves asking, “Can I be committed to this person? Are we compatible? Can I tolerate [their] shortcomings, values, and lifestyle?” (Korobov & Thorne, 2006, p. 28). These are complex questions with often uncertain answers. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that some young adults may choose to engage in no-strings-attached sexual relationships until they can feel more confident and certain about committing to an intimate romantic relationship with a person.
Link to Learning
People with disabilities have the same variety of sexual and romantic feelings as everyone else, but face additional challenges and questions related to their differing abilities. Watch this video about the value of an inclusive approach to sexual and romantic relationships to learn more.
The prevalence of casual sex (sex that occurs outside a committed relationship) is about 10-15 percent lower than it was in 2007, with 22 percent of women and 24 percent of men between the ages 18 and 23 reporting they experienced casual sex within the last month (South & Lei, 2021). Casual sex can occur in a number of contexts, including “hook-ups” or “one-night-stands,” but the friends-with-benefits relationship has received increasing attention in both pop culture and research for its potential to evolve into something more (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Mongeau et al., 2013; Jovanovic & Williams, 2018; Machia et al, 2020).
A friends-with-benefits relationship (FWBR) occurs when two people in a nonsexual relationship begin having sex, without committing to becoming a romantic couple. Although the relationship includes a certain level of closeness based on friendship and introduces sexual intimacy, the participants do not expect the same level of attachment or commitment required of a truly intimate romantic relationship (Machia et al., 2020). While a FWBR can provide a safe, familiar, and convenient context to explore sexual or romantic feelings with another person, research indicates women are more likely than men to view it as temporary, with greater expectations that it will eventually evolve into a romantic relationship or revert to a nonsexual friendship. In contrast, most men expected the relationship to remain a FWBR (Machia et al., 2020). The participants in heterosexual FWBR often do not realize or communicate these differing expectations (Bisson & Levine, 2009), which may explain why most result in a complete end to a relationship of any kind --friendship or romantic-- and only 15 percent evolve into romantic relationships (Machia et al., 2020).
It Depends
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
Researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville wanted to know why couples in emerging adulthood break up (Norona et al., 2017). They recruited a sample of young adults ages 18-25 who had recently initiated a break-up with their romantic partner and asked them to respond to the following prompt:
Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend is something that is very common. Have you been the one to initiate a breakup within the last 6 months? In other words, have you been the one to decide to break up with your boyfriend or girlfriend in the last 6 months (this includes breakups that you would consider ‘mutual’)?
(If yes:) Tell us your story of the breakup. Describe what led you to break up with your last boyfriend or girlfriend. Please include enough detail to help another person understand how you thought and felt.
The responses reflected the convergence of two themes of emerging adulthood: connection and independence. The most common reason young adults gave for ending relationships was that their romantic partner did not meet their desire for connection, such as with intimacy, shared time, or sexual satisfaction. These responses were consistent with Erikson’s psychosocial challenge of establishing intimacy in early adulthood.
On the other hand, the second most common reason given was the partner’s failure to support the respondent’s need for independence, such as maintaining their individual identity, meeting life goals, and preserving personal space and financial independence. These results highlighted the challenge for young adults of reconciling their need to develop the self with their desire to form connections with others.
Romantic Relationships
While Erikson and many others assert that the willingness and capacity for intimacy and romantic partnership are developmental priorities of early adulthood, we should not take this to mean that being single is developmentally problematic. While most people experience several committed romantic relationships during early adulthood, at any given time about half of young adults are single (Rauer et al., 2013; Cox, 2023). Those in committed romantic relationships do generally report higher life satisfaction than their single peers, but part of this satisfaction may come from recognizing that they are meeting social-clock expectations for romantic involvement. This comparison to the social clock may be complicated by the developmental timing of sexual identity, particularly for those who are LGBTQ+. Adults who identified as LGBTQ+ during adolescence do not differ from heterosexual youth in the average timing of their first romantic relationship; however, those who do not identify as a sexual minority until adulthood do experience a delay in timing compared to their straight peers (Mernitz et al., 2023).
Young adults who for various reasons do not want to be in a serious relationship find that “singlehood is a source of happiness, well-being, and positive adjustment.” (Watkins et al., 2024). Many (34 percent of men and 43 percent of women) are not interested in dating (Cox, 2023). And given that our developmental pathways become more varied with age, it is not reasonable to expect all adults of any age to follow the same path. Both single and partnered young adults who are satisfied with their current relationship status have above-average self-esteem, and age of first romantic relationship is unrelated to self-esteem (Gonzalez Avilés et al., 2023).
For those looking for a partner, about one-third say they are having trouble finding someone (Cox, 2023). People generally gravitate towards those who are similar to them in things like values, personality features, interests, and in romantic relationships, the preference for those who are similar is called homogamy. Beyond similar values, young adults also prioritize traits such as faithfulness, intelligence, sense of humor, and physical attractiveness in romantic mates, although men place higher value on physical attractiveness than women (Eastwick et al., 2014; Bleske-Rechek & Ryan, 2015).
Settings where you might regularly see someone and have something in common were identified as the most promising in-person environments for finding long-term love, with classes, organizations such as volunteer groups, religious services, and the workplace rated highest. For short-term hookups, young adults identified more temporary social settings, with bars, clubs, and parties rated the most likely environments (Jonason et al., 2015). Just over half of all young adults say they have also used dating apps, but more than half of women report having negative experiences, including being overwhelmed by the number of messages they get and not feeling safe, though perceived safety is higher for young adults than older adults. Only 20 percent of young adults say they found their current romantic partner online, but those with an LGBTQ+ identity are almost three times more likely than straight young adults to have done so (Vogels & McClain, 2023; Cox, 2023).
Regardless of how they meet, most young adults use technology such as texting and social media to maintain their relationships (Basting et al., 2023). Although these avenues can increase positive relationship behaviors such as communication, connection, and sharing, they can also lead to negative outcomes, such as miscommunication, monitoring, and controlling (Vaterlaus et al., 2018; Basting et al., 2023). Interviews with adults ages 18 and 25 found that romantic partners who engage in “excessive contact” or expect “constant communication” can interfere with and distract from daily tasks. These problems were often accompanied by aggressive responses to perceived lapses in communication, as well as controlling and stalking the partner’s social media use (Basting et al., 2023).
Link to Learning
Looking for advice on how to best navigate the role of technology in your close relationships? Read these tips for achieving a healthy balance of technology in your relationships to learn more.
The most fulfilling romantic relationships for young adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment (Bauermeister et al., 2011). Such relationships can vary based on the extent of their positive qualities (such as support, disclosure, and affection), negative qualities (such as control and criticism), duration, shared resources, and commitment. Based on these dimensions, Beckmeyer and Jamison (2021) identified five romantic relationship typologies among young adults. Many were “happily consolidated” couples (31 percent), in committed and successful long-term relationships. However, 23 percent were in long-term “stuck relationships.” Despite sharing resources such as by cohabitating, these couples reported more negative than positive qualities in their situation and had a pessimistic outlook on their future. Twenty percent of young adults were experiencing “happily independent” relationships characterized by many positive qualities but had not been together long enough to consolidate resources, such as a shared home. They usually had an optimistic outlook on their future (Figure 12.25).
“Exploratory relationships” described 18 percent of couples, who were usually at the beginning of their relationship and casually dating. The least common relationships consisted of “high intensity” couples. Despite having a lot of consolidated resources and high commitment to each other, high-intensity couples experience both highs and lows as they cycle unpredictably between positive behaviors like warmth and support and negative behaviors like criticism and antagonism. Yet they reported the highest life satisfaction among all five typologies, as well as the highest level of depressive symptoms and heavy drinking. This research highlights the wide variation in romantic experiences and trajectories young adults experience as they navigate their intimate relationships.
Forming a Family
Young adults also begin to form or extend their families in different ways, such as by cohabitating, getting married, and becoming parents.
Cohabitation
By the end of young adulthood in their late twenties, one-quarter of all unmarried U.S.? adults are cohabitating with a romantic partner, and the likelihood of progressing to this arrangement does not differ by sexual orientation (Julian, 2022; Orth & Rosenfeld, 2018). More young U.S. adults today are cohabiting with a romantic partner than with a spouse (Figure 12.26) (Gurrentz, 2018). Two reasons for this difference are that young adults are entering their first marriage at a later age (28 for women and 30 for men), and that the overall marriage rate is decreasing (Brown & Sheffield, 2020). As a result, most people now are accepting of living with a romantic partner outside marriage, especially young adults.
Like married couples, most cohabitating couples cite love, companionship, and commitment as the primary reasons for living with one another. However, those who cohabitate are more likely than married couples to also cite financial reasons and convenience as motivators. Cohabitation is also seen by some as a way to “test the relationship” before marriage. And while most unmarried couples who are living together trust one another to be faithful and truthful, most do not trust their partner to handle money responsibly.
Marriage
Married and unmarried couple report similar levels of satisfaction with their sex lives, but married couples are more satisfied with each other’s communication and approach to parenting, and with their mutual work-life balance and division of household chores. Married people are also more likely to say they are closer to their partner than to any other adult (Menasce Horowitz et al., 2019). However, these responses do not reflect the duration of the relationship. The average length of cohabitation for unmarried couples is only 18 months, compared to the average length of first marriages, which is 8 years (VanOrman, 2020; Taibbi, 2023). The stability of cohabitating partners is the same for same-sex and heterosexual couples (Ketcham & Bennett, 2019).
By the end of young adulthood, only 32 percent of women and 23 percent of men are married (Brown & Manning, 2021) (Figure 12.27). Young adult attitudes and expectations regarding marriage vary geographically. Those living in rural areas are more likely to get married earlier and to view marriage as the natural and expected next step in a long-term relationship. Urban young adults are more likely to view marriage as a step that must be planned and delayed until other adult tasks, such as higher education, career development, and independent living can be completed (Swartz et al., 2017).
Parenthood
Only 13 percent of U.S. adults are parents by age 24, and 45 percent by age 29 (Martinez & Daniels, 2023). Like other developmental transitions, the experience of becoming a parent in young adulthood depends somewhat on contextual factors that influence a young person’s perceived social clock. The median age of first birth for U.S. women is now 30 (Morse, 2022), but it does vary by ethnicity and education level (Shaeffer & Aragão, 2023; Martinez & Daniels, 2023). Black young adults and those with low income are more likely to view the transition to parenthood as a sign of adult maturity and a way to develop a sense of purpose (Edin & Kefalas, 2011; Rackin & Gibson-Davis, 2017).
Adjusting to parenthood can be difficult, however. It can reduce relationship satisfaction as well as young adults’ self-control and emotional regulation, which is associated with an increase in instances of hostility and disagreement between new parents (van Scheppingen et al., 2018; Grolleman et al., 2022; Bogdan et al., 2022). About half of young adult parents experience stress over balancing their roles at work and within the family, and women report more stress than men (Allen et al., 2020), likely due to the heightened role expectations of new motherhood. All relationships, including those between parents, have good days and bad days, and the self-esteem of new parents has been shown to vary with changes in their daily interactions (Figure 12.28). On good days when new parents are more satisfied with their relationship and the responsiveness of their partner, their self-esteem rises. On bad days, it drops (Willms et al., 2023).
While it can be a mixed experience, most young adults say they do eventually want to become parents. However, 16 percent say they do not want or expect to have children. For some (56 percent) this is a personal preference, while others cite concerns such as medical and financial reasons or the state of the world and the environment (Brown, 2021; Brenan, 2023).
References
Allen, A. L., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2020). Young adult parents’ work–family conflict: The roles of parenting stress and parenting conflict. In S. L. Blair, & R. P. Costa (Eds.), Transitions into parenthood: Examining the complexities of childrearing, Volume 15 (pp. 1–16). Emerald Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520190000015001
Bakken, L., & Huber, T. (2005). Ego development at the crossroads: Identity and intimacy among Black men and White women in cross-racial relationships. Journal of Adult Development, 12(1), 63–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-005-1322-1
Basting, E. J., Munshi, I., Harangozo, J., Dongarra, M. S., & Goncy, E. A. (2023). When does technology use within dating relationships cross the line? A thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with young adults. Psychology of Violence, 13(6), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000479
Bauermeister, J. A., Johns M. M., Pingel E., Eisenberg A., Santana, M. L., & Zimmerman M. (2011). Measuring love: Sexual minority male youths’ ideal romantic characteristics. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(2), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2011.574573
Beckmeyer, J. J. & Jamison, T. B. (2021). Identifying a typology of emerging adult romantic relationships: Implications for relationship education. Family Relations, 70(1), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12464
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friend with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2
Bleske-Rechek, A., & Ryan, D. E. (2015). Continuity and change in emerging adults’ mate preferences and mating orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.033
Bogdan, I., Turliuc, M. N., & Candel, O. S. (2022). Transition to parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 901362. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901362
Brenan, M. (2023, September 25). Americans’ preference for larger families highest since 1971. Gallup News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/511238/americans-preference-larger-families-highest-1971.aspx#:~:text=Bar%20chart%20showing%20parental%20status,8%25%20do%20not%20want%20children
Brown, A. (2021, November 19). Growing share of childless adults in U.S. don’t expect to ever have children. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/
Brown, A. R. & Manning, W. D. (2021). Relationship status trends according to age and gender, 2019–2021. Family Profiles, FP-21-25. Bowling Green State University: National Center for Family & Marriage Research. https://doi.org/10.25035/ncfmr/fp-21-25
Brown, P. T., & Sheffield, R. (2020). U.S. marriage rates hit new recorded low. Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2020/4/marriage-rate-blog-test
Cox, D. A. (2023, February 9). From swiping to sexting: The enduring gender divide in American dating and relationships. Survey Center on American Life. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/from-swiping-to-sexting-the-enduring-gender-divide-in-american-dating-and-relationships/
Czyżowska, D., Gurba, E., Czyżowska, N., Kalus, A., Sitnik-Warchulska, K., & Izydorczyk, B. (2019). Selected predictors of the sense of intimacy in relationships of young adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4447. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224447
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2011). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnmxt
Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. Norton.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-98550-000
Gonzalez Avilés, T., Borschel, E., Pusch, S., & Neyer, F. J. (2023). Not all flowers bloom in April: Self-esteem development surrounding the first romantic relationship during adolescence and emerging adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 37(6), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221124723
Grolleman, J.F., Gravesteijn, C. & Hoffenaar, P.J. (2022). Trajectories of change in parental self-esteem and emotion regulation from pregnancy until 4 years postpartum. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 32, 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02306-0
Gurrentz, B. (2018, November 15). Living with an unmarried partner now common for young adults. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/11/cohabitation-is-up-marriage-is-down-for-young-adults.html
Haydon, K. C., Collins, W. A., Salvatore, J. E., Simpson, J. A., & Roisman, G. I. (2012). Shared and distinctive origins and correlates of adult attachment representations: The developmental organization of romantic functioning. Child Development, 83(5), 1689–1702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01801.x
Hazan, C., Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Jonason, P. K., Foster, J. D., McCain, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). Where birds flock to get together: The who, what, where, and why of mate searching. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 76–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.018
Jovanovic, J., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Gender, sexual agency, and friends with benefits relationships. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 22(2), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9483-1
Julian, C. A. (2022). Cohabitation among young adults. Family Profile, FP-22-29. Bowling Green State University: National Center for Family & Marriage Research. https://doi.org/10.25035/ncfmr/fp-22-29
Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2008). Identity as a moderator of intervention-related change: Identity style and adolescents’ response to relationships education. Identity, 8(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283480801940073
Ketcham, E., & Bennett, N. G. (2019). Comparative couple stability: Same-sex and male-female unions in the United States. Socius, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119829312
Korobov, N., & Thorne, A. (2006). Intimacy and distancing: Young men’s conversations about romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558405284035
Kroger, J. (2015). Identity development through adulthood: The move toward “wholeness.” In K. C. McLean & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199936564.013.004
Machia, L. V., Proulx, M. L., Ioerger, M., & Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). A longitudinal study of friends with benefits relationships. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12307
Martinez, G. M., & Daniels, K. (2023). Fertility of men and women aged 15–49 in the United States: National survey of family growth 2015–2019 (National Health Statistics Report No. 179). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs//data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf
Menasce Horowitz, J., Graf, N., & Livingston, G. (2019, November 6). Marriage and cohabitation in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/
Mernitz, S., Hsu, J., & Bishop, M. D. (2023). Timing to a first relationship among youth: Variability by sexual orientation development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(11), 3703–3722. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231185763
Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.623797
Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: From early adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(3), 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118
Morse, A. (2022, April 6). Stable fertility rates 1990–2019 mask distinct variations by age. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/04/fertility-rates-declined-for-younger-women-increased-for-older-women.html?utm_campaign=20220406msacos1ccstors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Norona, J. C., Olmstead, S. B., & Welsh, D. P. (2017). Breaking up in emerging adulthood: A developmental perspective of relationship dissolution. Emerging Adulthood, 5(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816658585
Orth, T., & Rosenfeld, M. (2018). Commitment timing in same-sex and different-sex relationships. Population Review, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/prv.2018.0000
Rackin, H. M., & Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2017). Low-income childless young adults’ marriage and fertility frameworks. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 79(4), 1096–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12405
Rauer, A. J., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2013). Romantic relationship patterns in young adulthood and their developmental antecedents. Developmental Psychology, 49(11), 2159–2171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031845
Rudolph, K. D., & Dodson, J. F. (2022). Gender differences in friendship values: Intensification at adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211051948
Shaeffer, K., & Aragão, C. (2023, May 9). Key facts about moms in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/09/facts-about-u-s-mothers/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20average%20woman,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention
Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate Friendship Scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113010
South, S. J., & Lei, L. (2021). Why are fewer young adults having casual sex? Socius, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121996854
Swartz et al., 2017
Taibbi, R. (2023, April 8). Why so many marriages end after eight years. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fixing-families/202304/why-do-so-many-couples-divorce-after-8-years
VanOrman, A., & Jacobsen, L.A. (2020, February 12). U.S. household composition shifts as the population grows older; More young adults live with parents. Population Reference Bureau.
https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-household-composition-shifts-as-the-population-
grows-older-more-young-adults-live-with-parents/
van Scheppingen, M. A., Denissen, J. J. A., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Stability and change in self-control during the transition to parenthood. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2172
Vaterlaus, J. M., Tulane, S., Porter, B. D., & Beckert, T. E. (2018). The perceived influence of media and technology on adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33(6), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558417712611
Vogels, E.A., & McClain, C. (2023, February 2). Key findings about online dating in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
Waters, T. E. A., Raby, K. L., Ruiz, S. K., Martin, J., & Roisman, G. I. (2018). Adult attachment representations and the quality of romantic and parent–child relationships: An examination of the contributions of coherence of discourse and secure base script knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 54(12), 2371–2381. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000607
Watkins, N. K., Beckmeyer, J. J., & Jamison, T. B. (2024). Exploring the associations between being single, romantic importance, and positive well-being in young adulthood. Family Relations, 73(1), 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12981
Willms, J., Weber, E., van Scheppingen, M., & Bleidorn, W. (2023). Daily self-esteem and relationship quality in first-time parents. Journal of Research in Personality, 105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104395