Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter One: Introduction
Trends in Marriage, Cohabitation, and Child-Bearing
The last half of the 20th century witnessed substantial changes in the practice of marriage in the United States (Cherlin, 2004, 2005). During this period, divorce rates more than doubled, reaching a peak in the 1980s that has since declined only slightly (Singh et al., 1995). Currently, nearly 50 percent of first marriages are expected to end in divorce or permanent separation (Bramlett and Mosher, 2002). Over 80 percent of those who experience divorce remarry, but their marriages are even more likely to end (Cherlin, 1992).
Despite the increased risk of marital disruption, rates of marriage have remained relatively stable over time (Schoen and Standish, 2001), and over 95 percent of people get married at some point in their lives (Kreider and Fields, 2001). Yet, although the number of people getting married has not changed, rates of cohabitation (i.e., unmarried couples sharing a household) have greatly increased (Bramlett and Mosher, 2002; Bumpass and Lu, 2000; Seltzer, 2004). Perhaps as a consequence, the average age at which people are getting married has risen since the middle of the past century, indicating that people are delaying their entry into marriage (Schoen and Standish, 2001). As rates of marital disruption and cohabitation were rising during the 1980s, rates of unmarried births in the United States were increasing dramatically—from 18 percent of all live births in 1980 to 30 percent of all live births by 1992. From 1992 to the present, the rate of increase in unmarried birth leveled off substantially, reaching 33.2 percent in 2000 (Martin et al., 2002).
As notable as these general trends are, they are even more pronounced within low-income populations (Fein, 2004; McLanahan, 2004). For example, rates of divorce for low-income women are substantially higher than they are for middle- and high-income women and nearly twice as high for women who live in low-income neighborhoods compared with those who live in high-income neighborhoods (Bramlett and Mosher, 2002; Raley and Bumpass, 2003). Compared with more affluent couples, low-income couples are four times more likely to have their first child before getting married, and they have additional children more rapidly after marriage as well (Elwood and Jencks, 2004). Even among couples that marry and remain married, low-income spouses report significantly higher levels of marital distress than do middle- or high-income spouses (Amato et al., 2003; Karney, Garvan, and Thomas, 2003). Together, these trends suggest that forming and sustaining a healthy marriage, while a significant challenge for all segments of society, may be uniquely challenging in the context of economic disadvantage (Hernandez, 1997; Martin, 2004).
 [D] |
Supporting Healthy Marriages: Where to Intervene?
Concerned about the potential social impact of these trends, community leaders and policy-makers at the local, state, and federal level have initiated programs and policies designed to encourage and support healthy marriages, especially among low-income populations. At the federal level, these efforts began in 1996 with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), legislation that allowed states new flexibility in administering aid to their poorest residents. The law explained its goals explicitly, which included to “encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families” and to “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting . . . marriage” (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Section 401).
By the time this measure was up for reauthorization in 2002, promoting marriage had moved to the forefront of welfare reform, with President Bush announcing that “stable families should be the central goal of American welfare policy” (CNN, February 27, 2002). In support of this goal, the Bush administration requested, as part of the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, that funds be appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) over five fiscal years for activities that promote and support healthy marriages. Congress passed this legislation in February 2006, appropriating $150 million annually for activities to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Thus, a substantial level of federal and state resources will soon be devoted to efforts to support and strengthen marriages in low-income communities.
How should these newly available resources be allocated? What sorts of programs and interventions are likely to be most effective? As many observers have noted, the existing research on marriage and intimacy within low-income populations is sparse by any standard (e.g., Fein et al., 2003; Seefeldt and Smock, 2004). Reviews of the marriage education literature in particular have noted again and again that research on the causes and correlates of healthy marriage has to date examined samples composed almost exclusively of white, middle-class, college-educated couples (e.g., Carroll and Doherty, 2003; Fein et al., 2003; Halford et al., 2003; Jakubowski et al., 2004; Karney and Bradbury, 1995; Sayers, Kohn, and Heavey, 1998).
To address the limitations of the existing research, two ongoing studies funded through the Administration on Children and Families (ACF)—the Building Strong Families (BSF) project and the Supporting Healthy Marriages (SHM) study—are currently evaluating the effectiveness of different educational programs aimed at (1) helping low-income unmarried parents form healthy marriages and (2) helping low-income married parents maintain their relationships. Both projects seek to provide adult couples that have expressed an intention to marry or have already married with tools for achieving their aims.
Until more data on marriage and relationships in low-income populations can be accumulated, it is too early to speculate about the effectiveness of interventions aimed at low-income adults. Yet there is reason to expect that, by the time members of low-income populations reach adulthood, the seeds of marital disruption may already have been sown. For example, compared with members of middle- and upper-income populations, they are more likely to have been raised in single-parent homes (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994) and to have been exposed to physical and sexual abuse during childhood and adolescence (Cherlin et al., 2004). As noted earlier, members of this population are far more likely to become parents before considering marriage (Elwood and Jencks, 2004). Research has shown that all these experiences are associated with a lower rate of subsequent marriage (Lichter, Graefe, and Brown, 2003) and a higher risk of subsequent marital disruption among those who do marry (Amato and Booth, 2001; Furstenberg, 1979).
Are the Seeds of Healthy Marriages Sown in Adolescence?
Recognizing that low-income young adults may have already accumulated a number of risk factors for experiencing marital disruptions or unmarried parenthood, programs focused on preventing marital disruption and supporting healthy marriages have begun to target individuals and couples earlier in their development. Specifically, a number of researchers and theorists have suggested that the building blocks of healthy adult marriages are formed during adolescence (e.g., Collins and Sroufe, 1999; Collins and Van Dulmen, 2006; Furman and Shaffer, 2003; Furman and Simon, 1999; Giordano, Manning, and Longmore, 2006; Tallman, Burke, and Gecas, 1998). Among the many elements of adolescents’ lives that may provide a foundation for healthy marriages as adults (e.g., the quality of the education they receive, the available career opportunities, protection from violence and substance abuse), researchers and policy-makers have devoted particular attention to adolescents’ romantic relationships.
Indeed, by the time they reach the age of 18, more than 80 percent of adolescents have experienced their first romantic relationship (Carver, Joyner, and Udry, 2003). Although these relationships tend to be shorter than the relationships of adults and involve relatively low levels of interdependence (for example, adolescents rarely live together), adolescents’ experiences in romantic relationships nevertheless have potentially life-altering consequences for their emotional health (e.g., Monroe et al., 1999), social and academic competence (e.g., Neemann, Hubbard, and Masten, 1995), and self-esteem (e.g., Connolly and Konarski, 1994; Masten et al., 1995). These relationships also provide the primary backdrop for intimate partner violence, decisions about whether and when to engage in sexual behavior, contraceptive use, exposure to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and pregnancy (e.g., Capaldi and Gorman-Smith, 2003; Ford, Sohn, and Lepkowski, 2001; Manlove et al., 2006). The risks and benefits associated with romantic relationships may be especially relevant to low-income populations, where relationships may compensate for limited educational and employment opportunities as a means of achieving adult status, possibly contributing to disproportionately high rates of STDs, intimate partner violence, and teen pregnancy among low-income teens (e.g., Coates, 1999; Doljanac and Zimmerman, 1998; Edin and Reed, 2005; Eyre et al., 1998; Raffaelli, 2005).
In light of the potential consequences of romantic relationships during adolescence, these relationships have been assigned an important role in theories of healthy adult development (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Sullivan, 1953). Erikson (1968), for example, suggested that forming intimate relationships outside the family of origin is a crucial step toward developing an independent identity. More recently, developmental psychologists have picked up on this theme, highlighting the role of adolescent romantic experiences in setting the stage for the formation of stable relationships during young adulthood (e.g., Collins, 2003; Furman and Shaffer, 2003; Giordano, 2003). Reaching the same conclusion, marital researchers have suggested that understanding healthy adult relationships requires an understanding of the early relationship experiences of each partner (Parke, 1998; Story et al., 2004).
Reflecting a growing consensus, policymakers and educators have become increasingly invested in interventions and educational curricula that directly target the romantic relationships of youth and young adults (e.g., Eccles and Gootman, 2002). For example, Florida’s Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act of 1998 mandated that ninth and tenth grade high school students be required to take a course in life management skills that includes material on marriage and relationships. The legislation reauthorizing TANF describes education in high schools about the value of healthy marriages and healthy relationship skills as one of eight activities eligible for support within the Healthy Marriage Initiative (Deficit Reduction Act, 2006). To address the call for new curricula, programs have been developed that seek to promote effective functioning in the romantic relationships of adolescents and teens, and elementary and secondary schools are beginning to adopt these materials.
In sum, substantial attention and resources are now being directed toward adolescent romantic relationships, based on the assumption that these relationships represent an important window of opportunity for improving relationship outcomes among adults.
Adolescent Romantic Relationships: The State of the Field
Current efforts to direct relationship education toward adolescents will be most successful at promoting healthy adult marriages to the extent that (1) relationship-relevant beliefs and behaviors during adolescence are, in fact, important precursors of adult marriages and (2) interventions target the specific beliefs and behaviors that have the greatest impact on adult outcomes. Research on the role of adolescence in adult development has not settled either of these issues. As several recent reviews of this area have noted (e.g., Crouter and Booth, 2006; Florsheim, 2003b; Furman, Feiring, and Brown, 1999; Giordano, 2003), the empirical literature on romantic relationships among adolescents is still in its early stages.
Despite repeated calls for research that examines the effect of adolescent relationships on development (Collins and Van Dulmen, 2006; Furman and Shaffer, 2003; Zani, 1993), research on intimacy among adolescents has instead focused almost exclusively on the causes and consequences of sexual behavior (Whitehead and Pearson, 2006). One result of this focus is that “we know more about the individual, family, peer, and even community effects on sexual behavior than about the relationship context(s) within which these behaviors unfold” (Giordano, 2003, p. 268). Efforts to evaluate the role that adolescent romantic relationships play in adult development have been even more limited (e.g., Collins and Van Dulmen, 2006; Kan and Cares, 2006), leaving a serious gap in understanding adolescent romantic relationships (Florsheim, 2003b). As some have concluded, “In many ways, romantic and sexual partnerships can be considered the ‘last frontier’ in the study of adolescent relationships” (Giordano, 2003, p. 258).
The lack of basic research in this area mirrors a similar lack of data on programs and interventions. Although specific curricula that address relationships and relationship skills among adolescents have become available across the country, to date there has been no systematic research on how these curricula are being implemented across states and regions, the elements that available curricula include or leave out, or their effectiveness in general and within specific populations (e.g., low-income groups).
Objectives and Scope of This Report
A crucial step toward advancing current efforts to promote later healthy marriages among young people by promoting healthy relationships during adolescence is to assemble, review, and synthesize the existing basic and applied literature on adolescent romantic relationships, with particular emphasis on these experiences as precursors of adult marriages. The overarching goal of this report is to evaluate the accumulated research in these areas, and in so doing to provide a solid foundation for future research and policy.
Two limitations of this report are worth noting at the outset. First, although the explicit goal of the project was to evaluate research on the adolescent precursors of healthy marriages within low-income populations, there are scant data that address this issue directly. As has already been noted, few existing studies have addressed adult marriage in low-income populations, and few existing studies have addressed romantic relationships among adolescents. The research ideally suited for the purposes of this report lies in the intersection of these two sparsely populated sets. As a consequence, for many of the issues that are directly relevant to programs targeting the relationships of low-income adolescents, there simply has not been any research. Where there has been work that explicitly focuses on low-income populations, that work has been emphasized in this report. Where such work does not exist (the more frequent case), the text describes work with other populations, including appropriate caveats about how well or poorly the results of this work may generalize to low-income groups.
Second, despite an explicit interest in the precursors of healthy adult marriages and romantic relationships, this report does not attempt to define what makes a marriage or a romantic relationship healthy. As other reviewers of this literature have observed, determining whether a specific experience in relationships is healthy or dysfunctional may lie outside the realm of empirical research. Psychologist Paul Florsheim, in an important edited volume on romantic relationships in adolescence (Florsheim, 2003b), identified several obstacles to addressing this issue definitively (Florsheim, 2003a). First, particularly within adolescence, experiences that are painful or distressing in the short term may be adaptive or educational over the lifespan. Most adolescents, for example, would not describe the breakup of their first relationship as a positive experience, but it may nevertheless be an important step toward the development of a mature sense of self (e.g., Barber, 2006). Thus, “it is very difficult to tease apart negative emotions associated with a normal adolescent romance from psychological symptoms associated with a dysfunctional relationship, except in the extreme” (Florsheim, 2003a, p. 373).
In addition, behaviors that may be functional for a relationship (e.g., commitment, spending time together) may be dysfunctional for the individual, and vice versa. In other words, the meaning of healthy behaviors may depend on the specific outcome in question.
Finally, the standards by which a relationship is judged as healthy vary according to historical era and cultural context. For example, over time, the stigmas once attached to divorce and premarital sex have greatly diminished. Even within a single era, different cultures vary in the extent to which they emphasize romantic love as a critical element of a successful marriage. Thus, what is considered healthy in a particular place and time may not be considered healthy in other contexts. The current report sidesteps these issues, instead focusing on how specific beliefs and behaviors have been associated with specific outcomes during adolescence and adulthood.
Organization of the Report
This report is organized around three central tasks. To provide a foundation for the rest of this report, the first task—which is the focus of Chapter Two—is to review descriptions of what adolescent romantic relationships are like. What do adolescents think and value about romantic relationships, and what are their expectations and attitudes toward marriage? What is the prevalence of different kinds of romantic experiences across adolescence and within specific subgroups of interest (e.g., low-income populations)? How have relationship-relevant attitudes and behaviors been changing over time? Chapter Two reviews the available literature on these questions, establishing what is known and what remains to be described.
The second task—the focus of Chapters Three and Four—is to review explanations of how adolescent romantic relationships function. How can we account for the range of romantic relationships that adolescents experience? What role do these relationships play in developing healthy adult marriages? Chapter Three reviews existing theories that have attempted to explain the causes, correlates, and consequences of adolescent romantic relationships and concludes by assembling elements from prior theories into a single integrative framework. This integrative framework then provides the organization for Chapter Four, which reviews the empirical literature that has examined precursors of adolescents’ romantic relationships, and the implications of those relationships for outcomes during adolescence and later adulthood. This literature review attempts to be comprehensive but places emphasis on research that draws links between adolescent experiences and adult marital outcomes.
The third task—and the focus of Chapter Five—is to assess interventions designed to make adolescents’ relationships, and their subsequent marriages, better. What programs exist that target romantic relationships in adolescence? What are the features of existing programs, and how do these features map on to the variables that the empirical research suggests may be important? What is the evidence for the effectiveness of these programs at affecting outcomes during adolescence and subsequent adulthood? To address these questions, Chapter Five reviews existing curricula that provide relationship education to adolescents, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence between these curricula and the empirical literature, and describes the results of interviews with practitioners who consented to share their experiences and concerns.
Chapter Six concludes the report by identifying priorities for future research in this area and drawing from the existing research to offer guidelines for developing programs and curricula that target adolescent relationships.
Defining Terms
To clarify the discussion in the chapters that follow, it is worth being explicit about how we use several words and phrases that appear repeatedly throughout this report.
Adolescence. The World Health Organization defines adolescence as the period of life from 10 to 19 years of age (Goodburn and Ross, 1995). We adopt the same definition. In practice, most research on adolescents has focused on the six years associated with secondary school, i.e., the ages of 13 to 18. When used in this report, the word youth is meant to be a more general term, encompassing adolescence and childhood.
Low-income. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a low-income household as one in which the household income is less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line, adjusted for the number of individuals in the household (e.g., Bramlett and Mosher, 2002). In practice, research and programs that seek to address low-income populations are far less precise, because data on the household income of research participants are rarely available. Instead, individuals’ level of income is usually inferred on the basis of their neighborhood, or the fact that they or their families are receiving public assistance. The current report adopts this more inclusive stance as well.
Romantic/intimate relationship. In this report, we use the terms romantic relationship and intimate relationship interchangeably. Defining these terms precisely has been an ongoing challenge for many disciplines because different cultures, and even different individuals within a culture, often disagree on the behaviors and commitments that characterize romantic relationships. As will be discussed in subsequent chapters, adolescents themselves disagree with their partners more than 50 percent of the time about whether or not they are even in a romantic relationship (Carver and Udry, 1997; Kennedy, 2005). Rather than define romantic relationships, the most common approach within research on this topic is to simply ask the adolescent whether he or she has experienced a romantic relationship, leaving the respondent to determine what a romantic relationship actually is. For the purposes of the current report, a romantic or intimate relationship is one in which the individual perceives an ongoing, reciprocated, emotional, erotically charged connection with a partner (e.g., Brehm, 1985). Two aspects of this definition are worth highlighting. First, as defined in this report, romantic relationships need not involve sexual behavior. On the contrary, we draw a clear distinction between romantic relationships, which are defined by an emotional connection, and sexual behaviors, which may or may not occur in the context of a relationship. The definition includes the idea of erotic feelings to distinguish romantic relationships from friendships, but it does not require erotic or sexual behaviors. Second, the definition used here does not require that the feelings about the relationship or the partner be positive. A distressing or abusive relationship can still be a romantic relationship by this definition. Finally, because heterosexual relationships are the focus of the bulk of the literature in this area, this report focuses primarily on them.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |