Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Dec 5;52(4):1561–1573. doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02489-z

The Influence of Peers, Romantic Partners, and Families on Emerging Adults’Sexual Behavior

Angela M Kaufman-Parks 1, Monica A Longmore 2, Wendy D Manning 2, Peggy C Giordano 2
PMCID: PMC10588127  NIHMSID: NIHMS1903877  PMID: 36469145

Abstract

Prior research acknowledges that families and peers influence adolescents’ sexual behaviors. Far fewer studies have explored whether and how families and peers influence sexual behaviors among emerging adults, especially among those in committed intimate partnerships, while also accounting for dynamics specific to the intimate relationship and respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics. Even less is known about whether and how previous romantic relationship experiences might influence emerging adults’ future sexual behavior both within and outside the confines of committed intimate partnerships. Drawing on longitudinal data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study, we examined how emerging adults’ family backgrounds, peers’ sexual attitudes and behaviors, and past and current relationship experiences influenced their engagement in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. We found that each of these contexts was significant predictors of emerging adults’ casual sex, and that both peers and romantic relationship experiences significantly influenced the likelihood of engaging in sexually non-exclusive behaviors among those in committed dating, cohabiting, and marital partnerships. We discuss potential theoretical mechanisms linking these relationships and provide suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Sexual non-exclusivity, Casual sex, Peer influence, Social learning, Attachment, Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

Introduction

Casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity are common experiences in adolescent and emerging adult relationships. Researchers have reported that approximately half of sexually active teenagers engage in casual sex (e.g., Manning et al., 2014), and similar proportions of emerging adults, typically defined as those individuals in their late-teens to mid-twenties (Arnett, 2000) report engaging in sexual experiences outside a committed relationship (e.g., Owen et al., 2010). Despite the commonality of these experiences and the fact that some (Owen et al., 2010) or even the majority (Strokoff et al., 2015) of individuals may view such experiences in a positive light, others may experience deleterious effects both intrapersonally and on the development and maintenance of committed intimate partnerships. For instance, engaging in casual sex has been linked to psychological distress among some college students, particularly feelings of depression, anxiety, and stress when individuals experienced negative impacts (e.g., feelings of loneliness or a casual sex partner not later contacting them) associated with a casual sex experience (Fielder & Carey, 2010; Napper et al., 2016). Casual sex has also been hypothesized to decrease the skill development necessary to successfully navigate later committed partnerships (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). Moreover, sexual non-exclusivity has been linked to intimate partner violence (Giordano et al., 2015; Goetz et al., 2008) and relationship break ups for adolescents and emerging adults (Bravo et al., 2017) and divorce among older adults (Amato & Previti, 2003). Exploring why individuals engage in casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors may thus help prevent relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution and interpersonal difficulties such as psychological distress in at least some segments of the emerging adult population.

In the present study, we define casual sex as sexual intercourse occurring outside the confines of a committed relationship. Sexual non-exclusivity is defined as “seeing” or having sexual intercourse with someone other than a primary relationship partner, when both partners in the primary relationship did not agree it was okay to have sex with other people. We then expand on prior research by exploring the different contexts in emerging adults’ lives that may influence choices to engage in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. For example, while earlier research indicates that family structure and family social processes may influence adolescents’ sexual behavior in the form of early sexual initiation, multiple sexual partners, and inconsistent condom use (Kotchick et al., 2001; Miller, 2002), whether family life might continue to influence emerging adults’ sexual activity, including casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity, remains unknown. Second, much prior research has found that peers influence sexual behaviors during adolescence and emerging adulthood (e.g., Lansford et al., 2014; Lyons et al., 2015). Much less has examined whether peers influence sexual behaviors among emerging adults in committed relationships, and whether peers continue to matter when accounting for other contexts of emerging adults’ lives. To address these gaps in the literature, we drew on data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) to explore whether emerging adults’ family of origin experiences, peers’ sexual attitudes and behaviors, and their own previous and current intimate relationships influenced the likelihood of casual sex and sexually non-exclusive experiences.

Family Influence on Sexual and Romantic Relationship Behavior

Social learning theorists emphasize that relationships between parents and between parents and their children model how individuals should behave in relationships with others (Bandura, 1977; Kaufman-Parks et al., 2018), including how to manage conflict and provide emotional support and acceptance. For example, interparental hostility characterized by criticizing, blaming, accusing, and distancing behaviors may influence hostility in children’s own intimate relationships in later life (Stocker & Richmond, 2007). As a result of such hostile exchanges, feelings of relationship happiness and satisfaction are also likely to decrease, each of which are consistent predictors of sexual non-exclusivity (Blow & Hartnett, 2005). Research has also found that emerging adults from childhood homes with parental conflict have lower favorability ratings toward marriage (Jennings et al., 1991), which may increase the likelihood of seeking sexual experiences outside the confines of a committed relationship. More simply, through their conflictual relationships, parents may be modeling to children that romantic partners are not to be trusted or that commitments to these partners are not rewarding. This may influence later adult children to either avoid committed partnerships altogether and prefer casual sex encounters, or engage in sexually non-exclusive behaviors if they lack trust in and commitment to their primary relationship partners.

Potential associations between interparental conflict and later adult children’s sexual behavior may also be understood through an attachment perspective (Bowlby, 1982), which rests on the premise that individuals form early cognitive models of relationships with others based on their interactions with parents and other caregivers. Accordingly, exposure to interparental conflict during childhood may lead to cognitive models of close relationships with others as unloving or unrewarding, in turn increasing the risk for casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. For instance, prior research (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Shaver & Hazan, 1988) has found that individuals with avoidant attachment styles may tend toward casual sex in an effort to avoid emotional closeness with partners, and that those with more anxious attachment styles may use sex to gain acceptance from others and satisfy feelings of security and love. Similarly, Butzner and Campell (2008) reviewed previous research finding that anxiously attached women have higher rates of sexual infidelity, and that both avoidantly attached men and women have a higher number of casual sex partners, compared to securely attached individuals.

Following both social learning and attachment theories and given the relative lack of relational investment in casual sex encounters compared to committed partnerships, we expected that emerging adults who experienced interparental conflict growing up and who may be more skeptical of entering committed partnerships would be more likely to engage in casual sex behaviors. Similarly, sexual non-exclusivity may be more likely among emerging adults in committed intimate partnerships if they simultaneously view the long-term prospects of these relationships with skepticism.

Finally, and echoing social learning theory mechanisms, it may also be instructive to examine the effect of exposure to family members who themselves exhibit more sexually liberal behaviors. As one example, prior research has found that adolescents whose mothers gave birth at a young age or whose older siblings were sexually active, pregnant, or parenting increased the risk of adolescents’ own pregnancy experiences (Hardy et al., 1998; Miller, 2002). We thus also expected that emerging adults whose parent(s) experienced teenage pregnancy as one potential outcome of their own sexually liberal behavior would be more likely to report engaging in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity.

Peer Influence on Sexual and Romantic Relationship Behavior

Although parents are the primary sources of socialization during childhood, peers take on increasing importance and are central to development during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Giordano, 1995; McLean & Jennings, 2012; Walderip, 2008). Regarding sexual behaviors specifically, exposure to socializing agents who model early, frequent, permissive, or non-exclusive sexual relationships may increase the likelihood of individuals enacting these same behaviors. For example, among a sample of emerging adults, Lyons et al. (2015) found that men’s and women’s perceptions that their peers held permissive sexual attitudes and that the majority of their friends were sexually active significantly influenced their own number of casual sex partners at age 22. Further, Kaufman-Parks et al. (2021) found that having more sexually liberal peers was associated with a greater number of casual and lifetime sex partners, while having peers who engaged in criminal activity was associated with more sexual non-exclusivity among a sample of emerging adults at age 25. However, neither of these studies examined peer effects on emerging adults’ sexual behaviors while also accounting for the many other social contexts that emerging adults are enmeshed in, including their families and romantic relationships. Yet, given existing knowledge of peer effects on adolescents’ and emerging adults’ sexual behaviors, we expected that individuals who reported their peers hold more permissive sexual attitudes and their peers engage in casual sex or were sexually non-exclusive would be more likely themselves to engage in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity.

Intimate Relationship Influence on Sexual and Romantic Relationship Behavior

Although romantic partnerships are undoubtedly unique from friendships formed in adolescence and emerging adulthood, both types of relationships have important consequences for development in a variety of life domains. Specific to the confines of romantic relationships, many researchers argue that adolescents’ and emerging adults’ relationship skills build over time as they encounter new romantic relationship partners and experiences over the life course (Giordano et al., 2012; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). For instance, among a sample of 15–23-year-olds, Norona et al. (2017) found that individuals often reported learning several lessons about romantic relationships from their current or previous relationship experiences, including how and when to trust a partner, considering one’s own readiness to enter into a serious relationship, and the importance of hard work and compromise to fulfill relationship partners’ needs. Likewise, Longmore et al. (2016) found that previous relationships characterized by churning (e.g., breaking up and getting back together) and sexual non-exclusivity significantly influenced relationship satisfaction and physical conflict in emerging adults’ current relationships. Finally, and perhaps most intuitively, romantic relationships play a key role in the development of sexuality among adolescents and emerging adults. These early sexual experiences, in turn, help individuals establish and possibly solidify their sexual orientation, learn about social standards and practices regarding sexual expression, and develop an understanding and appreciation of reproductive processes (Furman & Shaffer, 2003).

Surprisingly, however, there is a seeming absence in the literature on whether adolescents and emerging adults learn lessons specific to partner faithfulness and fidelity from previous romantic relationships, and whether these lessons are subsequently carried forward into future relationships. One relatively recent study by Knopp et al. (2017) assessed serial infidelity among a sample of adults and found that individuals who were sexually non-exclusive in a previous relationship were significantly more likely to be sexually non-exclusive in a current relationship. Moreover, individuals who were cheated on in previous relationships were more likely to report their current partners were unfaithful, or to suspect that their current partners were unfaithful. However, to our knowledge, no study to date has examined whether having a previous partner engage in sexual non-exclusivity affects an individuals’ own likelihood of engaging in sexual non-exclusivity in future relationships. Nonetheless, based on previous research indicating that peers’ casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behavior influences adolescents’ and emerging adults’ own casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity (Kaufman-Parks, 2021; Lyons et al., 2015), we expected that emerging adults whose previous romantic partners were sexually nonexclusive would be more likely to report engaging in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity themselves.

Finally, it is also important to consider characteristics specific to the primary romantic relationship in which emerging adults are enmeshed when assessing sexual behaviors. Treas and Giesen (2000) have shown that marriage encourages sexual exclusivity, likely due to the greater commitment and investment of marital unions compared to dating and cohabiting partnerships. Related, in addition to union status, we also included measures of relationship uncertainty and relationship stability to further account for individuals’ commitment to and investment in their romantic partnerships. Relationship duration may also influence risk for sexual behaviors (e.g., Allen et al., 2005; Treas & Giesen, 2000), although findings have been inconsistent.

Demographic Controls

In addition to familial, peer, and romantic relationship contexts, we also included a number of emerging adults’ sociodemographic factors that may be related to casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors based on previous literature. Research finds that younger age is generally associated with greater risk of sexual non-exclusivity (Atkins et al., 2001; Blow & Hartnett, 2005), and casual sex may likewise be not only normative in adolescence and emerging adulthood, but may be actively encouraged by similarly aged peers (e.g., Lyons et al., 2014). Biological sex may also influence casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity, with males often reporting higher rates than females (Atkins, et al., 2001; Manning et al., 2005), although effects of biological sex are often complicated when also considering age and union status (Blow & Hartnett, 2005). Similarly, previous research has identified that in comparison with white individuals, people of color may have a greater number of casual sex partners (Lyons et al., 2014), although whether race-ethnicity influences the likelihood of emerging adults ever engaging in casual sex or sexual non-exclusivity is less clear. Finally, some research suggests that individuals with higher levels of education and income are more likely to engage in sexual non-exclusivity as a result of greater contact with other people and an increased potential for infidelity (Atkins et al., 2001). Similarly, research indicates that while “hooking up” is relatively common among adolescents and emerging adults generally, casual sex experiences are particularly normative in the college atmosphere (Owen et al., 2010), signifying individuals with a college education may also be more likely to report engaging in casual sex.

Method

Participants

In the present study, we used five waves of data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS). These longitudinal data were collected to investigate the influence of relationships with parents, peers, and dating partners on fertility and sexual behaviors as adolescents transitioned to emerging adulthood. The TARS initially focused on a stratified random sample of 1,321 adolescents in the 7th, 9th, and 11th grades in Lucas County, Ohio, as well as a separate interview with a parent/guardian. The first data collection was in 2001, when respondents were, on average, 15 years of age. The second interview was collected in 2002 (respondents average age 16), the third interview was collected in 2004 (respondents average age 18), the fourth interview was collected in 2006–2007 (respondents average age 20), and the fifth wave was collected in 2011–2012 (respondents average age 25). At the fifth interview, there were 1,021 respondents (473 men and 548 women), with a retention rate of 77% from the first interview.

The analytic sample was restricted in several ways based on the requirements of the research questions. Focusing on both casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity during emerging adulthood, the sample consisted only of those individuals reporting on a current or recent (within the last two years) romantic relationship partner during the fifth interview (n = 909). Due to analysis restrictions posed by small sample sizes, individuals reporting on same-sex relationships (n = 19) were also excluded from the analysis, as were those reporting a race-ethnicity other than white, black, or Hispanic (less than 1% after other sample restrictions). To be included in the analyses, respondents were also required to have valid data on both dependent variables; 43 respondents had missing data for the measurement of casual sex, and an additional 13 respondents had missing data for the measurement of sexual non-exclusivity. Relatedly, given the present study’s measure of sexual non-exclusivity focuses on respondents’ engagement with others outside the primary relationship to which their primary relationship partner has not agreed, those respondents reporting that they and their partner consented to extra-relational sexual partners (e.g., polyamorous relationships) were excluded from analyses (n = 31). Finally, due to the longitudinal nature of the study and the assessment of peer and romantic partner influences in earlier life on emerging adults’ casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity at the fifth interview, we also required that individuals be present and have valid data on these key independent variables at all waves of data collection to be included in the analyses (e.g., approximately 10% of respondents were missing on all peer measures in one or more waves of data). These restrictions resulted in a final analytic sample of N=694 (308 men and 386 women) respondents.

Comparison analyses between those included and excluded in the final analytic sample showed a slightly larger, although not statistically significant, proportion of male and black respondents being excluded for having no current or recent relationship to report on during the fifth interview, or for having missing data on the casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity dependent variables, compared to female and white respondents. There was, however, a statistically significant difference in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity reports between those with missing data on all peer measures in one or more waves of data and those with valid data on peer measures, with those missing on peer measures having higher reports of both casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity.

Measures

Both dependent variables were measured at the fifth interview. The first, casual sex, was assessed by an item that asked respondents: “How many different people of the opposite sex have you had vaginal sex in the last 2 years with that you weren’t really dating or going out with?” Responses ranged from 0 to 150, although over 90% of the sample reported 4 or less casual sex partners with a mean of 1.8. However, given the present study focused on whether emerging adults had any casual sex experiences within the two years prior to the fifth interview, responses were recoded into a dichotomous variable, with 0 indicating the respondent had no casual sex experiences and 1 indicating the respondent had at least one casual sex experience. The second dependent variable, sexual non-exclusivity, asked respondents to report how often they had sex with or “had seen” another guy/girl, while with the primary relationship partner they were reporting on during the fifth interview. Responses ranged from 0 “never” to 8 “very often.” However, like casual sex, with the present study’s focus on respondents engaging in any sexual non-exclusivity, responses were recoded into a dichotomous variable, with 0 indicating the respondent never engaged in sexual non-exclusivity and 1 indicating the respondent engaged in sexual non-exclusivity at least once while with their wave five partner.

We measured family influence at the first and fifth interviews. Parents’ teen pregnancy, assessed at the first interview through the parent interview, asked the responding parent to report if they had ever gotten pregnant as a teenager or gotten someone else pregnant as a teenager. Parents who responded no were coded as 0 and served as the comparison category. Interparental conflict was a retrospective measure at the fifth interview with the respondent, using responses to seven questions from the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996). The seven items asked: “When you were growing up, how often did your parents,” (1) “have arguments or disagreements,” (2) “yell or shout at each other because they were mad,” (3) “give each other the silent treatment,” (4) “throw something at the other,” (5) “push, shove or grab the other,” (6) “slap the other in the face or head with an open hand,” and (7) “hit the other?” Responses ranged from 1 “never” to 5 “very often,” which were combined for a range of 7–35 (α = 0.90).

We measured peers’ sexual behavior and sexual attitudes using data from the third, fourth, and fifth interviews. We used data from three waves to account both for the fact that peer groups may change over time during emerging adulthood (e.g., Wagner et al., 2014), and that even sexual behaviors and attitudes within the same peer group may change across time as individuals becoming increasingly involved in sexual and romantic partnerships in emerging adulthood (e.g., Furman & Winkles, 2012). Data from the first and second interviews were not included given the majority of respondents and their peers had not had sexual intercourse at those time points, and thus corollary measures of peers’ sexual behaviors and attitudes were not available in earlier waves. Peers’ sexual behavior was then measured at each wave by asking respondents to report how many of their friends (1) “had sex with someone who is not their boyfriend or girlfriend” and (2) “cheated on their boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse.” Responses ranged from 0 “none” to 5 “all of them.” We combined these scores for a range of 0–10 and then took the average of these scores across waves HI, IV, and V (α = 0.74), resulting in one measure of peers’ sexual behavior across the transition to emerging adulthood from average age 18 to 25 years old. Similarly, we assessed peers’ sexual attitudes at each wave by asking respondents to report their perception of what their friends think about four different dating or sexual behaviors: (1) “It’s okay to date more than one person at a time,” (2) “You should only have sex with someone you love” (reverse coded), (3) “You should only have sex if you are married” (reverse coded), and (4) “It’s okay to have sex with someone you are not actually dating.” Responses ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” We combined these scores for range of 4–20 (wave III α = 0.74, wave IV α = 0.72, wave V α = 0.70) and then took the average of these scores across waves HI, IV, and V (α=0.76), resulting in one measure of peers’ sexual attitudes across the transition to emerging adulthood from average age 18 to 25 years old.

Partners’ previous non-exclusivity toward the respondent was measured in the first four waves of data collection. It captures both previous “ex-partners’” non-exclusivity, as well as current partners’ previous non-exclusivity for those respondents whose wave five partners may be the same relationship partner as was reported on in earlier waves. It is measured by asking respondents to respond to one question: “How often has your partner seen another guy/girl?” Responses ranged from 1 “never” to 5 “very often” but were recoded into a dichotomous variable, so that respondents whose partners never engaged in non-exclusivity were coded as 0 and 1 otherwise. We then combined these responses across the first four waves of data, resulting in one measure of partners’ previous non-exclusivity, ranging from 0 to 4. A response of 0 indicated the respondent never experienced a relationship with a non-exclusive partner, while a response of 4 indicated the respondent reported experiencing a relationship with a non-exclusive partner in all four waves of data collection.

Dynamics of the intimate relationship being reported on during the wave five interview were also assessed at the fifth interview. We assessed union status with two dichotomous indicators: cohabiting and married, with dating serving as the comparison group. We also included the following intimate relationship dynamics: relationship duration, relationship uncertainty, and relationship stability. Relationship duration was a continuous measure and ranged from 0.08 to 13 years. Relationship uncertainty measured respondents’ level of agreement with three statements: (1) “I often have second thoughts about our relationship,” (2) “I may not want to be with him/her a few years from now,” and (3) “I feel uncertain about our prospects to make this relationship work for a lifetime.” Responses ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree,” which we combined for a range of 3–15 (α=0.88). Relationship stability was assessed with two dichotomous indicators: stably broken up and churning, with stably together serving as the comparison group. Stably broken up individuals included those respondents who reported on a recent (within the last two years) but not current relationship at the fifth interview, in which they had broken up with the partner once and did not get back together. Respondents were characterized as churning if they broke up and got back together with their current or recent partner. Stably together respondents were then those individuals who reported being in a current relationship at the fifth interview and who had never broken up with the current partner.

Demographic characteristics included respondents’ age, biological sex, race-ethnicity, educational attainment, and employment status at the fifth interview. Age was measured in years and biological sex was a dichotomous measure, with male serving as the contrast category. Two dichotomous variables represented the respondents’ racial-ethnic status, which included non-Hispanic White, serving as the contrast category, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. Educational attainment included three dichotomous indicators: less than high school, some college, and college graduate, with high school graduate serving as the comparison category. Employment status was measured with two dichotomous indicators: unemployed and part-time employment, with full-time employment serving as the comparison category.

Statistical Analysis

We used two separate logistic regression models to examine the influence of family, peers, and intimate relationships on each emerging adults’ engagement in casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors. Each analysis included the same sample of 694 respondents and the same independent and control variables: interparental conflict; parents’ teen pregnancy; peers’ sexual behavior and attitudes; partners’ previous non-exclusivity; relationship status, uncertainty, and stability; and demographic control variables.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the means and percentages for each of the dependent and independent variables guiding the present study. For the dependent variables, 33.14% of respondents reported engaging in casual sex in the two years prior to the fifth interview, and 24.35% reported engaging in sexually non-exclusive behaviors while with their current or most recent relationship partner, as reported on during the fifth interview. Concerning the independent variables, respondents reported relatively low levels of interparental conflict in their households growing up, with a 13.23 average on a scale of 7–35, and 19.02% of respondents’ parents experienced teen pregnancy. In examining peer influence variables, respondents reported peers with moderate sexual attitudes and behaviors, with lower scores indicating more conservative attitudes and behaviors and higher scores indicating more sexually liberal attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, peers’ sexual behaviors averaged 4.31 on a scale of 0–10 and peers’ sexual attitudes averaged 12.41 on a scale of 4–20. In regard to previous intimate relationships, partners’ previous non-exclusivity averaged 0.94 on a scale of 0–4, indicating an average of one report of a partner being non-exclusive toward the respondent across the first four waves of data collection. In assessing current relationship dynamics, the majority of respondents were in dating relationships, although substantial portions also reported on cohabiting and marital unions. Respondents reported on relationships that were, on average, 3.47 years in length. Respondents also reported relatively low levels of relationship uncertainty, with a mean score of 7.11 on a scale of 3–15. Finally, concerning relationship stability, the majority of respondents were categorized as being stably together with their romantic partner at 50.43%, although a substantial portion of the sample (39.63%) were categorized as churning, in that they had broken up and gotten back together with their partner on at least one occasion.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for emerging adults’ sexual behaviors and related correlates Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

Mean or % Range and SD
Dependent variables
Casual sex		 33.14 -
Sexual non-exclusivity 24.35 -
Family influence
Interparental conflict		 13.23 7–35 (0.19)
Parents’ teen pregnancy 19.02 -
Peer influence
Peers’ sexual behavior		 4.31 0–10 (0.08)
Peers’ sexual attitudes 12.41 4–20 (0.10)
Partners’ influence
Partners’ previous non-exclusivity		 0.94 0–4 (0.04)
Relationship dynamics
Union status
Dating 44.09 -
Cohabiting 30.40 -
Married 25.50 -
Relationship duration 3.47 0.08–13 (0.11)
Relationship uncertainty 7.11 3–15 (0.13)
Relationship stability
Stably together		 50.43 -
Stably broken up 9.94
Churning 39.63 -
-
Demographic controls
Age		 25.37 22–29 (0.07)
Biological sex
Female		 55.62 -
Male 44.38 -
Race-ethnicity
White		 69.02 -
Black 18.88 -
Hispanic 12.10 -
Educational attainment
Less than high school		 6.48 -
High school graduate 22.48 -
Some college 35.59 -
College graduate 35.45 -
Employment status
Unemployed		 23.78% -
Part-time employment 19.02% -
Full-time employment 57.20% -
Open in a new tab

N = 694 respondents; note: standard deviations shown in parentheses

Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, respondents were an average of 25 years old and a slight majority (at 55.62%) of the sample was female. The most common racial-ethnic identification was White (69.02%), although notable proportions identified as Black and Hispanic. A majority of respondents had at least some college education or were college graduates, and over half were employed full-time at the fifth interview.

Logistic Regression Results

Table 2 presents the results of two logistic regression models, one predicting whether respondents engaged in casual sex in the two years prior to the fifth interview, and one predicting whether respondents engaged in sexual non-exclusivity while with their current or most recent romantic partner, as reported on during the fifth interview. For the casual sex analyses, results indicated that each unit increase in interparental conflict increased the likelihood of engaging in casual sex by 4 .2%, while each unit increase in peers’ sexual behavior, with higher scores reflecting more sexually liberal behaviors, increased respondents’ likelihood of engaging in casual sex by 26.4%. Interestingly, peers’ liberally sexual attitudes were not a statistically significant predictor of respondents’ casual sex reports. However, supplemental analyses (not shown) indicated that peers’ sexual attitudes were a statistically significant predictor of respondents’ casual sex when peers’ sexual behavior was not included in the model. Likewise, peers’ sexual attitudes and behaviors were strongly correlated with one another (α = 0.71). Meanwhile, results indicated for each additional report of a romantic partners’ non-exclusivity across the first four waves of data, respondents were 31.3% more likely to report engaging in casual sex in the two years prior to the fifth wave of data collection.

Table 2.

Logistic regressions for emerging adults’ casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

Casual sex (last two years) Odds ratios (SE) Sexual non-exclusivity (current/recent relationship)
Odds ratios (SE)
Family influence
Interparental conflict 1.042 (0.020)* 0.986 (0.020)
Parents’ teen pregnancy 1.324 (0.320) 1.076 (0.277)
Peer influence
Peers’ sexual behavior 1.264 (0.087)*** 1.182 (0.084)*
Peers’ sexual attitudes 1.011 (0.055) 1.104 (0.065)
Partners’ influence
Partners’ previous non-exclusivity 1.313 (0.122)** 1.321 (0.129)**
Relationship dynamics
Union status (reference group: dating)
Cohabiting 0.659 (0.163) 0.626 (0.167)
Married 0.509 (0.183) 0.406 (0.152)*
Relationship duration 0.871 (0.044)** 1.102 (0.054)*
Relationship uncertainty 1.111 (0.033)*** 1.165 (0.038)***
Relationship stability (reference group: stably together)
Stably broken up 1.576 (0.498) 0.748 (0.289)
Churning 1.214 (0.269) 2.362 (0.549)***
Demographic controls
Age 0.888 (0.049)* 0.932 (0.056)
Female 0.716 (0.147) 0.959 (0.221)
Race-ethnicity (reference group: White)
Black 1.090 (0.279) 1.477 (0.397)
Hispanic 1.218 (0.366) 1.114 (0.357)
Educational attainment (reference group: high school graduate)
Less than high school 1.279 (0.513) 0.864 (0.376)
Some college 1.289 (0.319) 0.947 (0.250)
College graduate 0.906 (0.252) 0.803 (0.239)
Employment status (reference group: employed full-time)
Unemployed 0.803 (0.194) 0.920 (0.242)
Part-time employment 0.788 (0.202) 1.067 (0.291)
R 2 0.213 0.212
Open in a new tab

N = 694 respondents

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

Regarding dynamics of the current or most recent romantic partnership, respondents reporting on romantic relationships of longer duration were less likely to report casual sex experiences in the two years prior to the wave five interview. Specifically, for each unit increase in relationship duration, respondents were 12.9% less likely to report having casual sex in the last two years. Conversely, each unit increase in relationship uncertainty with the primary relationship partner was associated with an 11.1% increased likelihood of the respondent engaging in casual sex in the last two years. Finally, in regard to respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, age was the only statistically significant correlate of casual sex, where each year increase in age decreased the likelihood of casual sex reports by 11.2%.

For the sexual non-exclusivity analyses, results indicated that neither of the family influence variables was statistically significant predictors of respondents’ sexual non-exclusivity reports. However, each peers’ sexual behavior and partners’ previous non-exclusivity significantly increased respondents’ likelihood of engaging in sexually non-exclusive behaviors toward their current or most recent relationship partner, as reported on during the fifth interview. Specifically, each unit increase in peers’ sexual behavior, with higher scores indicating more sexually liberal behaviors, increased respondents’ sexual non-exclusivity by 18.2%. Meanwhile, results indicated for each additional report of a romantic partners’ non-exclusivity across the first four waves of data, respondents were 32.1% more likely to report engaging in sexual non-exclusivity while with their current or most recent romantic partner, as reported on in the fifth interview. Like the regression on casual sex, peers’ sexual attitudes were statistically significant in the prediction of sexual non-exclusivity when peers’ sexual behaviors were not also included in the model.

Concerning the dynamics of the current or most recent romantic partnership, respondents reporting on romantic relationships of longer duration were actually more likely to report engaging in sexually non-exclusive behaviors, with each unit increase in relationship duration increasing the likelihood of sexual non-exclusivity by 10.2%. This is likely an artifact of increased opportunity to be non-exclusive that comes with relationships that are longer in length. Each unit increase in relationship uncertainty with the primary relationship partner also increased the likelihood of the respondent being sexually non-exclusive by 16.5%, and respondents in relationships categorized as churning (e.g., breaking up and getting back together with their primary relationship partner at least once) were 136.2% more likely to report being sexually non-exclusive than those who were “stably together” (e.g., never breaking up) with their primary relationship partner. Conversely, respondents in marital unions were 59.4% less likely to report sexual non-exclusivity, compared to those in dating relationships, although there were no statistically significant differences in sexual non-exclusivity between those reporting on cohabiting versus dating relationships. None of the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics were statistically significant predictors of sexual non-exclusivity reports in full model analyses.

Discussion

The present study sought to build on prior research by exploring several different contexts of emerging adults’ lives that may influence their propensity to engage in casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors. The results presented here indicated that both casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity are relatively common occurrences in emerging adulthood, and that emerging adults’ families, peers, and current and past romantic relationships are all essential contexts to consider in understanding one’s chances of engaging in casual sex or sexual non-exclusivity.

Following potential social learning and attachment theory perspectives, the present study found that higher levels of exposure to interparental conflict during adolescence were significantly associated with emerging adults’ casual sex engagement. This finding is in line with previous research by Butzner and Campbell (2008), which finds that individuals with deleterious family background experiences may tend toward casual sex encounters in order to fulfill their sexual desires while at the same avoiding becoming too emotionally close to potential romantic partners. Such may be linked to interparental conflict in that those individuals who were exposed to interparental conflict in earlier life may have learned from parents that romantic partners are not to be trusted and that committed romantic partnerships are not rewarding or worthwhile. Alternatively, the present study’s findings on casual sex engagement may also be illustrative of individuals using sex to gain acceptance from others and satisfy feelings of security and love (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Shaver & Hazan, 1998), feelings they may not have readily received in earlier life when residing in homes filled with interparental conflict.

Further echoing an attachment perspective, individuals who reported greater levels of uncertainty surrounding the long-term prospects of relationships with primary relationship partners were significantly more likely to engage in sexually non-exclusive behaviors while with their primary relationship partner and were also more likely to report casual sex engagement in the two years prior to the fifth interview. Those respondents who experienced relationship churning, defined as breaking up and getting back together with their primary relationship partner at least once, were also more likely to report sexual non-exclusivity than those who had stable relationships with their primary relationship partner. Finally, the results presented here also demonstrated that individuals in marital unions, compared to those in dating relationships, were significantly less likely to report engaging in sexual non-exclusivity with their current or most recent relationship partner.

Taken together, these findings suggest that individuals who have greater commitment to and investment in their romantic partnerships, and who feel more certain about the long-term prospects of their relationships with primary relationship partners, are significantly less likely to engage in casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors. At least in regard to casual sex engagement, preference for casual sex encounters over more committed intimate relationships, as well as intimate relationships characterized by greater levels of relational uncertainty, may also be demonstrative of individuals who view more committed intimate partnerships with skepticism as a result of witnessing conflictual relationships between their own parents in adolescence (Jennings et al., 1991). Yet, and importantly, interparental conflict was not a significant predictor of emerging adults’ sexual non-exclusivity reports in the present study once all other covariates were entered into the regression model. This inconsistency may suggest that emerging adults’ family background influences their readiness to enter long-term romantic partnerships but does not influence sexual behavior once the decision to enter such a relationship has been made. More research is needed to further parse out these differing effects. Additionally, the present study did not include specific measures of attachment as potential moderating or mediating mechanisms in the relationship between family background experiences and emerging adults’ sexual behaviors. Inclusion of such attachment styles as secure, anxious, and avoidant would allow for a more specific test of whether interparental conflict and other deleterious experiences in families of origin and earlier life more generally impact emerging adults’ sexual behavior and how exactly these processes unfold. Thus, future research should look to include specific measures of attachment to assess whether and how differing attachment styles may influence both casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors.

In addition to familial effects and current intimate relationship dynamics, results from the present study also indicated that emerging adults’ peers have significant influence on casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Kaufman-Parks et al., 2021; Lyons et al., 2015), our findings suggest that, even at age 25, having peers with more sexually liberal behaviors significantly influenced respondents’ own sexual behavior, increasing their likelihood of engaging in both casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. Yet, and unique to the present study, peer influence continues to be an important indicator of emerging adults’ sexual behavior even when these emerging adults make the decision to commit to a dating, cohabiting, or marital partner, and while also accounting for characteristics of their current and past romantic relationships. As emerging adults increasingly delay what have historically been traditional markers of adulthood via delays in first marriage and first childbirth, and spend increased time in higher education and residing in the parental home, these findings suggest that peer influence on sexual and romantic relationship behaviors may be just as significant among those in their mid- and late 20 s as has historically been the case for those in mid- to late adolescence.

Further expanding on social learning processes, our results demonstrated that respondents with a past or current sexually non-exclusive romantic partner were significantly more likely to engage in casual sex, as well as report being sexually non-exclusive themselves while with their current romantic partner. This latter finding is particularly important for two reasons. One, to our knowledge, no research to date has examined if or how experiences of sexual non-exclusivity in adolescent and earlier emerging adult relationships may carry over into future romantic relationships with others. Two, it might be assumed that individuals who have been betrayed by a previous romantic relationship partner’s infidelity would be less likely to enact such behaviors themselves in the future, given the resulting trauma that often results from such betrayal (e.g., Warach & Josephs, 2021) and not wanting to inflict similar trauma on others. Yet, the results presented here suggest that just as adolescents and emerging adults learn what sexual and romantic relationship behaviors are socially normative or acceptable through their peers, so too do they learn these lessons from their romantic partners. Thus, adolescents and emerging adults exposed to sexual non-exclusivity by romantic partners in earlier life may come to adopt more sexually liberal attitudes about what sexual practices are normative both within and outside the confines of committed romantic partnerships, increasing their chances of both casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity. Future research should thus explore more fully how romantic relationships characterized by sexual non-exclusivity in earlier life affect emerging adults’ later romantic and sexual behaviors and how exactly these processes might unfold. It is also perhaps worth noting, however, that the present study was not able to differentiate whether partners’ previous non-exclusivity was with a respondent’s past or current relationship partner. In particular, approximately 80% of respondents in the current sample reported on relationships that were five years or less in length, meaning that such relationships started after the fourth wave of data collection and any reports of partners’ previous non-exclusivity were with a different partner than was being reported on at the fifth interview. However, the remaining 20% of respondents reported on relationships longer than five years in length, and thus partners’ previous non-exclusivity as reported on in earlier waves of data collection may have been the same primary relationship partner to whom the respondent reported being sexually nonexclusive toward in the fifth interview. In these instances, it may be that respondents’ own sexual non-exclusivity is a sort of revenge form of infidelity, “paying back” their partner for the partner’s previous indiscretions. Thus, if possible, future research should also take care to further differentiate primary relationship partners and experiences across time. This will allow for the more precise assessment as to whether a respondent’s own sexual non-exclusivity is in response to the previous non-exclusivity of a single romantic partner, or whether experiences with different partners and lessons learned within previous relationships carry over into future relationships with others.

It is important to note a few additional limitations of the present research. Although the large metropolitan area focused on in the present study is similar to the USA as a whole on several basic demographic characteristics, including estimates of race and ethnicity, family status and income, and education, the current study sample is regional in nature. As such, generalizability of the present results may be limited. Similarly, due to the small number of individuals reporting on same-sex partnerships (3.2% of the sample), we included only individuals reporting on different-sex relationships. Thus, we cannot assess whether the findings presented here would be the same among non-heterosexual emerging adults. Finally, the causal ordering of current intimate relationship dynamics and sexual non-exclusivity cannot be discerned in the present analyses. Given that five years lapsed between the fourth and fifth interviews, relationship uncertainty and relationship stability were assessed at wave five to ensure that individuals were reporting on dynamics of the relationships with the same partner to whom they may have been unfaithful. Thus, it may very well be that sexual non-exclusivity influenced these other relationship dynamics, rather than the reverse process as is outlined here Although continued research is needed to further understand emerging adults’ sexuality, the current study makes several strides to improve on past research efforts by demonstrating the many different contexts of emerging adults’ lives that may influence their sexual behaviors both within and outside the confines of committed romantic relationships. Specifically, to our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to include measures of family background, long-term and contemporaneous peer relationships, past partners’ non-exclusivity, current romantic relationship dynamics, and sociodemographic characteristics in the examination of both casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors among emerging adults. We find that emerging adults’ peers and past and current romantic relationships are key determinates in influencing the choice to engage in both casual sex and sexually nonexclusive behaviors, and that emerging adults’ families are also an important context to consider when predicting casual sex engagement. These findings are important in that while many emerging adults do view casual sex experiences positively (e.g., Owen et al., 2010), not all do. Rather, at least some populations of emerging adults have been found to experience psychological distress, anxiety, and depression following casual sex engagement, particularly when casual sex encounters are followed by negative experiences such as loneliness and disappointment that a casual sex partner did not continue the relationship (Fielder & Carey, 2010; Napper et al., 2016). Relatedly, when sexual non-exclusivity is not an agreed upon arrangement by primary romantic relationship partners, the presence of such may lead to relationship conflict and violence (Giordano et al., 2015; Goetz et al., 2008) and relationship break ups or divorce (Amato & Previti, 2003; Bravo et al., 2017). As such, exploring the reasons why emerging adults may choose to engage in casual sex and sexually non-exclusive behaviors may aid in the prevention of interpersonal problems such as psychological distress, as well as decrease the prevalence of romantic relationship conflict and dissolution. Accordingly, future research efforts should continue exploring how families, peers, and previous romantic relationship partners influence the decision to engage in casual sex and sexual non-exclusivity and how exactly these processes might unfold at different stages of the life course and over time.

Funding

This research received support from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD036223), and the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959-01). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the oflicial views of the National Institutes of Health.

Appendix A.

Correlations Between Continuous Independent Variables

Interparental conflict Peers’ sexual behavior Peers’ sexual attitudes Partners’ previous non-exclusivity Relationship duration Relationship uncertainty Respondent age
Interparental conflict 1.000
Peers’ sexual behavior 0.105** 1.000
Peers’ sexual attitudes 0.062 0.709*** 1.000
Partners’ previous non-exclusivity 0.047 0.294*** 0.174*** 1.000
Relationship duration −0.041 −0.049 −0.080* −0.196*** 1.000
Relationship uncertainty 0.102** 0.238*** 0.226*** 0.214*** -0.203*** 1.000
Respondent age −0.033 0.130*** 0.135*** 0.063 0.242*** −0.019 1.000
Open in a new tab

N = 694 respondents

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

Source: Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

Footnotes

Code Availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Conflicts of interest Not applicable.

Data Availability

The public-use data flies of the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) for Waves 1 and 2 are available through ICPSR’s Data Sharing for Demographic Research (DSDR) and may be applied for together at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/series/252/studies. Restricted-use data for Waves 1 and 2 may be applied for through ICPSR’s Secure Dissemination or Virtual Data Enclave processes. The public-use data flies for Wave 5 are available through the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data’s (NACJD) Fast Track Release at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACJD/studies/35486. The restricted-use data for Wave 5 may be applied for separately through the NACJD website. Waves 3 and 4 data are not available to the public.

References

  1. Allen ES, Atkins DC, Baucom DH, Snyder DK, Gordon KC, & Glass SP (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12,101–130. 10.1093/clipsy.bpi014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amato PR, & Previti D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602–626. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkins DC, Baucom DH, & Jacobson NS (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749. 10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blow AJ, & Hartnett K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31,217–233. 10.llll/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01556.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowlby J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bravo V, Connolly J, & Mclsaac C. (2017). Why did it end? Breakup reasons of youth of different gender, dating stages, and ages. Emerging Adulthood, 5, 230–240. [Google Scholar]
  9. Butzner B, & Campbell L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141–154. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Claxton SE, & van Dulmen MH (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fielder RL, & Carey MO (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119. 10.1007/sl0508-008-9448-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Furman W, & Winkles JK (2012). Transformations in heterosexual romantic relationships across the transition to adulthood. In Laursen B. & Collins WA (Eds.), Relationship pathways from adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 191–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  13. Furman W, & Shaffer L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In Florsheim P. (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 3–22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gentzler AL, & Kerns KA (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249–265. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00081.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Giordano P, Manning W, Longmore M, & Flanigan C. (2012). Developmental shifts in character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. In Booth A, Brown S, Landale N, Manning W, & McHale S. (Eds.), National symposium on family issues, Vol. 2: Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 133–164). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  16. Giordano PC (1995). The wider circle of friends in adolescence. American Journal of Sociology, 101,661–697. 10.1086/230756 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Giordano PC, Copp JE, Longmore MA, & Manning WD (2015). Contested domains, verbal ‘amplifiers’, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 94, 923–951. 10.1093/sf/sov055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Goetz AT, Shackelford TK, Romer GA, Kaighobadi F, & Miner EJ (2008). Punishment proprietariness, and paternity: men’s violence against women from an evolutionary perspective. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 13,481–489. 10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hardy JB, Astone NM, Brooks-Gunn J, Shapiro S, & Miller TL (1998). Like mother, like child: Intergenerational patterns of age at first birth and associations with childhood and adolescent characteristics and adult outcomes in the second generation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1220–1232. 10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jennings AM, Salts CJ, & Smith TA (1991). Attitudes toward marriage: effects of parental conflict, family structure, and gender. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 17, 67–79. 10.1300/J087v17n01_05 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaufman-Parks AM, DeMaris A, Giordano PC, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2018). Intimate partner violence perpetration from adolescence to young adulthood: trajectories and the role of familial factors. Journal of Family Violence, 33,27–41. 10.1007/s10896-017-9924-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaufman-Parks AM, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Giordano PC (2021). Brief report: The long reach of peer influence on emerging adults’ sexual activity. In Morgan EM & van Dulmen MHM (Eds.), Sexuality in emerging adulthood (pp. 295–312). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Knopp K, Scott S, Ritchie L, Rhoades GK, Markman HJ, & Stanley SM (2017). Once a cheater, always a cheater? Serial infidelity across subsequent relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 2301–2311. 10.1007/sl0508-017-1018-l [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kotehick BA, Shaffer A, Miller KS, & Forehand R. (2001). Adolescent sexual risk behavior: a multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 21,493–519. 10.1016/s0272-7358(99)00070-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lansford JE, Dodge KE, Fontaine RG, Bates JE, & Pettit GS (2014). Peer rejection, affiliation with deviant peers, delinquency, and risky sexual behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1742–1751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Longmore MA, Manning WD, Copp JE, & Giordano PC (2016). A prospective study of adolescents’ sexual partnerships on emerging adults’ relationship satisfaction and intimate partner aggression. Emerging Adulthood, 4,403–416. 10.1177/2167696816631098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lyons HA, Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2014). Young adult casual sex behavior: life course specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57,79–101. 10.1177/0731121413517557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyons HA, Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2015). Gender and casual sex activity from adolescence to emerging adulthood: Social and life course correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 543–557. 10.1080/00224499.2014.906032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Manning WD, Longmore MA, Copp J, & Giordano PC (2014). The complexities of adolescent dating and sexual relationships: Fluidity, meaning(s), and implications for young adults’ wellbeing. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 144, 53–69. 10.1002/cad.20060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Manning WD, Longmore MA, & Giordano PC (2005). Adolescents’ involvement in non-romantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34,384–407. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McLean KC, & Jennings LE (2012). Teens telling tales: How maternal and peer audiences support narrative identity development. Journal of Adolescence, 35,1455–1469. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller BC (2002). Family influences on adolescent sexual and contraceptive behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 22–26. 10.1080/00224490209552115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Napper LE, Montes K, Kenney SR, & LaBrie JW (2016). Assessing the personal negative impacts of hooking up experienced by college students: gender differences and mental health. Journal of Sex Research, 53,766–775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Norona JC, Roberson PN, & Welsh DP (2017). “I learned things that make me happy, things that bring me down”: lessons from romantic relationships in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32,155–182. 10.1177/2F0743558415605166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Owen JJ, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, & Fincham FD (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663. 10.1007/sl0508-008-9414-l [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Shaver P, & Hazan C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,473–501. 10.1177/2F0265407588054005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Shulman S, & Connolly J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27–39. 10.1177/2F2167696812467330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stocker CM, & Richmond MK (2007). Longitudinal associations between hostility in adolescents’ family relationships and friendships and hostility in their romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 21,490–497. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 283–316. 10.1177/2F019251396017003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Strokoff J, Owen J, & Fincham FD (2015). Diverse reactions to hooking up among U.S. university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 935–943. 10.1007/s10508-014-0299-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Treas J, & Giesen D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48–60. 10.llll/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wagner J, Liidtke O, Roberts BW, & Trautwein U. (2014). Who belongs to me? Social relationship and personality characteristics in the transition to young adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28, 586–603. 10.1002/per.1974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Walderip AM, Malcolm KT, & Jensen-Campbell LA (2008). With a little help from your friends: the importance of high quality friendships on early adolescent adjustment. Social Development, 17, 832–852. 10.llll/j.1467-9507.2008.00476.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Warach B, & Josephs L. (2021). The aftershocks of infidelity: a review of infidelity-based attachment trauma. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36, 68–90. 10.1080/14681994.2019.1577961 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The public-use data flies of the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) for Waves 1 and 2 are available through ICPSR’s Data Sharing for Demographic Research (DSDR) and may be applied for together at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/series/252/studies. Restricted-use data for Waves 1 and 2 may be applied for through ICPSR’s Secure Dissemination or Virtual Data Enclave processes. The public-use data flies for Wave 5 are available through the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data’s (NACJD) Fast Track Release at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACJD/studies/35486. The restricted-use data for Wave 5 may be applied for separately through the NACJD website. Waves 3 and 4 data are not available to the public.

RESOURCES