Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Feb 6;97(4):1047–1056. doi: 10.1002/jad.12477

Romantic Competence and Courtship Skills: From the First Romantic Impulse to the Management of Mutuality

Noemí Toledano 1, Carmen Viejo 1,✉, Rosario Ortega‐Ruiz 1
PMCID: PMC12128907  PMID: 39915952

ABSTRACT

Introduction

When adolescents have their first romantic experiences and start to form couples for the first time, these are normative practices which provide them with company, support and intimacy. However, the protagonists can also find them stressful and, at times, complicated. Romantic competence (RC) consists of a set of individual and mutual skills which are used to facilitate our emotional and social lives. In this study, we aim to deepen our knowledge about how RC is used, and the patterns or profiles present in the use of these skills.

Methods

2,400 Spanish adolescents (47.7% girls) between the ages of 12 and 18 took part in the study. A confirmatory factor analysis divided RC into individual or mutual competences, and, using cluster analysis, established three clearly defined profiles to describe the protagonists: ineffective in procedural and mutual management skills; ineffective in procedural skills and competent in mutual management skills; and competent in procedural and mutual management skills. The main discriminating factors for defining these profiles were age and romantic experience.

Results

The results show that older adolescents with more romantic experience perceive themselves as being more skilled in both individual and mutual competences, and that there is a progressive development of RC skills from initiating a relationship to its later stages.

Conclusion

Our discussion of the results hopes to shed more light on the complexity of adolescents' intimate romantic lives, as well as to illustrate the importance of this knowledge for improving educational practices and helping prevent problems such as the psychogenesis of gender‐based violence.

Keywords: adolescent courtship, cluster analysis, mutual management skills, procedural skills, romantic competence

1. Introduction

During adolescence, intimate relationships take centre stage, accompanied by a significant change in the focus of the motivating force which drives them. The initial interest in the peer group gives way to a dyadic, elective focus and a search for intimacy, support and more profound communication with a member of the group or an outsider: these are the first romantic relationships. The adolescents change their choices and affinities and turn their attention more and more towards romantic relationships, which begin to affect all the areas of their development and learning (Connolly et al. 2014; Shulman and Connolly 2015).

Adolescents' first romantic experiences form part of a complex courtship process which begins by choosing a person and realising that they have been chosen, and progresses to a deepening of mutual knowledge, more intense and extensive communication, and spending more time together. During this process, adolescents have to learn strategies for relating to the person they feel sexually and romantically attracted to (Finkel, Simpson, and Eastwick 2017; Viejo and Ortega‐Ruiz 2023). By mastering these strategies, adolescents learn to approach their chosen partner and get to know them better, to communicate their intentions by showing interest and erotic‐sexual desire, and to define the emotional, cognitive and behavioural aspects that help them to start a relationship, if the romantic interest is mutual, as part of a process of negotiation and dialogue between the members (Bredow, Cate, and Huston 2008; Christopher, McKenney, and Poulsen 2016). However, adolescents find it challenging to learn strategies to manage the courtship process, as it involves exploring emotional subtleties in a hitherto unknown relationship and this leads to take certain risks (Pellegrini 2010; Smith, Welsh, and Fite 2010). In addition, at this age, adolescents are usually inexperienced in erotic‐romantic affairs and must employ relational strategies they have never used before, although some have previously been present in the social context of intimate friendship.

1.1. Development and Function of Romantic Competence

In the context of romantic life, certain skills have been identified as being particularly useful for managing the courtship process and establishing romantic relationships with good quality indices (Beckmeyer et al. 2020); this is what is known in the specialized literature as Romantic Competence (Davila et al. 2017, 2009). The term Romantic Competence (RC) can be defined as learning and implementing a set of skills which can be used to improve the relationship of the members of a dyad in the context of a romantic relationship, regardless of the duration or the type of romantic bond established. The RC involves developing skills that start from the perspective of the individual and are important for individual knowledge and learning as reflecting on how you are, what you like, what you dislike, what your hobbies are, what makes you feel good or how you would like the person to be with whom you want to form a relationship; and moves towards knowing the other person from a mutual perspective that involves empathy, knowledge of the emotions, values and thoughts of the other, conflict management or communication management in couple situations (Davila et al. 2009; Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020).

As the members of the dyad themselves grow up and develop, the characteristics of their romantic experiences change and mature, as do the skills that help them to manage these relationships successfully (McCormick, Kuo, and Masten 2011). Various studies have shown how adolescents move from an individual level of expression of erotic‐romantic interest to a dyadic level on which they begin to take the other person's needs into consideration (Connolly and McIsaac 2009; Shulman, Davila, and Shachar‐Shapira 2011). In this context, acquiring and developing RC skills facilitates the step from the emergent task of starting the romantic experience to the eminent task of forming a couple for the first time (Collibee 2016). This significant finding has served as a guide for research in this field. We are now aware that adolescents' needs vary and grow, becoming more complex as the relationship progresses and stabilizes, and therefore, that the developmental tasks required for this context differ depending on whether the relationship is just beginning or is in a later stage of development (Shulman, Davila, and Shachar‐Shapira 2011; Shulman and Connolly 2015). According to Shulman, Davila and Shachar‐Shapira (2011), age and romantic experience play a key role in the development of RC. In fact, as young people grow up, they tend to become involved in more complex romantic situations, to be more competent in managing them (Shulman and Scharf 2000) and to be more aware of the other person's viewpoint and needs (Connolly and McIsaac 2009; Shulman and Connolly 2015).

When adolescents feel attracted to someone, they set in motion individual strategies motivated by desire and attraction to start a relationship with the chosen person (Christopher, McKenney, and Poulsen 2016); however, as the relationship matures, there is a greater need for strategies for mutual communication which will help them manage situations within the couple. RC is characterised behaviourally by specific tasks such as starting a conversation (Knobloch, Satterlee, and DiDomenico 2010), comforting the chosen person, or trying to solve a problem (Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020, 2022), all of which activate a process of growing romantic maturity. This is a key point because it shows that, although the five skills of the competence are related (Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020, 2022), each one can work differently in adolescents depending on the individual or mutual nature of the specific tasks. The tasks aimed at initiating an approach and getting to know the chosen person, which have a markedly individual function, are followed by more complex tasks which require negotiating, cooperating, collaborating and reasoning with the other person, all of which seem to be focused on developing and maintaining the relationship. This would also allow us to establish profiles based on RC and facilitate understanding of its development in adolescents.

1.2. The Measure of Romantic Competence

RC has been measured from different perspectives which have contributed important knowledge in research (see Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020 for a comprehensive review). One of the most used measures is that developed by Dávila and his colleagues initially for adolescents (Davila et al. 2009) and later for young adults (Davila et al. 2017). Davila et al. (2009) propose a model of semi‐structured interview focused on an established couple relationship for which they evaluate three skills that are insight or self‐awareness, the mutuality or perspective on aspects affecting the couple, and emotional regulation. Also, Bouchey (2007) developed a Romantic Self Concept Questionnaire to assess aspects such as intimacy or sexual behaviour of adolescents within a romantic relationship. The Mutual Psychological Development Scale (MPDQ; Genero et al. 1992) is also a measure used to evaluate perceptions of important mutuality competences such as empathy, authenticity or engagement. However, these measures do not allow us to analyse how the actual initiation of adolescent relationships takes place in terms of competence requirements, i.e. what skills boys and girls need to cope with this task and whether these skills are simultaneous or sequential; it is relevant to capture important aspects of how adolescents initiate their relationships within the courtship process from a relationship development perspective.

In a previous study (Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020) we adapted an Interpersonal Competence tool originally developed by Buhrmester (1990) that took into account the beginning of relationships and other aspects that are recognized as important for RC. We orientate the instrument towards adolescent courtship and first couples and call it Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire in Courtship Process (AICQc). Our instrument consists of five skills which are related to: (a) using strategies to initiate romantic relationships, such as distinguishing what type of partner to choose, establishing limits, asking for a date or having conversations with the chosen person; (b) sharing intimate information, such as disclosing personal ideas or sharing likes, interests and problems, in the knowledge that this self‐disclosure is a form of intimacy; (c) learning to communicate assertively and say no when they want to reject a request which they find unpleasant or which conflicts with their own needs or desires; (d) lending emotional support to the other member of the dyad by being able to listen, understand and attend to individual and mutual needs; and (e) managing conflicts in a spirit of mutual negotiation (Buhrmester 1990; Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020). This instrument allowed us to assess the perception that adolescents had of their RC in the start and maintenance of relationships, However, we want to go one step further and advance the measurement of RC as a bimodal construct which reflects the progression of skills from an individual perspective towards a mutuality perspective.

1.3. The Present Study

The aim of our study is to advance our knowledge and understanding of RC and the way it works individually or mutually in the process of courtship and forming juvenile couples. To achieve this, we have to unravel the complexity of this construct and how it operates in the developmental dynamics of the adolescent couple through the establishment of profiles that reflect how these competences develop (Seiffge‐Krenke and Burk 2012). As stated in the scientific literature, age and the individual's romantic experience act as discriminating variables when constructing profiles of RC, and we can therefore expect that middle and late adolescents will show a higher level of RC skills and display greater emotional maturity in tasks that require mutual involvement and management, while early adolescents will show less competence in these types of romantic tasks.

Our research also proposes a more elaborate definition of the construct of RC. We hypothesise that it has a bifactor structure which includes both the individual and mutual management of the tasks that define the skills. We expect skills that function with individual motivation, such as initiating a relationship or self‐disclosure, will be preceded by a second‐order factor, as are the skills motivated by mutual management, such as emotional support, assertiveness to say yes or no to the other's demands, or managing conflict.

The general objectives of the study were therefore: (1) to establish different profiles in the development of RC skills by analysing the effect of age and romantic experience and (2) to test a two‐factor structure of the original AICQc measure that classifies RC skills according to their structure and functionality.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

2,400 adolescents (52.3% boys and 47.7% girls) between 12 and 18 years old took part in the study (M = 14.45; SD = 1.56). The participants were in Compulsory Secondary Education and Sixth Form at schools belonging to the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. They were administered the Dating Questionnaire (Connolly et al. 2000) in which they answered questions about their romantic experience, such as whether they liked someone, had dated someone before or were in a relationship at that time. The romantic experience was coded into never (I've never liked anyone or dated), past (I liked someone or dated in the past) and present (I like someone or am currently dating someone) 25.8% reported that they had never dated anyone, 29.6% that they had had some romantic experience in the past, and 44.6% that they liked someone or were currently dating someone (Table 1). Only participants who reported having a current partner (not including someone they liked) answered about the duration of their relationship (Table 2).

Table 1.

Description of the Sample.

% N Age M (DT) % Gender % (N) Romantic Experience
Boy Girl No Past Current
Secondary 1 22 522 12.62 (0.65) 22.4 21.6 30.4 (179) 19.9 (134) 16.8 (171)
Secondary 2 26.1 621 13.72 (0.81) 27.4 24.8 30.6 (180) 26.3 (177) 23.1 (235)
Secondary 3 20.4 484 14.71 (0.73) 20.3 20.5 18.4 (108) 20.6 (139) 21.8 (222)
Secondary 4 16.8 398 15.70 (0.72) 16.7 16.8 13.9 (82) 19.1 (129) 17.5 (178)
Sixth Form 1 10.7 255 16.52 (0.65) 9.6 12 6.1 (36) 9.2 (62) 15.1 (154)
Sixth Form 2 4.0 95 17.08 (1.16) 3.7 4.3 .5 (3) 4.9 (33) 5.7 (58)
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Comparison of variables among Romantic Competence profiles.

N Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3
(N = 261) (N = 907) (N = 1232)
Boys 56.6% Girls 42.3% Boys 63.7% Girls 35.6% Boys 47.9% Girls 51.3%
M (SD)
Romantic Competence Total F gl p η²
Procedural skills
Initiating relationships 1.03 (0.63) 2.29 (0.53) 3.20 (0.48) 2.51 1972.20 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.614
Self‐disclosure .93 (0.58) 2.01 (0.59) 2.93 (0.61) 2.59 2001.00 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.587
Mutual management skills
Assertiveness and saying no 1.09 (0.71) 2.43 (0.63) 3.24 (0.49) 2.21 1559.10 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.545
Emotional support 1.59 (0.86) 2.79 (0.56) 3.53 (0.40) 2.90 1505.83 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.584
Conflict management 1.35 (0.78) 2.54 (0.56) 3.37 (0.47) 2.69 1698.46 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.603
Age 13.72 (1.65) 14.27 (1.81) 14.55 (1.78) 14.29 34.94 2, 2397 < 0.001 0.026
Duration of relationship 7.23 (9.67) 7.70 (9.56) 7.81 (9.07) 7.58
Open in a new tab

Note: M, means; SD, standard deviation; N, group size; Profile 1, ineffective in procedural and mutual management skills; Profile 2, ineffective in procedural skills and competent in mutual management skills; Profile 3, competent in procedural and mutual management skills.

2.2. Instruments

The Interpersonal Competence in Adolescent Courtship Questionnaire (in Spanish, AICQc; Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020) measures adolescents' self‐perception of RC in terms of their ability to deal with specific situations within adolescent courtship and starting a romantic experience, and is divided into five skills: initiating romantic relationships (α = 0.88: e.g.: talk to and have conversations with someone new you would like to know better?); sharing personal information or self‐disclosure (α = 0.86; e.g.: tell someone you like or start dating something about yourself which you are ashamed of?); the ability to say yes or no assertively in different situations (α = 0.88; e.g.: say “no” when someone you like asks you to do something you don't want to do?); providing emotional support to the chosen person (α = 0.90; e.g.: make someone you like or start dating feel that you understand their problems?); and knowing how to manage conflicts fairly (α = 0.88; e.g.: Quickly get over issues with someone you like or start dating?). The items are measured on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = I am very bad at this, 5 = I am very good at this).

2.3. Procedure

This study was approved by the Bioethics and Safety Committee of the University of Córdoba, following the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

After contacting a number of schools, 15 agreed to participate. The school management teams, and the students' families were informed of the aims and duration of the study, and permission was obtained for the researchers to visit the schools. The research staff was specially trained for the data collection process, which was carried out during school hours over a period of approximately 2 months. The students also gave their consent after being informed about the aims of the research and its voluntary and anonymous nature and were given the possibility of dropping out. The questionnaire took 50 min to complete.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

First, a hierarchical cluster analyses was carried out using the Ward method and the Euclidean distance as a measure of similarity, as these have been shown to be the best discriminative methods to determine the levels of grouping and to reduce intragroup variation to a minimum (Kuiper and Fisher 1975). A scatter plot allowed us to see the distribution of the profiles according to the factor scores calculated in the CFA. The graph also showed the relationship between the factors and the level of prediction between them for each of the profiles, which had different characteristics, through simple linear regression models using the trend line, the linear regression equation and the R2 value. Based on theoretical aspects concerning the characteristics of the beginning and development of romantic relationships (Christopher, McKenney, and Poulsen 2016; Collins 2003), we used the factor of procedural skills as an independent variable, and the factor of mutual management skills as a dependent variable. The three simple linear regression models were calculated using the Enter input method.

The clusters were compared with the RC variables and the participants' ages. Since the group sizes varied and there was no homogeneity of variances, we carried out Welch ANOVA and Games‐Howell post‐hoc tests. The effect size was calculated with Eta‐squared (low effect r = 0.10; medium effect r = 0.30; high effect r = −0.50) (Field 2009). We also examined the relationship between romantic experience and clusters using a cross table and Chi2 tests. Cramer's V was used to calculate the effect size. In addition, we calculate the average duration and standard deviation of the relationships for each group.

All these analyses were also performed on SPSS v28.0.

The second step was to perform a second‐order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the bifactor structure of RC, including procedural skills (initiating relationships and self‐disclosure) and mutual management skills (assertiveness and saying no, emotional support and managing conflict). The Mardia coefficient value of 503.4896 revealed the non‐normalized distribution of the data, so robust estimation and least squares (LS) methods were used (Bryant and Satorra 2012). The fit indices used for model validation were: Satorra‐Bentler chi square, comparative fit index (CFI), Bentler‐Bonet non‐normed fit index (NNFI; ≥ 0.90 adequate, ≥ 0.95 optimal) and squared error approximation (RMSEA; ≤ 0.08 adequate, ≤ 0.05 optimal) (Byrne and Stewart 2006). To fit the model, we also took into account the alpha value, taking the value 0.70 as a cut‐off point (Geldhof, Preacher, and Zyphur 2014), the reliability coefficient (RHO). The determination coefficients R 2 (0.67 strong, 0.33 moderate and 0.10 weak) were also taken into account (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). The analysis was performed using the EQS. 6.2 programme.

3. Results

3.1. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, Descriptive Analysis and Simple Linear Regression Models

To identify possible RC profiles in relation to the five skills, we performed tests with 2 to 4 clusters. An optimal solution was found in the case of 3 of the profiles, which agrees with the theoretical basis supporting the Multifactor Model of Romantic Competence (Buhrmester 1990; Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020, 2022). These profiles were labelled: (1), ineffective in procedural and mutual management skills; (2), ineffective in procedural skills and competent in mutual management skills; and (3), competent in procedural and mutual management skills. Table 2 shows the descriptive results and comparison of means between the three groups, together with the variables RC, age and average duration of relationships. Profile 1 was made up of 261 participants with very low, below‐average scores in both procedural and mutual management skills; these participants perceived themselves as less effective in both competences. Profile 2 was formed by 907 adolescents with medium‐low scores in procedural skills, but medium‐high scores in mutual management skills; the participants in this group only perceived themselves as competent in mutual management skills. Profile 3 consisted of 1,232 boys and girls who had the highest scores and were above the average compared to the other profiles. These participants perceived themselves as highly competent in both procedural and mutual management skills.

Welch's ANOVA revealed the effect of the comparative variables in the three RC groups (Table 2). Games‐Howell post hoc tests showed statistically significant differences between the three groups for all the independent variables. Participants in Profile 3 had higher scores than those both in Profile 2 (initiating relationships (p < 0.001) 95% CI [.86, 0.96]; self‐disclosure (p < 0.001) 95% CI [.86, 0.98]; assertiveness and the ability to say yes or no (p < 0.001) 95% CI [.75, 0.86]; emotional support (p < 0.001) 95% CI [.70, 0.79], and managing conflict (p < 0.001) 95% CI [.77, .87]), and in Profile 1 (initiating relationships (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.75, 1.92]; self‐disclosure (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.92], 2.07]; assertiveness and ability to say yes or no (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.75, 1.92]; emotional support (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.84, 2.04], and managing conflict (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.92, 2.11]). The members of Profile 2 also obtained higher scores than those in Profile 1 (initiating relationships (p < 0.001) 95% CI [0.90, 1.06]; self‐disclosure (p < 0.001) 95% CI [0.99, 1.14]; assertiveness and ability to say yes or no (p < 0.001) 95% CI [0.94, 1.12]; emotional support (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.12, 1.27], and managing conflict (p < 0.001) 95% CI [1.09, 1.28]). The values for the effect size were high.

Table 3 shows the results for the romantic experience and competence profiles. The Chi2 statistic [χ2 (4, N = 2449) = 264.64, p < 0.001; V = −0.34] revealed that having romantic experience has a significant effect on belonging to a certain profile. The results show that nearly 70% of the adolescents had some romantic experience, while only 25.5% had none. The adolescents who had more romantic experiences and were currently in a relationship were those who perceived themselves as more competent in both skills. Similarly, the participants who defined themselves as competent only in mutual management skills reported having, in the past and currently, more romantic experience than boys and girls in Profile 1, but less experience than those in Profile 2. However, most participants who perceived themselves as ineffective in both skills reported that they have never had a romantic experience. Regarding the duration of their romantic experiences, only 14 participants in group 1 reported being in a relationship with a minimum duration of 2 weeks and maximum of 36 months. For group 2, 138 participants had relationships lasting between 1 week and 48 months. This time range was also for the participants of group 3, although 380 were in relationships (Table 2).

Table 3.

Relationship between profiles of Romantic Competence and Romantic Experience.

Profiles
Ineffective in procedural and mutual management skills Effective in mutual management skills Effective in procedural and mutual management skills Total
N % N % N % N %
Romantic Experience Never 148 59.7% 271 31.1% 171 14.3% 590 25.5%
Past 47 19.0% 274 31.5% 361 30.2% 682 29.5%
Current 53 21.4% 325 37.4% 662 55.4% 1040 40.0%
Open in a new tab

Note: N, size of group.

It was also shown how age had significant effects on the three competence profiles, especially among members of Profile 1 and Profile 3, who corresponded to those who perceived themselves as not very effective or very effective, respectively, in the two competences. The participants in Profile 3 were older than those in Profile 2 (p < 0.001) 95% CI [0.18, 0.50] and Profile 1 (p < 0.001) 95% CI [0.67, 1.12]. In the same way, the participants in Profile 1 were younger than those in Profile 2 (p < 0.001) 95% CI [−0.79, −0.32], although the effect size was low.

We then calculated a simple linear regression model for each profile to predict the effect of procedural skills on mutual management skills, knowing that procedural skills are developed at the beginning of the relationship and mutual management skills at a later stage. For Profile 1, the regression equation was statistically significant F(1, 260) = 117.965, p ≤ 0.001. The trend line shows a positive linear relationship between the factors, with procedural competences acting as a reliable predictor of mutual management competences, with an increase of 0.56 points. The value of R 2 = 0.31 indicates that 31% of the change in mutual management skills scores can be explained by the regression model. The regression equation for Profile 2 was also significant F(1, 905) = 5.795, p = 0.023; however, the value of R 2 = 0.006 indicated a poor fit of the model, as mutual management skills only increased 0.08 points with the effect of the procedural skills scores, thus factor 1 was found not to be a reliable predictor of Factor 2. In contrast, for Profile 3, Factor 1 was a reliable predictor of Factor 2, with the regression equation being statistically significant F(1, 1230) = 240.867, p ≤ 0.001, with a value of R 2 = −0.16, which shows that it accounted for 16% of the change in scores for this model, with an increase of 0.41. Figure 1 shows the regression equations and trend lines for the three models.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Distribution of Romantic Competence profiles and relationship among factors.

3.2. Bifactor Model of Romantic Competence

We conducted a CFA to test the hypothesis of a second‐order structure for RC (Figure 2). The results showed optimal fit indices: χ2 S‐B = 5206.5247; gl = 659; p ≤ 0.001; NNFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.973; RMSEA = 0.059 [90% CI (0.057, 0.60)]. The Cronbach's alpha values (0.96) and the reliability coefficient (RHO) of 0.97 were highly appropriate.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Bifactor Structure of Romantic Competence with LS and robust methods.

The second‐order structure of RC was confirmed by grouping the five original skills (Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020) into two categories according to the functionality of each variable: Factor 1, which we labelled procedural skills, included initiating relationships and self‐disclosure, which accounted for 86% and 78% of the variance, respectively; Factor 2, mutual management skills, was made up of assertiveness and the ability to say yes or no, providing emotional support and managing conflict, which accounted for 74%, 86% and 71% of the explained variance, respectively. The prediction errors (D) were low and both factors correlated significantly with each other.

4. Discussion

A large body of research has focused on the characteristics of the courtship process and the formation of the first couples in adolescence (Collins, Welsh, and Furman 2009), but not much is known about the dynamics of how RC develops or about the individual or mutual functions of these skills, other than the fact that they tend to differ between individuals according to the needs of their interpersonal relationships. This study provides knowledge about adolescents' perceptions of their own RC and their use of these competences to initiate and develop a romantic relationship. The first objective was to explore the developmental profiles of RC by taking into account factors such as age or romantic experience. Secondly, the study aimed to analyse a potential second‐order structure of RC in which skills were grouped according to their individual or mutual function.

Regarding the first objective, the results showed three different profiles in skills competence, romantic experience and age, which only goes to highlight the multifaceted nature of this competence (Viejo, Toledano, and Ortega‐Ruiz 2020). The first profile we identified consisted of early adolescents with sporadic dyadic participation who defined themselves as ineffective in procedural and mutual management skills. This result agrees with other studies which link the lack of romantic experience with the late development of strategies for managing romantic relationships (Collins, Welsh, and Furman 2009; Steinberg 2014). In addition, Shulman, Davila and Shachar‐Shapira (2011) point out that, although romantic interest first appears in early adolescence, most adolescents have their first experiences in middle adolescence. These observations may provide coherent explanations for this result, since adolescents with this profile are the youngest and those who have the least romantic experience of all the participants and, therefore, have had the least opportunity to experiment and learn from their own experience. Adolescents who begin their erotic‐affective lives do so without previous experience and without the tools and knowledge that romantic experience offers (Tuval‐Mashiach et al. 2008); this gives them a limited perception of their own ability to face the tasks of initiating and managing courtship situations and could place them in a situation of risk and uncertainty when it comes to managing future romantic tasks.

The second profile contains boys and girls in middle adolescence who have mostly had romantic experiences but only perceive themselves as competent in mutual management skills. Adolescents with this profile are probably involved in less sporadic, more long‐lasting and stable romantic relationships which allow them to develop mutual management strategies, although their experience has turned out to be not very successful, short or to rather frustrating, which leads them to recognize they are not very skilled in procedural competence, while, at the same time, they feel they have good mutual management skills. Another explanation could be found in the role of peers in the development of romantic experience (Kreager et al. 2016; Seiffge‐Krenke and Burk 2012). The group of friends is a safe context in which adolescents learn to negotiate, express and regulate their emotions, listen to others and resolve disagreements: in short, to practice skills that take into account both individual and mutual desire and motivation. The social skills acquired in this context could be a motivating factor for developing mutual management skills within the couple.

The third profile encompasses boys and girls in middle adolescence who have nearly all had romantic experiences and who perceive themselves as highly competent in both procedural and mutual management skills. As Shulman and Scharf (2000) state, the older they get, the more adolescents tend to participate in romantic relationships, which helps them to develop romantic skills to manage their relationships. Shulman, Davila and Shachar‐Shapira (2011) suggest that romantic experience plays a key role in the development, coordination and consolidation of RC skills. Our findings suggest that older adolescents with more romantic experience could know about and know how to use better individual and mutual management tools, which helps them perceive their dyadic interactions with positive results, resulting in them perceiving themselves as more competent in romantic initiation and development processes, which go hand in hand with the development of cognitive, emotional and behavioural capacities (Viejo and Ortega‐Ruiz 2023). Biological, cognitive and emotional maturity predisposes us to develop strategies for reflection, profound dialogue and taking a perspective (Galván 2017), which are extremely useful in the process of choosing and maintaining romantic relationships, even if they are incipient or precarious (Viejo and Ortega‐Ruiz 2023).

Our results also showed that adolescents who reported themselves as skilled in the initial relationship process also reported themselves as skilled in managing mutuality for low‐scoring and high‐scoring adolescents. This finding improves our understanding of the role that RC skills play in adolescent courtship. This role occurs at two stages: first, at the beginning of a romantic experience, and second, in the development of intimacy and commitment to the other person in established, consolidated relationships (Connolly and McIsaac 2009; Shulman, Davila, and Shachar‐Shapira 2011). This fact is important because it guides the knowledge of RC as a construct in which different skills with different functionalities coexist, but both are important for the emotional functioning of adolescents. Different studies have shown how adolescents evolve from a level of individual satisfaction, where they express erotic‐romantic desires and needs through approaching the person they like or in initial conversations, to a mutual level where relationships are more complex and intimate, and the needs of others are taken into account (Connolly et al. 2004; Furman and Rose 2015; Shulman, Davila, and Shachar‐Shapira 2011). However, the result was the opposite for participants who only perceived themselves as competent in mutual management skills, showing that procedural skills were not a predictor of these skills. This point is of particular interest and could partly be explained by the fact that a lack of experience in initiation activities, individual characteristics such as shame or fear of rejection, and even group pressure can act as factors which prevent adolescents from showing their romantic interest (Tuval‐Mashiach et al. 2008), but it could also be interpreted as the possible impact of a feeling of failure on the rudimentary procedural beginnings of initiating a relationship.

The results of the bifactor model of the RC were optimal. It was found that the skills of initiating relationships and self‐disclosure could be explained by a single factor labelled procedural skills. This term is used because the tasks in which these skills are developed, such as starting a conversation with someone you like or disclosing intimate details to them, are procedural, belong to the rudimentary stage at the beginning in a romantic experience, and are most important at the beginning of an adolescent's erotic‐romantic life when they are forming a couple. This result was in line with previous studies on how adolescents initiate romantic relationships (Christopher, McKenney, and Poulsen 2016). Activities such as making a phone call, starting a conversation or sharing time with a like‐minded person when they like someone and want to show their romantic interest (Blair, Fletcher, and Gaskin 2015) encourage the initial communication between adolescents and the need for self‐disclosure to form these increasingly intimate relationships (Finkenauer, Kerkhof, and Pronk 2018; Solomon and Roloff 2018). Although these competences are described in an interpersonal framework, the function, motivation and intentionality to carry them out are individual. Whether they are reciprocal or not, this does not necessarily condition the development of these competences: while one teenager may share their time with another person because he/she likes them and wants to start a relationship, another may do it without any erotic‐romantic intentions.

Our findings also showed that assertiveness and saying yes or no, emotional support and managing conflict could be grouped into a second factor termed mutual management skills. These skills are characterized by their mutual function and the tasks they are used for within the framework of an emerging romantic relationship. Romantic tasks such as communicating assertively, defending one's own needs without ignoring those of the other person, or talking together to resolve problems require mutual involvement to carry them out and for their results to be effective. Members of the dyad must know, understand, and use mutual management and negotiation strategies if the relationship is to advance and mature in a positive direction (Davila and Lashman 2016). For these reasons, mutual management skills are employed in later stages of the relationship than the initial stages when procedural skills are used. These results are consistent with research that suggests that developing good communication and assertive skills is a positive factor in the development and maintenance of romantic relationships (Sillars and Vangelisti 2018). Also, Steinberg (2014) points out that adolescents who develop emotional support or regulation enjoy better relationships (Rogers et al. 2020). In short, these results reveal that adolescents define themselves, on the one hand, as skilled in the procedure, which consists of using interaction strategies to approach the person they like, show that they are attracted to them, and express erotic‐romantic interest in them, in an early, rudimentary state of the romantic experience, while on the other hand, they perceived themselves as skilled in mutual management tasks which allow them to negotiate, discuss, understand and manage situations in courtship with common objectives, in a more advanced, fully developed stage of the relationship.

Our results have major practical implications. Taking into account the impact that romantic relationships have on adolescent health and well‐being (Carlson and Rose 2012; Collibee 2016), it is important that this research be taken into account when developing social and educational policies which coordinate sexual and romantic education in adolescents to promote positive romantic relationships and help prevent violent behaviour.

The study has both strengths and limitations. The results showed three profiles of RC, which help us understand adolescents' perception and use of their own RC skills based on their own needs; however, the cross‐sectional design limits our understanding of these results. Longitudinal design studies are needed to analyse the stability or variability of RC in early, middle, and late adolescence. We also found that age and romantic experience had a major impact on our understanding of individual and mutual dynamics, but we did not take into account important characteristics such as type of relationship or the quality of their experiences. It would therefore be appropriate to include these variables in future research.

Ethics Statement

This study complied the ethical standards from the Bioethics and Safety Committee of the University of Córdoba, Spain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the Project Challenges and Risks in Adolescent Erotic‐romantic Experiences: The Multidimensionality of Romantic Competence in the Framework of Courtship (CoSCo). (PDI2020‐119855RA‐I00), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Universidad de Córdoba/CBUA.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Beckmeyer, J. J. , Herbenick D., Fu T.‐C., Dodge B., and Fortenberry J. D.. 2020. “Prevalence of Romantic Experiences and Competencies Among 14 to 17 Year‐Olds: Implications for the Primary Care Setting.” Clinical Pediatrics 59, no. 2: 116–126. 10.1177/0009922819885659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blair, B. L. , Fletcher A. C., and Gaskin E. R.. 2015. “Cell Phone Decision Making: Adolescents' Perceptions of How and Why They Make the Choice to Text or Call.” Youth & Society 47, no. 3: 395–411. 10.1177/0044118X13499594. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouchey, H. A. 2007. “Perceived Romantic Competence, Importance of Romantic Domains, and Psychosocial Adjustment.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 36, no. 4: 503–514. 10.1080/15374410701653120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bredow, C. A. , Cate R. M., and Huston T. L.. 2008. “Have We Met Before?: A Conceptual Model of First Romantic Encounters.” In Handbook of Relationship Initiation, 3–28. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryant, F. B. , and Satorra A.. 2012. “Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi‐Square Testing.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 19, no. 3: 372–398. 10.1080/10705511.2012.687671. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buhrmester, D. 1990. “Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment During Preadolescence and Adolescence.” Child Development 61, no. 4: 1101. 10.2307/1130878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Byrne, B. M. , and Stewart S. M.. 2006. “Teacher's Corner: The Macs Approach to Testing for Multigroup Invariance of a Second‐Order Structure: A Walk Through the Process.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 13, no. 2: 287–321. 10.1207/s15328007sem1302_7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, W. , and Rose A. J.. 2012. “Brief Report: Activities in Heterosexual Romantic Relationships: Grade Differences and Associations With Relationship Satisfaction.” Journal of Adolescence 35, no. 1: 219–224. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Christopher, F. S. , McKenney S. J., and Poulsen F. O.. 2016. “Early Adolescents' ‘Crushing’: Pursuing Romantic Interest on a Social Stage.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 33, no. 4: 515–533. 10.1177/0265407515583169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Collibee, C. 2016. Quality Counts: Developmental Shifts in Associations Between Romantic Relationship Qualities and Psychosocial Adjustment. 27. 10.1111/cdev.12403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Collins, W. A. 2003. “More Than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic Relationships During Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 13, no. 1: 1–24. 10.1111/1532-7795.1301001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, W. A. , Welsh D. P., and Furman W.. 2009. “Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Annual Review of Psychology 60, no. 1: 631–652. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Connolly, J. , Craig W., Goldberg A., and Pepler D.. 2004. “Mixed‐Gender Groups, Dating, and Romantic Relationships in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, no. 2: 185–207. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402003.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Connolly, J. , McIsaac C., Shulman S., et al. 2014. “Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: Implications for Community Mental Health.” Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 33, no. 1: 7–19. 10.7870/cjcmh-2014-002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Connolly, J. , Pepler D., Craig W., and Taradash A.. 2000. “Dating Experiences of Bullies in Early Adolescence.” Child Maltreatment 5, no. 4: 299–310. 10.1177/1077559500005004002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Connolly, J. A. , and McIsaac C.. 2009. “Romantic Relationships in Adolescence.” In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Contextual Influences on Adolescent Development, edited by Lerner R. M. and Steinberg L., 3rd ed., 104–151. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davila, J. , and Lashman K.. 2016. The Thinking Girl's Guide to the Right guy: How Knowing Yourself can Help You Navigate Dating, Hookups, and Love. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  18. Davila, J. , Mattanah J., Bhatia V., et al. 2017. “Romantic Competence, Healthy Relationship Functioning, and Well‐Being in Emerging Adults.” Personal Relationships 24, no. 1: 162–184. 10.1111/pere.12175. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davila, J. , Steinberg S. J., Miller M. R., Stroud C. B., Starr L. R., and Yoneda A.. 2009. “Assessing Romantic Competence in Adolescence: The Romantic Competence Interview.” Journal of Adolescence 32, no. 1: 55–75. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS . London: UK. [Google Scholar]
  21. Finkel, E. J. , Simpson J. A., and Eastwick P. W.. 2017. “The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles.” Annual Review of Psychology 68: 383–411. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Finkenauer, C. , Kerkhof P., and Pronk T.. 2018. “Self‐Disclosure in Relationships: Revealing and Concealing Information About Oneself to Others.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by Vangelisti A. L. and Perlman D., 2nd ed., 271–281. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316417867.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Furman, W. , and Rose J. A.. 2015. “Friendships, Romantic Relationships, and Peer Relationships.” In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, edited by Lerner M. R., 1–43. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy322. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Galván, A. 2017. The Neuroscience of Adolescence. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Geldhof, G. J. , Preacher K. J., and Zyphur M. J.. 2014. “Reliability Estimation in a Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis Framework.” Psychological Methods 19, no. 1: 72–91. 10.1037/a0032138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Genero, N. P. , Miller J. B., Surrey J., and Baldwin L. M.. 1992. “Measuring Perceived Mutuality in Close Relationships: Validation of the Mutual Psychological Development Questionnaire.” Journal of Family Psychology 6, no. 1: 36–48. 10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.36. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Henseler, J. , Ringle C. M., and Sarstedt M.. 2015. “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance‐Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Knobloch, L. K. , Satterlee K. L., and DiDomenico S. M.. 2010. “Relational Uncertainty Predicting Appraisals of Face Threat in Courtship: Integrating Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Politeness Theory.” Communication Research 37, no. 3: 303–334. 10.1177/0093650210362527. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kreager, D. A. , Molloy L. E., Moody J., and Feinberg M. E.. 2016. “Friends First? The Peer Network Origins of Adolescent Dating.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 26, no. 2: 257–269. 10.1111/jora.12189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuiper, F. K. , and Fisher L.. 1975. “391: A Monte Carlo Comparison of Six Clustering Procedures.” Biometrics 31, no. 2: 777–783. 10.2307/2529565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McCormick, C. M. , Kuo S. I.‐C., and Masten A. S.. 2011. “Developmental Tasks Across the Life Span.” In Handbook of Life‐Span Development, edited by Fingerman K. L., Berg C. A., Smith J., and Antonucci T. C., 117–139. Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pellegrini, A. 2010. “The Role of Physical Activity in the Development and Function of Human Juveniles' Sex Segregation.” Behaviour 147, no. 13–14: 1633–1656. 10.1163/000579510X535262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rogers, A. A. , Ha T., Byon J., and Thomas C.. 2020. “Masculine Gender‐Role Adherence Indicates Conflict Resolution Patterns in Heterosexual Adolescent Couples ‐ A Dyadic, Observational Study.” Journal of Adolescence 79: 112–121. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Seiffge‐Krenke, I. , and Burk W. J.. 2012. “Friends or Lovers? Person‐ and Variable‐Oriented Perspectives on Dyadic Similarity in Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30, no. 6: 711–733. 10.1177/0265407512467562. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Shulman, S. , and Connolly J.. 2015. “The Challenge of Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood.” In The Oxford Handbook of Emerging Adulthood, edited by Arnett J. J., 230–244. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795574.013.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Shulman, S. , Davila J., and Shachar‐Shapira L.. 2011. “Assessing Romantic Competence Among Older Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescence 34, no. 3: 397–406. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Shulman, S. , and Scharf M.. 2000. “Adolescent Romantic Behaviors and Perceptions: Age‐ and Gender‐Related Differences, and Links With Family and Peer Relationships.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 10: 99–118. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sillars, A. L. , and Vangelisti A. L.. 2018. “Communication: Basic Properties and Their Relevance to Relationship Research.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by Vangelisti A. L. and Perlman D., 2nd ed., 243–255. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316417867.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, J. D. , Welsh D. P., and Fite P. J.. 2010. “Adolescents' Relational Schemas and Their Subjective Understanding of Romantic Relationship Interactions.” Journal of Adolescence 33, no. 1: 147–157. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Solomon, D. H. , and Roloff M. E.. 2018. “Relationship Initiation and Growth.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by Vangelisti A. L. and Perlman D., 2nd ed., 79–89. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316417867.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Steinberg, D. L. 2014. Age of Opportunity: Lessons From the New Science of Adolescence. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tuval‐Mashiach, R. , Walsh S., Harel S., and Shulman S.. 2008. “Romantic Fantasies, Cross Gender Friendships, and Romantic Experiences in Adolescence.” Journal of Adolescent Research 23: 471–487. 10.1177/0743558407311332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Viejo, C. , and Ortega‐Ruiz R.. 2023. Enamorarse en la Adolescencia. Aprendizaje Emocional en el Cortejo Juvenil. Síntesis. [Google Scholar]
  44. Viejo, C. , Toledano N., Gómez‐López M., and Ortega Ruiz R.. 2022. “Competencia Para Las Relaciones Sentimentales En El Proceso De Cortejo Adolescente Un Estudio Descriptivo.” Informació Psicològica 122: 46–62. 10.14635/ipsic.1897. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Viejo, C. , Toledano N., and Ortega‐Ruiz R.. 2020. “Romantic Competence and Adolescent Courtship: The Multidimensional Nature of the Construct and Differences by Age and Gender.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5223. 10.3390/ijerph17145223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Adolescence are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES