Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adult Dev. 2019 Feb 6;27(2):83–94. doi: 10.1007/s10804-019-09328-x

Relational Competence in Emerging Adult Adoptees: Conceptualizing Competence in Close Relationships

Krystal K Cashen 1, Harold D Grotevant 2
PMCID: PMC7394460  NIHMSID: NIHMS1520935  PMID: 32742158

Abstract

Little research has focused on the positive adjustment of emerging adult adoptees (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Given the developmental context of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000), it is important to select an indicator of adjustment that reflects the associated ambiguity. The present study aims to provide empirical support for the construct of relational competence, or competence in one’s closest relationship regardless of relationship type (i.e., romantic vs. nonromantic) among emerging adult adoptees. Participants included 162 adoptees who had been adopted before the age of one in the United States through private domestic adoption in to same-race families. Relational competence was measured by adapting a measure of romantic competence in emerging adulthood (Shulman, Davila, & Shachar-Shapira, 2011). Indicators of relational competence were coded from interviews in which participants discussed their self-identified closest relationship (White, Speisman, Jackson, Bartis & Costos, 1986). Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the proposed model of relational competence was a good fit to the data and was invariant across relationship type and gender. No differences in relational competence scores were found by relationship type or by gender (all p’s >. 552). Relational competence was positively associated with adaptive functioning (β = .325, p = .006) and negatively associated with internalizing (β = −.246, p = .035) and externalizing behavior (β = −.347, p = .003).

Keywords: close relationships, friendships, romantic relationships, competence, adoption

With estimates that 100 million Americans are connected to adoption (Jones & Placek, 2007), the adjustment of adoptees is an important area of research. While the majority of the research on adoptees has focused on childhood and adolescence, most of this work has focused on psychopathology and other maladaptive outcomes and relatively little work has examined the adjustment of adoptees during emerging adulthood (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Emerging adulthood is a unique developmental context associated with prolonged exploration and increased instability (Arnett, 2000, 2015). Therefore, it is important to use a measure of positive adjustment that will capture adoptees’ progress towards meeting the developmental tasks of this age while also accounting for variability in life trajectories. For emerging adults, one salient developmental task is forming a committed romantic relationship (Erikson, 1974; Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen., 2004). The relational context of adoption may make this developmental task particularly salient for adoptees.

Despite this developmental emphasis on romantic relationships, we propose that it is more informative to conceptualize adjustment for young adult adoptees through their ability to form and maintain a close relationship regardless of relationship type (i.e., romantic or nonromantic), or their relational competence. The current literature on relational competence is hindered by a lack of consensus on conceptualization and measurement. While the term relational competence has generally been used to refer to broad social competencies (L’Abate, 2012), researchers have operationalized this in a number of ways ranging from general perceptions of interpersonal relationships with family, friends and romantic partners (Engels, Finkenauer, Meeus, & Deković, 2001; Green, 2006) to specific relationship behaviors exhibited within the context of a specific (usually romantic) relationship (Davis & Oathout, 1987; Ngu & Florsheim, 2011). In the present study, our conceptualization of relational competence follows this latter operationalization by focusing on a specific relationship but expands upon previous work by focusing on behaviors exhibited within the individual’s closest peer relationship regardless of whether that relationship is romantic or platonic. Furthermore, our conceptualization takes a developmental focus in that it aims to capture whether the quality of behaviors exhibited within one’s closest relationship demonstrate a mastery of the developmental tasks of emerging adulthood. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the usefulness of this conceptualization as a marker of adjustment in emerging adult adoptees.

Relationships of Emerging Adult Adoptees

While close relationships are important for all emerging adults, the relational nature of adoption may make close relationships particularly salient for emerging adult adoptees. Adoption, by definition, involves the separation of one family to form a new one; it is a family form inherently based on loss. While adoption may provide the adoptee with a better quality of life in many cases, the process of adoption can also result in feelings of loss and rejection (Jones, 1997) which may translate in to interpersonal difficulties for adoptees. In one meta-analysis of adopted children (van den Dries, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009), researchers found that children who had been adopted before their first birthday showed as much secure attachment as their nonadopted peers, but those who had been adopted after their first birthday showed less attachment security. Furthermore, adopted children were more likely to show disorganized attachment patterns regardless of when they were adopted.

As relatively little work has examined the close relationships of emerging adult adoptees (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010), it is unclear whether adoptees demonstrate interpersonal difficulties in emerging adulthood. While some results suggest that emerging adult and adult adoptees were less likely to show secure attachment and lower perceived social support relative to their nonadoptive peers (Borders, Penny, & Portnoy, 2000; Feeney, Passmore, & Peterson, 2007), others have found no differences in sensitivity to rejection or relationship satisfaction (Borders, Penny, & Portnoy, 2006) and better functioning in friendships compared to nonadoptees (Tiemen, van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2006). The paucity of research on the close relationship functioning of emerging adult adoptees combined with the relevance of close relationships to the adoption context makes examining the relational competence of emerging adult adoptees a particularly informative way of measuring their positive adjustment.

Close Relationships in Emerging Adulthood

Compared to previous generations, emerging adults’ transitions to adulthood are characterized by increased exploration and associated instability (Arnett, 2015). Emerging adults today are more likely to have a succession of unstable, short-term jobs than one long-term job (Arnett, 2015; Danziger & Ratner, 2010). Emerging adults today are also delaying marriage (Furstenberg, 2010). This delay in marriage is associated with increased exploration of other types of relationships. These relationship types may range from friendships to casual sexual relationships such as friends with benefits relationships to cohabitating romantic relationships (Arnett, 2015; Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). Today’s emerging adults therefore show greater fluidity in traditional boundaries between romantic and nonromantic relationships than in previous generations. As this type of fluidity becomes more normative, it is important to develop ways of conceptualizing what it means to be a well-adjusted emerging adult that transcends the various paths that emerging adults might take.

The development of romantic relationships has long been theorized to be an important developmental task for emerging adults (Erikson, 1974; McCormick, Luo, & Masten, 2011). Researchers have pointed to stronger associations between engagement in romantic relationships and adjustment in emerging adulthood than in adolescence as evidence that the development of romantic relationships is a salient developmental task (Collibee & Furman, 2015; Furman & Collibee, 2014). This increased link between close relationships and adjustment in emerging adulthood indicates the developmental salience of close relationships. Therefore, examining relational competence provides a useful understanding of how an individual is adjusting to the developmental demands of emerging adulthood.

Shulman and Connolly (2013) proposed a new understanding of romantic development during emerging adulthood that takes in to account the unique developmental context. They proposed that the central task in romantic development for emerging adults is learning to balance their dyadic commitments with their own individual aspirations. Consequentially, emerging adults who are psychologically ready for long-term romantic relationships might instead be investing their time and energy into other developmentally relevant tasks such as building a career or attending school. Because emerging adults’ actual involvement in romantic relationships may therefore not be fully indicative of their relationship capabilities, it may also be important to consider how they apply these skills in other close relationships.

Although romantic and nonromantic peer relationships can and do serve distinct functions for emerging adults (Fuhrman, Flannagan, & Matamoros, 2009), there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is overlap in the skills and qualities necessary to form successful relationships of both types. For one, studies on working models, or mental representations of relationships (Bowlby, 1979), indicate that there are overlapping working models of the two relationship types. Adolescents’ working models of romantic relationships are correlated with their working models of friendships but not with working models of parent-child relationships (Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). Nonromantic and romantic relationships also share many qualities (Furman, 1999). When asked to describe the advantages of having a romantic partner, adolescents list features such as intimacy and support (Feiring, 1996), which are also seen in friendships (Buhrmester, 1990). Adolescents also show similar communication skills in interactions with friends and romantic partners (Furman & Shomaker, 2008). Additionally, social competency in middle childhood is associated with security with dating partners and intimacy in romantic relationships in adolescence (Collins, Hennighausen, Schmit, & Sroufe, 1997). The findings suggest that the skills and qualities developed in friendships are carried over in to romantic relationships.

Although the focus in the extant literature on friendships as a medium for learning about romantic relationships has been on adolescents, research suggests that relationship skills continue to develop through emerging adulthood. Developmental cascade analyses of close relationship functioning points to the significance of a shared set of skills between romantic and nonromantic peer relationships. For example, Oudekerk and colleagues (2015) found that autonomy and relatedness with romantic partners at age 21 was predicted by both autonomy and relatedness with friends and romantic partners at age 18 while autonomy and relatedness with friends at age 21 was predicted by autonomy and relatedness with romantic partners at age 18. Additionally, Roisman and colleagues (2004) showed that emerging adults’ close friendships may be more predictive of their romantic functioning later in adulthood than their romantic relationships. Relational competence may then provide an understanding of the development of that shared skill set by allowing us to see how those abilities are being applied in an individual’s closest relationship.

Close Relationships and Mental Health/Well-Being

There is a considerable body of research to support the association between our close relationships and our health and well-being. Romantic relationship status has been linked to both mental and physical health during emerging adulthood. Young adults who are in high quality romantic relationships (defined by greater commitment to the relationship, relationship satisfaction, and partner warmth in addition to lower partner hostility and partner antisociality) show fewer depressive symptoms and higher ratings of physical health than those who are not currently in a relationship; these effects also seem to accumulate over time (Barr, Culatta, & Simons, 2013). Additionally, being in a committed romantic relationship during emerging adulthood has been associated with reductions in heavy drinking and marijuana use in comparison to those not in romantic relationships (Fleming, White & Catalano, 2010). Other studies have shown that relationship quality may be important for wellbeing above and beyond relationship status. Barr, Culatta and Simons (2013) found that those individuals in low quality relationships (defined as lower in commitment, satisfaction, and partner warmth as well as higher in partner hostility and partner antisociality) fared similarly to individuals who were not in a relationship. Additionally, individuals with patterns of low quality across their close relationships (including spouse, friends, and family) showed more depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem than those with high quality relationships (Birditt & Anotucci, 2007).. Given these links between both romantic and nonromantic relationships and mental health/well-being, it should also be the case that greater relational competence is associated with positive outcomes in these domains.

Relational Competence: The Current Study

In the present study, we conceptualize relational competence as demonstrating developmentally appropriate skills and behaviors in one’s self identified closest peer relationship regardless of the type of that relationship. Skills and behaviors were considered developmentally appropriate if participants demonstrated an ability to balance their own individual needs with those of their relationship partner (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Using Shulman’s work on the Romantic Competence Interview (RCI: Atzil-Slonim, Reshef, Berman, & Peri, 2016: Shulman, Davila, & Shachar-Shapira, 2011) as a starting point, we created a new measure of relational competence which accommodated both romantic and nonromantic close relationships. The model of romantic competence was selected as a basis for our relational competence measure because of the developmental emphasis on finding a committed romantic relationship partner in emerging adulthood; emerging adults should be cultivating the competencies necessary to maintain a committed romantic relationship even if they are doing so in nonromantic relationships.

Shulman’s RCI includes four components: 1) level of romantic involvement, 2) maturity of social cognitive perception of romantic relationships, 3) romantic agency, and 4) coherence. In our measure, these four constructs have been adapted to reflect skills necessary to maintain a close relationship in a developmentally appropriate way regardless of whether that relationship contains romantic elements. Specifically, relational competence was measured using 1) the individual’s reasons for being committed to their closest relationship (Commitment), 2) the individual’s expressions of affection and caring in the relationship (Concern), 3) the manner in which the individual follows through on problems in the relationship to achieve a resolution (Responding), and 4) the quality of the individual’s generalized thoughts, feelings, and behaviors regarding the relationship (Orientation). Theoretical and conceptual associations between these constructs and the constructs from the RCI are discussed below.

Study Aims

The aim of the present study is to provide empirical support for the construct of relational competence in emerging adult adoptees and to understand how relational competence is associated with mental health and wellbeing. To our knowledge, this is the first study to conceptualize competence in emerging adult adoptees’ close relationships in their closest relationship. To accomplish these aims, we first used confirmatory factor analysis to test for goodness of fit of the proposed model (see Figure 1) of relational competence as well as for measurement invariance. Additionally, potential group differences in relational competence scores by relationship type and by gender were examined. Although we hypothesized that the same model of relational competence would hold across relationship type, we acknowledged that those reporting on a romantic relationship may possess greater relational competence given developmental emphasis on romantic relationships. Similarly, previous findings of gender differences in some of the relational competence indicators such as expression of affection and caring (Gaia, 2013; Johnson, Brady, McNair, Congdon, Niznik, & Anderson, 2007), may suggest that women would score higher than men. Finally, we examined whether relational competence was associated with concurrent measures of mental health and wellbeing (i.e., internalizing, externalizing, and adaptive behavior). It was hypothesized that greater relational competence would be associated with increased adaptive behavior and decreased internalizing and externalizing behavior.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Standardized factor loadings of CFA of relational competence (Model 1). N = 162.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were recruited as part of the Minnesota Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP; Grotevant, McRoy, Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, 2013), a longitudinal study about the effects of openness in adoption for different members of the adoptive kinship network. Target adoptees had been adopted as infants by same-race parents through private domestic adoption agencies in the United States. Data for this study were collected during the third wave of data collection (2005–2008). Of the 169 adopted children who participated during the third wave, 162 provided information on their self-described closest relationship. Data from these participants were used in the current study. Participants ranged in age from 20.77 to 30.34 years (M = 24.91, SD = 1.91). The majority of participants identified as White (96%), and participants were evenly split between women (n = 80) and men (n = 82).

Table 1 shows information about the types of relationships as reported by the participant. Close relationships that were not described as romantic (e.g., friendships, friendships with ex-relationship partners, siblings, or cousins) were considered nonromantic. Close relationships that were described as short-term romantic partners, long-term romantic partners, engaged, or spouses were considered romantic. Men were more likely to identify their closest relationship as nonromantic than women (χ2(1) = 5.00, p = .025). Of those who reported on a nonromantic relationship, 1.4% indicated that the current length of the relationship was 0–6 months, 2.8% said 6–12 months, 33.8% said 1–5 years, 23.9% said 6–10 years, and 38% said more than 10 years. For those in a romantic relationship, 1.1% indicated that the length of the relationship was 0–6 months, 7.7% said 6–12 months, 61.5% said 1–5 years, 24.2% said 6–10 years, and 3.3% said more than 10 years.

Table 1.

Relationship Types by Gender

Men Women
Nonromantic
  Friend 26 23
  Friend, ex-romantic 5 2
  Sibling 9 3
  Cousin 3 0
  Total 43 28
Romantic
  Romantic, short-term 4 5
  Romantic, long-term 10 21
  Engaged 7 9
  Spouse 18 17
  Total 39 52
Open in a new tab

Procedure

The target adopted emerging adults were contacted and given access to a secure online site. The site contained links to a consent form, a secure chat site that was used to conduct three interviews, and eleven questionnaires. Some participants completed interviews by phone and questionnaires in paper format for reasons that included lack of internet access or not being comfortable with using an electronic format. Participants were compensated for completing all measures.

Measures

Personal Interaction Interview.

The Personal Interaction Interview (PII; White, et al., 1986) is a semi-structured interview in which participants discussed their closest relationship. Participants were allowed to identify their current/most recent relationship they considered to be closest, regardless of whether the person was male or female or whether it was a romantic relationship or not. Participants were advised not to choose their parents, children, pets, spiritual beings (e.g., God), people who were under the age of 18, and deceased persons. These limitations were used to ensure that the relationship was a peer relationship. Interview questions asked about different aspects of the relationship such as shared and separate activities, how problems and differences are managed within the relationship, expressions of caring, perceptions of involvement and commitment, and ideas about how the relationship could be improved. Data collection and analysis protocols were all approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards.

Interviews were coded for intimacy maturity using a framework developed by White, Speisman, Costos, Kelly, and Bartis (1986). Four of the intimacy maturity subscales coded for in the PII were selected for inclusion in the relational competence model based on their theoretical match with Shulman, Davila, and Shachar-Shapira’s (2011) model: Commitment, Orientation, Concern, and Responding. Each subscale was measured on a 9-point scale. The range of scores reflects three levels of intimacy maturity: self-focused (ratings 1–3), role-focused (ratings 4–6), and individuated/connected (ratings 7–9). Self-focused individuals relate to their partner in a self-serving manner. These individuals tend to view their partner as either a facilitator or barrier to meeting their own needs with little acknowledgment of the needs of their partner. Role-focused individuals relate to their partner in a way that is defined by social norms regarding relationship roles. These individuals often use stereotyped and socially acceptable generalizations (e.g., generalizations about how men and women should behave) when describing their relationships. While these individuals may show some understanding of their partners’ needs, social roles are the overarching framework through which they describe they relationship. Individuated-connected individuals are able to integrate their own individual needs with those of their partner. These individuals are less motivated by obligations of social roles compared to role-focused individuals. Instead, their motivation stems from compassion, kindness, and joy in developing their partners’ talents and abilities. Higher scores on each of the PII subscales represent increasing levels of intimacy maturity and therefore greater relational competence.

Commitment.

The Commitment subscale was used in place of level of romantic involvement. Shulman and colleagues (2011) included level of romantic involvement as an indicator of romantic competence arguing that being in a lasting relationship is indicative of greater romantic competence. The Commitment subscale captures not only whether someone is involved in a lasting relationship but also whether they are doing so in a developmentally appropriate way. Individuals who score higher on the Commitment subscale show commitment that is motivated by promoting a balance between strengthening the relationship and facilitating individual growth. Therefore, these individuals demonstrate reasons for being committed to their relationship that are in line with the developmental challenges of emerging adulthood.

Concern.

The Concern subscale was used in place of maturity of social cognitive perception of romantic relationships. Shulman and colleagues propose that those with greater maturity of social cognitive perceptions show an understanding of the mutuality of intimacy within a relationship and are sensitive to their partner’s needs. Individuals who show greater levels of Concern also show an awareness of balancing their own needs with the needs of their partner and engage in intimacy in an effort to strengthen the relationship. Therefore, there is considerable overlap in this definition of Concern and Shulman and colleagues’ definition of maturity of social cognitive perception of romantic relationships.

Responding.

The Responding subscale was used in place of romantic agency. Romantic agency was used in the RCI to measure one’s ability to perceive romantic relationships in a realistic manner and their ability to address disagreements when they come up in a relationship. The Responding subscale measures the manner in which an individual handles conflicts when they arise. In this way, Responding and romantic agency both capture an individual’s capacity for dealing with disagreements. Additionally, those who score high on the Responding subscale handle disagreements in a manner that will strengthen the relationship and prevent future disagreements. This preventative focus may indicate that these individuals show an awareness of conflict as a realistic part of relationships and would therefore also score high on romantic agency.

Orientation.

Orientation was selected for inclusion in place of coherence. Coherence, which stems from attachment theory (Main & Goldwyn, 1998), was included in the RCI to capture an individual’s representation of their relationship through their ability to produce an integrated narrative of that relationship. Although the definition of Orientation stems from a more Eriksonian understanding of intimacy (White, et al., 1986), it also captures an individual’s representation of themselves in relation to their partner. High scorers on the Orientation subscale provide a description of their partner as a nuanced individual while also providing an integrated narrative of their relationship as one that promotes both individual and dyadic growth.

The coding team was comprised of four advanced graduate students and faculty. Transcripts were initially coded by two coders. Once the coders had demonstrated good reliability, they were allowed to code transcripts independently while achieving consensus with another coder on one out of every four transcripts. The intraclass correlation between raters across these four subscales ranged from .55 to .62 with an average of .59.

Adult Self-Report.

The Adult Self-Report (ASR; Achenbach & Rescolra, 2003) is a self-report measure of both adaptive functioning and behavioral problems. For the purposes of this study, we focused on the Internalizing, Externalizing, and Mean Adaptive Behavior scales. Each of these scales is a composite scale of either syndrome or adaptive functioning scales. The Internalizing scale is comprised of the anxious/depressed, withdrawn, and somatic complaints scales. The Externalizing scale is comprised of the aggressive behavior, rule breaking, and intrusiveness scales. The Mean Adaptive scale is comprised of scales assessing competences in the areas of friendship, spouse/partner, family, job, and education. Raw scores on each of the ASR scales were used. Higher scores on the Externalizing and Internalizing behavior scales indicate greater problem behaviors while higher scores on the Mean Adaptive scale indicate greater adaptive behavior. In this sample, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) were as follows: .71 for the Mean Adaptive scale, .92 for the Internalizing scale, and .92 for the Externalizing scale.

Data Analysis

To address the first study aim and test for the goodness of fit of the proposed model, a confirmatory factor analysis was run using LISREL 8.8 in which all four subscales of relational competence loaded on to a single latent factor. Multiple imputation using PRELIS was used to address missingness in some of the relational competence indicators (1% of values across indicators). Model comparisons were then conducted to test for configural, metric, and residual invariance of relational competence between those in romantic and nonromantic and between men and women. Then, relational competence scores were calculated by averaging across the four indicators. Independent sample t-tests were used to test for group differences in scores by relationship type and gender in SPSS 21.0. Finally, hierarchical multiple regressions were used to test associations between relational competence and the Internalizing, Externalizing, and Mean Adaptive scales of the ASR. Nine participants did not have ASR data and were dropped from the regression analyses.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of All Variables

n M SD Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Orientation 162 5.278 1.521 -
2 Concern 161 5.463 1.406 .706* -
3 Commitment 159 5.043 1.442 .584* .554* -
4 Responding 159 5.191 1.782 .647* .607* .521* -
5 Relational Competence 162 5.247 1.293 .880* .842* .799* .842* -
6 Mean Adaptive 153 50.3333 8.89 .296* .296* .195* .227* .300* -
7 Internalizing 153 9.95 9.855 −.230* −.203* −.120 −.213* −.229* −.537* -
8 Externalizing 153 9.55 8.887 −.209* −.221* −.202* −.214* −.252* −.432* .623* -
Open in a new tab

Note: Listwise deletion used for correlations, n = 146,

*

p<.05

Relational Competence Factor Structure

To test for the goodness of fit of the proposed model, a confirmatory factor analysis was run using LISREL 8.8 in which all four subscales of relational competence loaded on to a single latent factor. Multiple imputation using PRELIS was used to address missingness in some of the relational competence indicators. A path diagram with standardized estimates of Model 1 is shown in Figure 1. Overall, Model 1 showed a good fit to the data (χ2(2) = 0.138, p = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.0, 90% CI [0.0, 0.0434]; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.004).

Measurement Invariance

Romantic and nonromantic.

To test for measurement invariance, or whether the proposed model holds across those who reported on a romantic relationship and those who reported on a nonromantic relationship, a series of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were used. To test for configural invariance, Model 2A held the structure of the model (i.e., all four indicators loaded on to a single latent factor) constant between those who reported on a romantic relationship and those who reported on a nonromantic relationship. In other words, Model 2A estimated the same model structure as in Model 1 for both groups but allowed the factor loadings and error variances of relational competence indicators to vary between groups. Model 2A showed a good fit to the data (χ2(5) = 5.451, p = 0.363, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.066). To test for metric invariance (i.e., invariance of factor loadings), Model 2B built upon Model 2A by constraining factor loadings of all indicators to be equal between the two groups. To test for residual invariance (i.e., invariance of indicator error variance), Model 2C added an additional constraint to Model 2B by constraining error variances of all indicators to be equal between the two groups. Delta chi-square tests were used to test for whether imposing these constraints resulted in changes of goodness of fit. If adding constraints resulted in a worse fitting model, this would suggest that the parameters constrained differed between the two groups since forcing them to be equal reduced the goodness of fit. If, however, imposing additional constraints did not result in a change in goodness of fit, this was taken to mean that the parameters being constrained were effectively the same in both groups.

As seen in Table 3, neither Model 2B nor Model 2C resulted in a significant change in fit to the data. Because models in which the factor loadings (Model 2B) and error variances (Model 2C) of the indicators were held constant across groups were not a worse fit to the data than a model in which these parameters were allowed to vary between groups (Model 2A), it follows that the factor loadings and error variances of all indicators are similar across groups. These findings provide support for measurement invariance across relationship type.

Table 3.

Model Comparison Table

Model Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI p value Δχ2 Δdf p value
Relationship Type
    Configural Invariance (2A) 5.451 5 0.02 0.99 0.363 __ __ __
    Metric Invariance (2B) 8.219 8 0.0 0.99 0.412 2.768 3 0.429
    Residual Invariance (2C) 10.185 12 0.0 1.00 0.600 4.734 4 0.316
Gender
    Configural Invariance (3A) 4.902 5 0.0 1.00 0.428 __ __ __
    Metric Invariance (3B) 6.041 8 0.0 1.00 0.643 1.139 3 0.768
    Residual Invariance (3C) 6.498 12 0.0 1.00 0.889 0.457 4 0.978
Open in a new tab

Women and men.

As with relationship type, a series of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses was used to test for configural (Model 3A), metric (Model 3B), and residual (Model 3C) measurement invariance between men and women. Model 3A showed a good fit to the data (χ2(5) = 4.902, p = .428, RMSEA = 0.0, 90% CI [0.0, 0.15], CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.103). Neither Model 3B nor Model 3C resulted in a significant change in fit to the data (see Table 3). This suggests that factor loadings for all four indicators and their error variances are equivalent across groups and therefore provides support for measurement invariance across gender.

Group Differences in Relational Competence

Relational competence scores were created by averaging scores on all relational competence indicators. Means and standard deviations of relational competence by group are presented in Table 4. There was no significant difference in relational competence between those who reported on a romantic relationship and those who reported on a nonromantic relationship (t(160) = .444 p = .657. Similarly, there was no significant difference in relational competence scores between men and women (t(160) = −.596, p = .552). Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between relationship type and gender [F(3,158) = .021, p = .886].

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations of Relational Competence by Relationship Type and Gender

Women Men Overall
Romantic 5.279 (1.18) 5.111 (1.40) 5.207 (1.28)
Nonromantic 5.363 (1.39) 5.256 (1.28) 5.298 (1.32)
Overall 5.207 (1.28) 5.187 (1.34) 5.247 (1.29)
Open in a new tab

Relational Competence and Mental Health/Well-being

To assess the associations between relational competence and Internalizing, Externalizing, and Mean Adaptive scores on the ASR, a series of multiple regressions was used (see Table 5). In each regression, age and gender were entered as control variables. Furthermore, we tested for any potential interactions between relational competence and relationship type to determine whether the strength of the association between relational competence and the outcome of interest varied depending on the type of relationship being reported on. Listwise deletion was used to address missingness in the ASR scales.

Table 5.

Results of Regression Analyses

Mean Adaptive Internalizing Externalizing
B SE ß p B SE ß p B SE ß p
Gender −.534 .84 −.051 .526 2.669 1.56 .136 .089 −2.133 1.38 −.120 .125
Age .032 .22 .011 .885 .009 .41 .002 .982 −.078 .37 −.016 .833
Relationship Type 1.217 3.51 .114 .729 −5.977 6.51 −.302 .360 −13.377 5.77 −.749 .022
Relational Competence 1.387 .48 .339 .004 −2.097 .89 −.276 .019 −2.766 .79 −.404 .001
Relationship Type X Competence −.204 .65 −.106 .753 .406 1.20 .114 .735 1.941 1.06 .604 .069
R2 .099 .103 .132
Open in a new tab

Relational competence was positively associated with mean adaptive scores (β = .339, p = .004) and negatively associated with internalizing (β = −.276, p = .019) and externalizing behavior (β = −.404, p = .001). The interaction between relational competence and relationship type was not significant in any of the regressions (all p’s > .069). However, relationship type was associated with externalizing behavior with those reporting on a romantic relationship showing less externalizing problems (β = −.749, p = .022).

Discussion

The present study sought to provide empirical support for the usefulness of relational competence as a means of evaluating the positive adjustment of emerging adults who had been adopted domestically as infants. The proposed model of relational competence appeared to be a good fit to the data and was consistent across relationship type and gender. Our finding of no group differences between those who reported on a romantic and those who reported on a nonromantic relationship in relational competence scores or between men and women can also be taken as evidence of the usefulness of the construct across a variety of contexts. Finally, the results of the study show that relational competence is associated in predictable ways with other markers of adjustment such as mental health and well-being.

Factor Structure and Measurement Invariance

Overall, the proposed model of relational competence was a good fit to the data. Additionally, the structure of the model, relationship of the selected relational competence indicators, and the error variance of those indicators did not differ between those who reported on a nonromantic relationship and those who reported on a romantic relationship. This finding supports the idea that there is an underlying set of skills and qualities that are evident in close relationships of all types during emerging adulthood and that this set is captured by our measure of relational competence.

Group Differences

There were no differences in relational competence scores between those who reported on romantic relationships and those who reported on nonromantic relationships. It was initially hypothesized that those whose closest relationship was a romantic relationship would show greater relational competence given both the developmental emphasis on romantic relationships (Erikson, 1974; McCormick, Kuo & Masten, 2011) and previous findings of better mental and physical health outcomes for those in a romantic relationship as compared to single emerging adults (Barr, Culatta, & Simons, 2013; Fleming, White, & Catalono, 2010). However, our finding of no differences by relationship type lends support to the idea that focusing primarily on romantic relationships may not provide a complete picture of emerging adults’ close relationships. If emerging adults show a similar level of skills and qualities in their nonromantic closest relationships as in romantic relationships, then the quality of one’s closest relationship may be more informative than the relationship type. Our findings that there were no differences in relational competence between men and women and that there was no interaction between gender and relationship type suggests that relational competence may be as useful an indicator of overall competency in close relationships for men as it is for women.

Relational Competence and Mental Health and Well-being

Our results showed that greater relational competence was associated with decreased internalizing and externalizing behaviors as well as increased adaptive functioning in a variety of domains. This finding is in line with previous research on close relationships (e.g, Barr, Cullata, & Simons, 2013; Birditt & Anotucci, 2007). However, our finding that there was no interaction between relationship type and relational competence suggests that the type of the relationship may matter less than the quality of the relationship. Our current findings suggest that examining only romantic relationships may not provide a full picture for all emerging adults. Furthermore, relationship type was not predictive of either internalizing or adaptive behaviors. Our finding that those who reported on a romantic relationship showed less externalizing behavior is consistent with other work comparing those in a romantic relationship to those who are not (e.g., Fleming, White & Catalano, 2010). It is noteworthy, though, that the strength of the association between relational competence did not vary by relationship type in predicting externalizing behavior. In other words, even though individuals reporting on romantic relationships had less externalizing problems on average, relational competence was as predictive of externalizing behavior for those reporting on a romantic relationship and those reporting on a nonromantic relationship, Taken together, these results suggest that asking about an emerging adult’s closest relationship may provide greater insight in to their overall functioning than by asking about a specific relationship type.

Implications

The results of the present study hold important implications for the way we conceptualize competency in close relationships for emerging adults. These findings suggest that there is an overlap in the skills and qualities that emerging adult adoptees demonstrate in their self-identified closest relationships. This relational competence may provide a broader insight in to the adjustment of emerging adults than romantic relationships alone. For example, individuals who demonstrated high relational competence in a nonromantic relationship may be overlooked in studies that compare those in relationships to those who are not or may be left out entirely in studies that focus only on emerging adults in committed romantic relationships. Understanding relational competence will allow us to understand the ways in which emerging adults develop the skills necessary to form committed romantic relationships as they navigate the transition to adulthood within a unique and changing social context (Arnett, 2015).

Additionally, the results of the present study address a gap in the current literature by examining the close relationships of emerging adult adoptees. On average, participants’ scores on all indicators of relational competence fell in to a role-focused classification of intimacy maturity (White, et al., 1984). In White and colleagues’ (1984) original study on intimacy maturity, emerging adults average scores also fell in to the role-focused range. Although the measures used in our study and in White and colleagues’ study are not exactly the same and we therefore cannot empirically say whether the scores of our sample statistically differ from those in other studies, the fact that these scores fall in a similar intimacy maturity range provides evidence against the idea that adoptees necessarily face relationship difficulties. However, our sample contains only adoptees who were adopted as infants through private domestic adoption in to same-race families and who therefore may be at less risk for relationship difficulties than those adopted through other means (van den Dries, et al., 2009) and may more closely resemble a nonadopted sample. Further research on how experiences associated with other types of adoption (e.g., early trauma experience, transracial upbringing) may influence the development of relational competence is necessary to identify how experiences related to adoption rather than one’s status as an adoptee may contribute to relationship difficulties.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

There are several strengths of the present study that are worth noting. For one, the present study is among the first to examine the qualities of emerging adult’s self-reported closest relationship regardless of relationship type. Participants were given minimal limitations on who they chose to ensure that the relationship was a peer relationship. Allowing participants to self-identify their closest relationship allows participants to more accurately reflect their relationship experiences than if they were limited to a specific relationship type. Furthermore, the indicators of relational competence were coded using in-depth interviews. Using these interviews provides a potentially more nuanced measurement of relational competence than if participants had been asked to evaluate these measurements themselves on questionnaires, for example.

Although asking participants to report on one specific relationship allows for a more detailed and nuanced examination of the competencies demonstrated in that relationship, it also presents some limitations. As is the nature of dyadic relationships (Kelley, et al., 1983), the target adoptee’s behavior in the relationship they reported on is undoubtedly influenced by the behavior and competencies of their relationship partner. Therefore, the relational competence demonstrated in the reported relationship may be relationship dependent to a certain extent. This limitation is mitigated, however, by the fact that participants were allowed to select their closest relationship. For most participants, their closest relationship would be the relationship that they view as most successful and therefore the relationship in which they demonstrate their competency to the fullest extent. Another limitation is exemplified by the relatively low interrater reliability for the coded indicators of relational competence. Although the interrater reliabilities in the present study are lower than may be ideal, they are similar to those that have been seen in previous studies. A potential explanation for this is the nature of the constructs being coded. Because the coders were asked to identify not only whether the quality or behavior was present in the relationship but also the motivations behind it (i.e. whether it was self-serving or in an effort to promote the growth of both individuals and the relationship), coding required a high degree of inference. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients are a measure of exact agreement (McGraw & Wong, 1996) which is a stringent criterion for a 9-point scale.

Further research is needed to understand the usefulness of relational competence as an indicator of positive adjustment for emerging adult adoptees and emerging adults in general. For one, the sample for the present study was comprised solely of adoptees who had been adopted through private domestic adoption as infants. The construct of relational competence should also be validated in a sample of nonadoptees as well as in adoptees from diverse backgrounds. Although there is no theoretical reason to believe that the structure of relational competence would differ between those were adopted and those who were not, this is still an empirical question. Future research should also examine how a broader range of adoptive experiences (e.g, experiencing abuse or neglect in adoption from the child welfare system or racial socialization in transracial adoption) may contribute to the development of relational competence.

Furthermore, since it is postulated that adoptees may experience challenges in close relationships because of the experience of loss of an attachment figure (i.e., birth family) (Jones, 1997), relational competence may also be a useful indicator of positive adjustment for other populations who have experienced such loss. This may include children who have experienced the death of a parent, children of divorce, children whose parents are deployed for military purposes, and children whose parents are incarcerated. Future research should also examine associations between relational competence and mental health and wellbeing in emerging adults from these populations.

For emerging adult adoptees in particular, future research should examine how factors related to one’s experiences and identity as an adoptee may influence the development of relational competence. For example, how might adoptees’ communication with their adoptive parents about their adoption contribute to their development of the relational skills necessary for relational competence? How might an adoptee’s experiences of and satisfaction with their contact with birthparents or their affect towards their adoption be associated with their relational competence?

In addition to examining predictors of relational competence, it will be important to understand how relational competence in emerging adulthood may be associated with close relationships throughout adulthood. It is theorized here that emerging adults are building skills across different types of relationships that they will be able to draw upon in committed romantic relationships. It is therefore important to test empirically whether relational competence in emerging adulthood is predictive of romantic competence later in adulthood and how the potential predictive power of relational competence compares to that of romantic competence in emerging adulthood.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the participants in this study and to Dr. David Scherer, Dr. Paula Pietromonaco, and the Rudd Adoption Research Lab for their consultation on this study. Funding for the Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project has come from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD-028296, R01-HD-049859), National Science Foundation (BCS-0443590), the William T. Grant Foundation (7146), and the Rudd Family Foundation Chair in Psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Krystal K. Cashen, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Harold D. Grotevant, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst

References

  1. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2003). Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: Unviersity of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atzil-Slonim D, Reshef M, Berman E, Peri T, & Shulman S (2016). Changes in romantic competence and career adaptability among emerging adults in psychotherapy. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 327–337. doi: 10.1177/2167696815620964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barr AB, Culatta E, & Simons RL (2013). Romantic relationships and health among African American young adults: linking patterns of relationship quality over time to changes in physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54, 369–85. doi: 10.1177/0022146513486652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birditt KS, & Antonucci TC (2007). Relationship quality profiles and well-being among married adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 595–604. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Borders LD, Penny JM, & Portnoy F (2000). Adult adoptees and their friends: Current functioning and psychosocial well-being. Family Relations, 49(4), 407–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00407.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowlby J (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. [Google Scholar]
  9. Buhrmester D (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101–1111. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.ep9102040966 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Claxton SE, & van Dulmen MHM (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 138–150. doi: 10.1177/2167696813487181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collibee C, & Furman W (2015). Quality counts: Developmental shifts in sssociations between romantic relationship qualities and psychosocial adjustment. Child Development, 86(5), 1639–1652. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins WA, Hennighausen KC, Schmit DT, & Sroufe LA (1997). Developmental precursors of romantic relationships: A longitudinal analysis. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1997(78), 69–84. doi: 10.1002/cd.23219977807 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Danziger S, & Ratner D (2010). Labor market outcomes and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 133–158. doi: 10.1353/foc.0.0041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis MH, & Oathout HA (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational Competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 397–410. 10.1037//0022-3514.53.2.397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Engels RCME, Finkenauer C, Meeus W, & Deković M (2001). Parental attachment and adolescents’ emotional adjustment: The associations with social skills and relational competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 428–439. 10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.428 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Erikson EH (1974). Dimensions of a new identity. New York: Norton. [Google Scholar]
  17. Feeney JA, Passmore NL, & Peterson CC (2007). Adoption, attachment, and relationship concerns: A study of adult adoptees. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 129–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00145.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Feiring C (1996). Concepts of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(2), 181–200. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fleming CB, White HR, & Catalano RF (2010). Romantic relationships and substance use in early adulthood: An examination of the influences of relationship type, partner substance use, and relationship quality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 153–167. doi: 10.1177/0022146510368930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fuhrman RW, Flannagan D, & Matamoros M (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Furman W (1999). Friends and lovers: The role of peer relationships in adolescent romantic relationships In Collins WA & Laursen B (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts. (pp. 133–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  22. Furman W, & Collibee C (2014). A matter of timing: Developmental theories of romantic involvement and psychosocial adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1–12. doi: 10.1017/S0954579414000182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Furman W, & Shomaker LB (2008). Patterns of interaction in adolescent romantic relationships: Distinct features and links to other close relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31(6), 771–788. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Furman W, Simon VA, Shaffer L, & Bouchey HA (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73(1), 241–55. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14717255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Furstenberg FF (2010). On a new schedule: Transitions to adulthood and family change. Future of Children, 20(1), 67–87. doi: 10.1353/foc.0.0038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gaia AC (2013). The role of gender stereotypes in the social acceptability of the expression of intimacy. The Social Science Journal, 50(4), 591–602. 10.1016/j.soscij.2013.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Green EGT (2006). Successful or friendly? Inferring achievement and relational competence from individualist and collectivist attitudes. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 25–36. 10.1024/1421-0185.65.1.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grotevant HD, & McRoy RG (1998) Openness in adoption: Exploring family connections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  29. Grotevant HD, McRoy RG, Wrobel GM, & Ayers-Lopez S (2013). Contact between adoptive and birth families: Perspectives from the Minnesota Texas Adoption Research Project. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 193–198. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson HD, Brady E, McNair R, Congdon D, Niznik J, & Anderson S (2007). Identity as a moderator of gender differences in the emotional closeness of emerging adults’ same- and cross-sex friendships. Adolescence, 42(165), 1–23. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jones A (1997). Issues relevant to therapy with adoptees. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34(1), 64–68. doi: 10.1037/h0087821 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, . . . Peterson DR (1983). Analyzing close relationships In Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, . . . Peterson DR (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 20–67). New York: W.H. Freeman And Company. [Google Scholar]
  33. L’Abate L (2012). A hierarchical framework for relational competence theory In Cusinato M & L’Abate L (Eds.), Advances in relational competence theory: With special attention to alexithymia (pp. 13–48). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  34. Main M & Goldwyn R (1998). Adult attachment scoring and classification system Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. [Google Scholar]
  35. McCormick CM, Kuo SI-C, & Masten AS (2011). Developmental tasks across the life span In Fingerman KL, Berg CA, Smith J, & Antonucci TC (Eds.), Handbook of Life-Span Development (pp. 117–139). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  36. McGraw KO, & Wong SP (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1(1), 30–46. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ngu L, & Florsheim P (2011). The development of relational competence among young high-risk fathers across the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 50(2), 184–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Oudekerk BA, Allen JP, Hessel ET, & Molloy LE (2015). The cascading development of autonomy and relatedness from adolescence to adulthood. Child Development, 86(2), 472–485. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Palacios J, & Brodzinsky D (2010). Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(3), 270–284. doi: 10.1177/0165025410362837 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Roisman GI, Masten AS, Coatsworth JD, & Tellegen A (2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75(1), 123–33. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15015679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shulman S, & Connolly J (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. doi: 10.1177/2167696812467330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Shulman S, Davila J, & Shachar-Shapira L (2011). Assessing romantic competence among older adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34(3), 397–406. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tieman W, van der Ende J, & Verhulst FC (2006). Social functioning of young adult intercountry adoptees compared to nonadoptees. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(1), 68–74. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0995-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. van den Dries L, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH, & Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ (2009). Fostering security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 410–421. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. White KM, Speisman JC, Jackson D, Bartis S, & Costos D (1986). Intimacy maturity and its correlates in young married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 152–62. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3701570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES