Friends or lovers? Person- and variable-oriented perspectives on dyadic similarity in adolescent romantic relationships

Abstract

Variable- and person-oriented approaches were used to examine the affiliative and romantic experiences of adolescents in heterosexual romantic relationships and its associations with relationship conflict and jealousy on a sample of 194 romantic partner dyads. Variable-oriented findings indicated that affiliative experiences were associated with fewer and more constructively resolved conflicts, whereas romantic experiences were associated with more jealousy. Person-oriented analyses identified six distinct types of romantic relationships: four characterized by congruent perceptions and two characterized by incongruent perceptions. Adolescents in the consummate group (both partners reporting high levels of affiliation and romance) had the fewest but most constructively resolved conflicts. The discussion focuses on the developmental significance of dyadic similarity and the early developmental roots of diversity in romantic relationships.

Keywords

Adolescence dyadic similarity person-oriented romantic relationships variable-oriented

Researchers investigating interpersonal relationships have long been interested in learning whether greater similarities between romantic partners are associated with better relationship quality and longer lasting relationships (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Once considered to be trivial and transitory, romantic encounters during adolescence have become increasingly regarded as potentially meaningful relationships that have an impact on subsequent romantic relationships in adulthood (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). The nature and quality of these early relationships provide opportunities for positive growth during the adolescent years, and they can serve as important preparation for the mature relationships of adulthood. A number of studies on married couples have documented that similarities between husbands’ and wives’ perceptions about their marriages, for example, with respect to satisfaction (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Mory, 2005), support provided (Verhofstadt, Buysse, Ickes, Davis, & Devoldre, 2008), and adaptive conflict resolution (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2007) promote relationship functioning and stability (Gaunt, 2006). However, whether or not the dyadic similarity in the formative years of couple development (e.g., during adolescence) has a similar beneficial effect remains unclear. This study investigates whether similarity between adolescent partners’ relationship experiences is linked to two aspects of relationship functioning: interpersonal conflict and jealousy.

Most research examining the role of similarity in romantic partners’ perceptions has used a variable-oriented approach, which focuses on associations between variables. For example, Gaunt (2006) investigated whether similarity on various attitudes, traits, and values predicted marital satisfaction of husbands and wives. By emphasizing associations between variables, these studies provide important information about the degree of similarity between the partners and the ability of similarity to predict (or to be predicted by) individual or dyadic constructs. This approach has provided useful information, but it is based on the idea that participants are sampled from a homogeneous population and that relationships among variables are similar for all the group members. To investigate whether associations among variables vary across individuals (or dyads), a person-oriented approach is required (Magnusson, 1998, 2003). This approach assumes that relationships among variables differ for subgroups of participants, and it emphasizes how individuals (or dyads) are related to one another. The most well-known theory of adult romantic relationships, Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love, distinguishes three components of love (intimacy, commitment, and passion) and posits that these components interact within individuals to form eight types of love (e.g., consummate love describes high levels of all three components). According to the theory, adult romantic partners may have similar or dissimilar types of love, which is referred to as the degree of overlap between self and other triangles. These types of love and similarity between partners’ perceptions have not been examined in adolescent couples. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to expect that distinct subgroups of adolescent romantic relationships may also exist. The present study uses variable- and person-oriented approaches in a complementary manner to examine the similarity between adolescent partners’ perceptions of their relationship and how this similarity is linked to relationship functioning.

Romantic experiences and types of romantic relationships

Over the last decade, the importance of romantic relationships in adolescence has been increasingly recognized (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009), and research has identified distinctive features of such relationships (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006). Adolescent romantic activity is a normative and salient aspect of adolescence. By 16 years of age, approximately half of adolescents have been or are currently involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship with a peer (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). Theories of adolescent romantic relationship development (Brown, 1999; Furman & Wehner, 1997) suggest a developmental sequence, according to which romantic relationships emerge from interactions with peers and close friends and change in quality over time. During the adolescent years, the pattern of social interaction changes from the larger peer group to smaller circles of close friends and then finally to the establishment of a dyad (e.g., the adolescent couple), although breakups are frequent (Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, & Anbar, 2006). Gradually, with age, adolescents become involved in more stable relationships that begin to resemble those of adult partners.

Empirical studies on adolescents’ views of romance have highlighted different relational dimensions (Feiring, 1996; Shulman & Scharf, 2000). As romantic relationships develop in the context of peer relations, they encompass romantic and nonromantic features (Brown, 1999; Feiring, 1996). Similar to relationships with peers and friends, romantic partnerships provide a source of support, companionship, affiliation, and trust (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, 1999; Linden-Andersen, Markiewicz, & Doyle, 2009). Thus, the adolescent’s need for affiliation in romance is fulfilled through behaviors that support companionship, for example, spending time together and participating in shared activities. In addition, romantic relationships are marked by unique features that distinguish them from peer relationships, such as physical attraction, infatuation, and sexual preoccupation. Most teenagers report that romantic relationships are triggered by strong passionate desire and attraction (Connolly & McIsaac, 2008). Overall, affiliative behaviors seem to be more typical among romantic partners during the early stages of romance, reflecting the companionship quality of the interactions with members of the opposite sex (Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). In contrast, the quality of romance marked by a strong passionate desire and attraction is more typical for later stages of relationship development when the couple relationship has been established and become more enduring (Shulman & Scharf, 2000).

During the formative years of couple development, adolescents may be unsure about the more affiliative or more romantic qualities of the couple’s relationship. Some adolescents consider their romantic partners to be friends (i.e., their romantic relationship is based on high levels of affiliation and low levels of romance), whereas others view their partners purely in terms of sexual attraction and romance (e.g., as “hookups”; Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006). Studies examining the prevalence and patterns of adolescent relationship perceptions suggest that the boundaries between affiliative and romantic experiences are somewhat fluid, with affiliation-based relationships developing into passionate romances (Connolly & McIsaac, 2008), and romance-based relationships developing into affiliative, friendly relationships (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). These findings suggest that adolescent romantic relationships may be characterized by the perceptions of affiliation and romantic experiences, with great variation across individuals and time. This diversity partly results from the fact that romantic relationships evolve out of friendships and are initiated and sustained in the friendship network.

From a dyadic perspective, the assumption that most partners in an ongoing relationship share similar experiences of their relationships is reasonable. However, for some adolescent couples, partners are likely to have divergent or noncongruent perceptions of their relationship because of the developing nature of romance in the adolescent period. In this regard, it is not surprising that about 30% of all romantic relationships dissolve in midadolescence, often because of a partner’s perceptions of unreciprocated love (Connolly & McIsaac, 2006). Given the great variation in the perceptions of the respective affiliative or romantic qualities of adolescent relationships, it is important to study whether romantic partners have similar perceptions of their relationship with respect to the aspects of romance or affiliation and whether their perceptions are related to relationship functioning.

Dyadic similarity and links to relationship functioning

Why does an adolescent choose to form a romantic bond with a particular individual and not another? Are frequent romantic breakups developmentally significant because they open the opportunity to find a more suitable partner? For this study, we chose similarity in perceptions of relationship as an important variable in adolescent romantic dyads. As described earlier, the transition to romantic involvements and relationships is a new experience for adolescents. Through group facilitation, adolescents learn how to interact with potential partners, and the boundaries between intimate close friends and romantic partners are fluid. According to the theory of romantic development put forth by Brown (1999), in early stages of romantic development during early and midadolescence, the transient romantic encounters are functional for establishing autonomy from parents and gaining peer status, but the romantic partner as an individual does not come into focus until the later stages. In the early stage of romantic involvement, similarity between partners may be important for the sustainment and development of the relationship. In contrast, consolidated romantic relationships may allow a greater tolerance with respect to dissimilarity in perceptions, and they may bring challenges to adolescents on how to maintain a sufficient level of personal identity and independence from their romantic partner (Tuval-Mashiach & Shulman, 2006). Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to hypothesize that similarity in perceptions is likely to be particularly important for adolescent partners at an early stage of couple development.

Earlier research demonstrated that in adult couples, similarity in partners’ personalities promotes more fulfilling relationships (Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007), that such similarity leads to higher empathy and support provision (Verhofstadt, Buysse, Ickes, Davis, & Devoldre, 2008), and that spouses generally became more similar over time (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Further studies demonstrated that couples with more similarity show more positive and beneficial problem-solving behaviors than couples who are more dissimilar, which has been demonstrated in friends (Laursen et al., 2010; Linden-Andersen et al., 2009), mixed-sex dyads (van Straaten, Engles, Finkenauer, & Holland, 2009), and adult couples (Gaunt, 2006). Expanding on these findings that similarity between partners leads to higher relationship satisfaction and fewer conflicts, we expect that similarity between adolescent partners’ perceptions should be beneficial for the developing relationship. Theories of homophily and similarity-based attraction also expound the benefits of similarity between partners (Byrne, 1971). Moreover, based on the social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibault, 1978), adolescents at these early stages of couple formation are expected to seek romantic partners that offer the most preferential outcomes (i.e., more rewards than costs; Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, 1999). Similarly, partners sharing similar perspectives of their relationship are suggested to offer more reciprocal support, to share similar goals, and thus contribute to a highly satisfying and less conflictual relationship. In contrast, partners who are complementary in their perceptions may perhaps be perceived as a threat to the already fragile relationship.

Similarities between partners’ perceptions may be associated with various aspects of relationship functioning, including interpersonal conflict and jealousy. In the framework of social exchange theory, the match between the partners’ perceptions of the relationship may have an impact on the frequency of conflicts and how they are resolved (McIsaac, Connolly, McKenney, Pepler, & Craig, 2008). Research on conflict resolution suggests that partners in adolescent couples who competently manage their disputes (e.g., by integrating divergent perspectives and compromising) stay together longer (Shulman et al., 2006) and report improved relationship qualities (e.g., greater intimacy; Collins et al., 2009; Seiffge-Krenke & Nieder, 2001) compared with couples with frequent and unsettled confrontational interactions. Thus, similarity in relationship perceptions may be related to the prevalence of conflicts and the competence with which they are resolved.

When partners view the romantic and affiliative aspects of their relationship differently, they may be concerned about the levels of closeness and intimacy shared with their partner and may also worry that their partners will reject or abandon them (Connolly & McIsaac, 2008). Thus, the extent to which relationship perceptions are not congruent (i.e., when partners have different perceptions of the affiliative or romantic quality of their relationship) can also have a bearing on the emergence of jealousy (Buunk, 1991). Jealousy – the feeling that a third party might threaten the couple’s bond – may occur because affiliative needs are increasingly fulfilled by the romantic partner instead of best friends (Brown, 1999; Collins & Laursen, 2004), or conversely, because affiliative needs, which are expected to be fulfilled in the romantic relationships, continue to be largely fulfilled in close friendships. Jealousy can also arise because one romantic partner’s investment in the relationship is greater than the other’s, as seen when one partner is much more romantically involved and preoccupied with the relationship. Accordingly, dissimilar relationship experiences may threaten the stability of an already fragile relationship and promote the feelings of jealousy (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001). Thus, in a framework of social exchange theory, similarity in perceptions may result in a rewarding relationship, whereas incongruent perspectives and the presence of attractive alternatives may result in jealousy.

Aims of the study

The first aim of this study was to examine concurrent associations between romantic partners’ affiliative and romantic relationship perceptions and partners’ views of interpersonal conflict and jealousy based on a variable-oriented approach. Accordingly, we posed three research questions. Our first question was: Do adolescent romantic partners report similar levels of relationship perceptions, interpersonal conflict, and jealousy? We expected partners’ views of the relationship and relationship functioning to exhibit moderate degrees of similarity (Furman & Simon, 2006; McIsaac et al., 2008). We account for this dyadic similarity by applying regression-based techniques specifically designed to account for nonindependence in dyadic data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Our second question was: Do relationship perceptions predict adolescents’ views of interpersonal conflict and jealousy and their partner’s views of conflict and jealousy? We expected relationship experiences to be more predictive of self-perceptions of relationship functioning (actor effects) than partner-perceptions (partner effects). In addition, based on earlier findings (Creasey, Kershaw, & Boston, 1999), we expected affiliative experiences to be linked to fewer and more constructively resolved conflicts and less jealousy. In contrast, we expected romantic experiences to be associated only with more jealousy (Parker, Walker, Low, & Gamm, 2005). Our third question was: Does similarity between partners’ relationship perceptions predict fewer conflicts, more constructively resolved conflicts, and less jealousy? We tentatively anticipated that similarities in affiliation would predict fewer conflicts and more constructive conflict resolution, and similarity on romance would predict less jealousy.

The second aim of the study was to examine similarity between romantic partners’ relationship perceptions by using a person-oriented approach to identify constellations of romantic partner dyads with distinct patterns of romantic and affiliative experiences. Two research questions were posed. The first question was: Are there distinct types of adolescent romantic couples based on affiliation and romance? Based on existing typologies (Connolly & McIsaac, 2008; Sternberg, 1986), we expected to identify different groups, including dyads in which partners reported similar perceptions of affiliation and romance (e.g., both partners report high levels of affiliation and romance), dyads in which partners reported similar perceptions of affiliation or romance (e.g., both partners report high levels of romance and low or average levels of affiliation), and dyads in which partners reported dissimilar perceptions of affiliation or romance (e.g., female reports high levels of affiliation and male reports low levels). Our second question was: Do these groups differ with respect to partners’ perceptions of interpersonal conflict and jealousy? We intended to validate these groups by demonstrating that the relationship types differed as a function of the average age of the participants and dyadic reports of conflict behavior and jealousy. We anticipated that dyads characterized by partners having similar perceptions of the relationship would show more positive relationship functioning than would dyads characterized by dissimilar partner views (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Knobloch et al., 2001; Mory, 2005). Furthermore, we expected that dyads with both partners reporting high levels of affiliation and romance would demonstrate more adaptive outcomes than would dyads with both partners reporting low levels of affiliation or romance or dyads characterized by partners having incongruent perceptions.

Method

Participants and procedure

The sample consisted of 194 heterosexual romantic dyads consisting of adolescent females (M _age = 16.99 years, SD = 1.26) and males (M _age = 18.41 years, SD = 2.02). Most of the dyads were composed of two German participants (90%); the 27 non-German participants were from 13 different countries. Among them, 73% females and 67% males had been raised in two-parent families. The duration of the romantic relationships ranged from less than one month to more than 1 year, with 27.8% of relationships lasting three months or less, 32.3% between three and 12 months, and 39.9% of relationships lasting more than 1 year. Participants were recruited from 13 high schools in two different German cities, each with a population of about 150,000 inhabitants. We first contacted all pupils in grades 9–12 attending these schools. From the 2,460 adolescents (96%) who agreed to participate and provided signed parental consent forms, we selected the 760 adolescents who reported being currently involved in a romantic relationship (mostly with someone attending another school). In the school setting, we gave each participant an envelope with the questionnaires to be completed and another envelope with the research instrument to be completed by the partner. The envelopes were coded to assure anonymity when the partners were later matched for analysis. After the participants completed their questionnaires independently in their respective homes, they mailed them to us. We received questionnaires from both the partners belonging to 219 dyads (29% of total initial sample). We excluded 25 dyads because of incomplete information or because the romantic relationship involved two members of the same sex, totaling 194 heterosexual dyads.

Instruments

Romantic relationship perceptions

The quality of romantic relationships was assessed using the Love Experience Questionnaire designed by Hazan and Shaver (1987). Participants reported their level of agreement with 48 statements about their romantic relationship according to a four-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). These statements constitute 12 subscales (happiness, friendship, trust, fear of closeness, acceptance, emotional extremes, jealousy, obsessive preoccupation, sexual attraction, desire for union, desire for reciprocation, and love at first sight). In this study, we excluded items describing happiness, jealousy, and emotional extremes in order to separate experiences of the relationship from affectively laden constructs of satisfaction and jealousy in the relationship. Exploratory factor analyses (varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization) of the nine remaining subscales indicated two factors that explained 61% of the variance in females’ reports and 62% of variance in males’ reports. In both the analyses, the factor structure demonstrated high factor loadings and low cross-loading between factors (lowest factor loading = .69, all cross-loadings <.30). Affiliative experiences included 16 items describing acceptance, friendship, trust, and fear of closeness (reversed). Romantic experiences included 20 items describing obsessive preoccupation, sexual attraction, love at first sight, desire for union, and desire for reciprocation. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alphas) for affiliative experiences were .76 for females and .75 for males; internal consistencies for romantic experiences were .88 for females and .89 for males.

Conflict behavior

In this study, the conflict prevalence measure described the total number of conflicts identified by each participant from a list of nine conflict topics. Participants also completed the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Questionnaire (Wolfe et al., 2001), which assesses the extent to which individuals implement constructive conflict resolution strategies (negotiation and compromise) or nonconstructive strategies (coercion, physical, and relational aggression). For each of the 18 items, responses ranged from 1 (definitely would) to 5 (definitely would not). In this study, the conflict resolution measure was derived from the average score of all items, with higher scores indicating more frequent use of compliance and negotiation and less frequent endorsement of coercion and aggressive behaviors. Internal consistencies for this scale were .74 for males and .80 for females.

Jealousy

Jealousy with the best friend and with the romantic partner was assessed by the Friendship Jealousy Questionnaire (FJQ; Parker et al., 2005). The FJQ consists of 30 hypothetical situations, 15 of which involve a best friend and a potential interloper who may interfere with the friendship and 15 of which involve a potential romantic rival who may interfere in their romantic partnership. Adolescents and their romantic partners were asked to indicate the level of jealousy they would feel in response to each scenario according to a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (really true for me). Internal consistencies for jealousy with best friends were .81 for females and .79 for males; internal consistencies for jealousy with romantic partners were .81 for females and .83 for males.

Plan of analysis

We initially examined similarities and differences between female and male partners’ reports of their relationship perceptions (affiliation and romance) and relationship functioning (conflict and jealousy). Paired t tests were used to determine mean-level differences between male and female reports, and interclass correlations assessed bivariate associations between the measures of relationship perceptions and relationship functioning.

Unique and shared contributions of affiliative and romantic perceptions on relationship functioning were estimated with a series of Actor–Partner Interdependence Models (APIMs; Kenny et al., 2006) within a structural equation modeling framework (Mplus version 6; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010). Figure 1 presents a conceptual APIM, which includes four types of effects: between-dyad effects, actor effects, partner effects, and actor–partner interactions. Between-dyad effects describe differences involving the average age of romantic partners, the age difference between partners, and the duration of the relationship. Actor effects describe links between male and female reports of relationship perceptions and their own views of relationship functioning. Partner effects describe links between male and female reports of relationship perceptions and their partner’s views of relationship functioning. Actor–partner interaction effects describe links between similarity in dyadic reports of relationship perceptions and partners’ perceptions of relationship functioning. These interactions were defined as the absolute difference between partners’ reports of relationship perceptions. Affiliative and romantic perception scores were centered using the aggregated mean of male and female reports, and the interaction terms were computed from these dyadic centered scores. Thus, these variable-oriented analyses examined whether affiliative and romantic relationship perceptions were linked to self and partner perceptions of conflict and jealousy, and whether similarity between partners’ relationship perceptions was linked to conflict and jealousy reported by both the partners.

Figure 1.

Actor–partner interdependence model of romantic partners’ affiliative and romantic perceptions on males’ and females’ reports of relationship functioning

Types of romantic relationships were identified using an exploratory cluster analysis on males’ and females’ reports of affiliative and romantic perceptions. The analysis was performed with the Cluster module of the Sleipner program (version 2.1, Bergman & El-Khouri, 2002), using an agglomerative clustering algorithm (Ward’s method) that differentiates clusters by attempting to minimize within-cluster variance and maximize between-cluster variance. The most appropriate number of clusters is determined based on the size and distinctiveness of each cluster and according to statistical recommendations advanced by Bergman, Magnusson, and El-Khouri (2003). The latter includes cluster solutions explaining approximately two-thirds of the total error sum of squares (indicating that the cluster solution adequately explains the observed data) and within-group homogeneity coefficients of less than one (estimated as the average within-cluster Euclidean distances). Finally, five repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) examined cluster group differences on partners’ ages, males’ and females’ reports of conflict prevalence, and resolution and jealousy with best friends and romantic partners. In each analysis, cluster membership was included as the between-subjects factor, and males’ and females’ scores were included as the repeated measure. Thus, person-oriented analyses were used to identify homogeneous subgroups based on both partners’ perceptions of affiliation and romance and to validate these groups by demonstrating how they differed as a function of participant age and relationship functioning.

Results

Dyadic associations between affiliative and romantic perceptions and relationship functioning: Variable-oriented approach

The means and standard deviations for females’ and males’ reports of affiliation and romance as well as the measures of interpersonal conflict and jealousy are presented in Table 1. Paired t tests revealed that males reported more constructively resolved conflicts than females, and females reported more jealousy with friends and romantic partners than males. Partners did not differ with respect to other measures.

Table 1.

Mean-level differences between females’ and males’ reports of affiliation, romance, interpersonal conflict, and jealousy.

Measure	Female		Male		t
Measure	M	SD	M	SD
Relationship perceptions
Affiliation	3.44	.37	3.38	.41	1.56
Romance	3.19	.44	3.19	.45	.07
Relationship functioning
Conflict prevalence	3.67	2.00	3.62	.24	.32
Conflict resolution	3.86	.50	4.31	.42	−6.31*
Jealousy with best friend	2.64	.79	2.36	.86	4.00*
Jealousy with romantic partner	3.88	.90	3.56	1.04	4.00*

Note. N = 194 dyads.

*p < .01.

Table 2 presents the Pearson’s correlations between females’ and males’ ages, affiliative and romantic perceptions, interpersonal conflict, and jealousy. These bivariate associations indicate that partners reported similar affiliative and romantic relationship perceptions (r = .44 and .32), conflict prevalence and resolution (r = .56 and .26), and jealousy associated with best friends and romantic partners (r = .32 and .34). Correlations within reporters (i.e., links between relationship perceptions and self-reports of relationship functioning) indicated an identical pattern of moderate associations for females and males, with affiliative perceptions associated with fewer conflicts and more constructively resolved conflicts, and romantic perceptions associated with more jealousy with best friends and romantic partners. Correlations between reporters (e.g., links between relationship perceptions and partner reports of relationship functioning) revealed that females’ relationship perceptions were more robustly linked to males’ reports of relationship functioning than vice versa. Females’ perceptions of affiliation were associated with fewer conflicts and more constructively resolved conflicts reported by their male partners, and females’ perceptions of romance were associated with more male-reported jealousy. Males’ perceptions of affiliation were only associated with fewer conflicts reported by their partners.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations between females’ and males’ reports of affiliation, romance, interpersonal conflict, and jealousy.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Age (F)
2. Affiliation (F)	.03
3. Romance (F)	−.12	.49**
4. Conflict prevalence (F)	.16*	−.31*	−.04
5. Conflict resolution (F)	.01	.23**	.14	−.30*
6. Jealousy BF (F)	−.14*	.08	.27	.25**	−.08
7. Jealousy RP (F)	−.01	.08	.28**	.29**	−.11	.70**
8. Age (M)	.45**	.16*	−.03	.04	.10	−.07	.01
9. Affiliation (M)	.04	.44**	.16*	−.34*	.06	.03	−.02	.13
10. Romance (M)	−.10	.32**	.32**	−.10	.02	.12	.13	−.02	.50**
11. Conflict prevalence (M)	.07	−.28*	−.11	.56**	−.18*	.16*	.20**	−.07	−.45*	−.12
12. Conflict resolution (M)	.04	.29**	−.06	−.36*	.26**	−.06	−.04	.10	.47**	.11	−.45*
13. Jealousy BF (M)	−.03	.07	.27**	.25**	−.10	.32**	.29**	−.06	.08	.36**	.27**	−.25*
14. Jealousy RP (M)	−.06	.02	.21**	.31**	−.21*	.30**	.34**	−.06	.08	.40**	.26**	−.11	.71**

F: female; M: male; BF: best friend; RP: romantic partner.

Note. N = 194 dyads.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

A series of APIMs examined whether affiliative and romantic perceptions predicted self and partner’s reports on relationship functioning (controlling for differences in participant age and relationship duration). Table 3 presents the standardized estimates of the four APIMs that were conducted separately for each of the relationship functioning measures.

Table 3.

Standardized estimates of actor–partner interdependence models examining females’ and males’ affiliative and romantic perceptions as predictors of interpersonal conflict and jealousy.

	Between-dyad			Actor		Partner		Actor × partner
	Age mean	Age difference	Duration	Affiliation	Romance	Affiliation	Romance	Affiliation	Romance
Conflict
Prevalence (F)	.142*	.096	.377***	−.301***	.135*	−.272**	.123	.044	−.007
Prevalence (M)	.019	.099	.361***	−.491***	.183*	−.117	−.011	−.032	.042
Resolution (F)	.016	−.095	−.087	.244**	.077	−.063	−.065	−.132*	.153**
Resolution (M)	−.011	−.043	−.118*	.429***	−.108	.215**	−.198**	−.124	−.040
Jealousy
w/best friend (F)	−.173*	−.077	.225**	−.069	.288***	−.026	.055	−.071	.113
w/best friend (M)	.006	.053	.142*	−.071	.393***	−.074	.200*	.104	.119*
w/romantic partner (F)	.015	.016	.164*	−.080	.304***	−.110	.110	−.063	−.004
w/romantic partner (M)	−.051	.011	.205**	−.100	.447***	−.150	.154*	−.013	.130*

F: female; M: male.

Note. N = 194 dyads. Actor effects describe links between self-perceptions (M → M and F → F). Partner effects describe links between partner perceptions (M → F and F → M). Actor–partner interactions describe the absolute difference between partner reports of relationship perceptions.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Interpersonal conflict

Two analyses included affiliative and romantic perceptions as predictors of female and male conflict behaviors. The analysis with conflict prevalence as the outcome revealed that the average age of partners predicted a higher prevalence of conflicts reported by females. Relationship duration predicted a higher prevalence of conflicts for both females and males. All four actor effects of affiliative and romantic perceptions were statistically significant. For both males and females, affiliation predicted fewer self-reported conflicts and romance predicted more self-reported conflicts. The only partner effect to emerge as a significant predictor was between male reports of affiliation and female reports of conflict, with male reports of affiliation predicting fewer conflicts reported by females.

From the analyses in which conflict resolution was the dependent measure, males reported less constructive conflict resolution in longer lasting relationships. Two of the four actor effects emerged as significant predictors. For both males and females, affiliation predicted more self-reported constructive conflict resolution. Two partner effects emerged as significant predictors. Female reports of affiliation predicted more constructive conflict resolution reported by males, and female reports of romance predicted less constructive conflict resolution reported by males. In addition, two actor–partner interactions were also found to be statistically significant. Similarity in affiliative perceptions predicted more constructive conflict resolution reported by females, and similarity in romantic perceptions predicted less constructive conflict resolution reported by females.

Jealousy

Two analyses described jealousy with best friends and romantic partners. Relationship duration predicted jealousy with friends and partners for both females and males. The age of the partner predicted less jealousy related to friends as reported by females. An identical pattern of statistically significant actor effects, partner effects, and actor–partner interactions emerged for jealousy with friends and jealousy with partners. For females and males, romance predicted more self-reported jealousy. Female reports of romance also predicted more jealousy with friends and partners reported by males. The two actor–partner interactions that were statistically significant revealed that similarity in romantic perceptions predicted less jealousy with best friends and romantic partners in male reports.

Types of romantic relationships based on affiliative and romantic perceptions: person-oriented approach

The cluster analysis revealed that the six cluster solutions produced distinctive and homogeneous groupings that explained 62.8% of the error sum of squares. The seven-cluster solution included a cluster of less than 10 dyads; the five-cluster solution explained less than 50% of the error sum of squares. The standardized scores for these six clusters are presented in Figure 2. To interpret the clusters, we used ±.5SD as an indication of differences. The six romantic relationship clusters included four groups characterized by congruent patterns of scores reported by both the partners: (1) consummate relationships (n = 41), high levels of affiliation and high levels of romance; (2) affiliative relationships (n = 19), high levels of affiliation and low or average levels of romance; (3) romantic relationships (n = 35), high levels of romance and low or average levels of affiliation; and (4) nonlove relationships (n = 37), low levels of affiliation and romance. Two groups were characterized by incongruent patterns: (5) female-oriented relationships (n = 30), with females reporting average levels of affiliation and romance and males reporting low levels of affiliation and romance and (6) male-oriented relationships (n = 32), with males reporting average levels of affiliation and romance and females reporting low levels of affiliation and romance. Chi-square analyses failed to detect differences in cluster membership as a function of ethnicity (same or different), household structure, socioeconomic status (SES), and duration of relationship.

Figure 2.

Standardized scores of the six romantic partner groups based on females’ and males’ reports of affiliation and romance

Table 4.

Mean-level differences in females’ and males’ reports of interpersonal conflict and jealousy as a function of romantic partner groups.

	Romantic partner groups
	Consummate (n = 41)	Romantic (n = 35)	Affiliative (n = 19)	F-oriented (n = 30)	M-oriented (n = 32)	Nonlove (n = 37)	F (5, 188)
Age
Female	16.88	16.74	17.05	17.00	17.22	17.14	.65
Male	18.20	18.49	19.32	18.20	18.97	17.78	2.19
Conflict
Prevalence	3.32^b	5.44^ab	3.90^b	6.09^a	4.02^b	6.94^a	7.17**
Resolution	4.17^a	3.99^ab	4.13^ab	4.10^ab	4.10^ab	3.76^b	1.92*
Jealousy
w/best friend	2.68	2.77	2.34	2.38	2.36	2.35	3.00*
w/romantic partner	3.76^ab	4.13^a	3.61^ab	3.66^ab	3.52^b	3.56^b	2.79*

F: female; M: male.

Note. Conflict prevalence ranges from 0 to 9 topics; conflict resolution ranges from 1 (definitely would) to 5 (definitely would not). Jealousy measures range from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (really true for me). Across rows, means with different superscript letters significantly differ at *p < .05 in Bonferroni comparisons.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

Differences in conflict and jealousy as a function of relationship type

As shown in Table 4, in the repeated measures ANOVA examining age differences, the main effect for reporter, Wilk’s Lambda, F(1, 188) = 125.12, p < .001, was qualified by an interaction with cluster membership, Wilk’s Lambda, F(5, 188) = 2.76, p = .020. This indicates that the ages of males and females differed as a function of cluster membership. Follow-up ANOVAs conducted separately for male and female age revealed that the main effect of cluster membership was nonsignificant for females, F(5, 188) = .65, p = .662, and marginally significant for males, F(5, 188) = 2.19, p = .057.

Measures of conflict prevalence and constructive conflict resolution strategies produced a similar pattern of differences between clusters. For conflict prevalence, the main effects for reporter and the interaction between reporter and cluster membership were nonsignificant, Wilk’s Lambda, F(1, 188) = .32, p = .58 and F(5, 188) = 1.81, p = .11, respectively. The main effect for clusters was statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons indicated that males and females in the nonlove dyads had the highest values of conflict prevalence, and those in the consummate dyads had the lowest values. For conflict resolution, the main effects for reporter and the interaction between reporter and cluster membership were nonsignificant, Wilk’s Lambda, F(1, 188) = 2.16, p = .14 and F(5, 188) = .99, p = .43, respectively. The main effect for clusters was statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons indicated that males and females in the nonlove dyads reported the fewest constructively resolved conflicts, and members of the consummate dyads reported the most constructively resolved conflicts.

In the analysis examining cluster differences on jealousy with best friends, the main effect for reporter emerged as statistically significant, Wilk’s Lambda, F(1, 188) = 18.78, p < .001, but the interaction between reporter and cluster membership did not, F(1, 188) = 1.00, p = .42. Although the between-subjects effect for cluster membership was statistically significant, F(5, 188) = 3.00, p = .012, the pairwise comparisons failed to detect any differences between groups. Generally, females reported more jealousy with best friends, but the clusters did not differ with respect to males’ or females’ reports of jealousy in situations involving a best friend. In the analysis examining cluster differences with respect to jealousy with romantic partner, the main effect for reporter was statistically significant, Wilk’s Lambda, F(1, 188) = 17.47, p < .001, but the interaction between reporter and cluster membership was not, F(1, 188) = 1.33, p = .25. The between-subjects effect for cluster membership was also statistically significant, F(5, 188) = 2.79, p = .018. Pairwise comparisons indicated that partners in consummate relationships reported more jealousy with partners than those in the male-oriented and nonlove dyads.

Discussion

As outlined earlier, during the early stage of couple formation during adolescence, it is reasonable to suggest that similarity between partners is not only more rewarding, but also more necessary for the development of enduring partnerships than at later ages. Accordingly, this study explored the developmental significance of dyadic similarity and the early developmental roots of diversity in romantic relationships based on variable- and person-oriented perspectives. More specifically, we analyzed whether the degree of similarity between partners’ views of the relationship impacts the amount of jealousy experienced, as well as the frequency of conflicts and how they are managed. In addition, we identified types of romantic partner dyads with similar or dissimilar patterns of relationship experiences and their impact on interpersonal conflict and jealousy.

Characteristics of adolescent romantic relationships

We investigated romantically involved adolescent couples with mean ages of 16 years for females and 18 years for males. At these ages, romantic relationships undergo fundamental changes in quality (Collins et al., 2009). For example, couples go out together and the relationships become more enduring (Shulman et al., 2006). In accordance with other studies of similar age groups (Carver et al., 2003; McIsaac et al., 2008), only one third of the couples in our study reported that the relationship had existed for more than 12 months. This percentage reflects that although romantic relationships were becoming steadier at this age, only a small proportion of them had lasted more than one year. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses indicated that males and females distinguished the romantic qualities of their relationships (i.e., love at first sight, obsessive preoccupation, sexual attraction, desire for union, and desire for reciprocation) from affiliative ones (i.e., friendship, acceptance, trust, and closeness), which is consistent with other findings (Brown, 1999; Cavanagh, 2007; Connolly & Goldberg, 1999; Connolly et al., 2000). From a developmental perspective, these findings suggest that affiliation and romantic perceptions are distinct, albeit related qualities of romantic relationships in the early stages of couple formation in adolescence.

Romantic and affiliative experiences: variable-oriented links

Bivariate correlations revealed that male and female partners reported similar relationship perceptions (romantic and affiliative), conflict prevalence, conflict resolution strategies, and jealousy with same- and opposite-sex peers. Affiliative experiences were generally associated with fewer and more constructively resolved conflicts. In contrast, romantic experiences were associated with more jealousy with best friends and romantic partners. Regression-based techniques capable of disentangling self- and partner perceptions revealed an identical pattern of significant results within male and female reports (actor effects). Affiliative and romantic perceptions were linked to conflict prevalence, with affiliation predicting fewer conflicts and romance predicting more conflicts. Affiliative perceptions were linked to more constructive conflict resolution, and romantic perceptions were linked to more jealousy with best friends and romantic partners.

In our study, males and females involved in romantic relationships characterized by trust and affiliation worried less about being rejected or abandoned by their partners. In contrast, adolescents in relationships characterized by romantic attraction and preoccupation with the partner were more sensitive about how much attention their partners devoted to other relationships. For females and males in our study, more romantic experiences predicted more self-reported jealousy related to same- and opposite-sex peers. Thus, similar to the findings reported by Knobloch et al. (2001), the more romantically involved adolescents felt more threatened by a third party.

Conflict management is a particularly important barometer of relationship functioning. Similar to other studies that assessed individual (Creasey et al., 1999; Simon, Kobielski, & Martin, 2008) and dyadic differences (McIsaac et al., 2008), our adolescent couples did not report many conflict issues. Moreover, they reported using more constructive than destructive strategies to resolve conflicts. Thus, our findings do not indicate a high prevalence of aggressive, negative conflict resolution behavior as has been found in other studies on adolescent couples (Herrera, Wiersma, & Cleveland, 2008). In our study, relationship experiences shared by males and females in the dyads were meaningfully related to conflict behavior.

Recent investigations on the interdependent links between the romantic views of adolescents and the quality of dating relationships have found only a limited number of partner effects (Furman & Simon, 2006; McIsaac et al., 2008). Although we also found actor effects to be more robust predictors than partner effects, we detected several partner effects worth noting. For example, females reported fewer conflicts when their male partners reported more affiliation. In addition, female reports of affiliation predicted more constructive conflict resolution strategies in male reports, and female reports of romance predicted fewer constructive conflict resolutions in male reports. Regarding jealousy, we found that females’ romantic experiences predicted more same-sex and opposite-sex jealousy reported by their male partners. In sum, our study shows how similarity predicts relationship functioning from a variable-oriented perspective. We found that partner effects exhibited the same pattern as actor effects: affiliative relationship qualities were linked with better relationship functioning, whereas a romantic preoccupation was less beneficial for relationship functioning.

Types of romantic relationships: Person-oriented approach

As expected, cluster analyses of the data obtained from the romantic partners’ reports revealed congruent and incongruent patterns of affiliation and romance, with a higher proportion of couples showing congruent patterns. Thus, on the whole, adolescent romantic couples show more similarity than dissimilarity. This result converges with findings obtained on adult couples (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Mory, 2005). Of note, six different types of relationships emerged with the consummate group (i.e., both partners reporting high levels of affiliation and romance) being the most frequently occurring type. Dyads with both partners perceiving their relationship to be strongly characterized by romance were also quite frequent, whereas dyads with partners reporting similarly high levels of affiliation were the least frequent.

Overall, the person-oriented analyses resulted in additional insights about adolescent couple relationships. First, correlations indicated a moderate degree of similarity between romantic partners’ reports of relationship perceptions and functioning. However, the subgroups identified in the cluster analysis suggested that the moderate level of similarity found across all romantic couples might be better explained by a majority of couples reporting high levels of similarity and a minority reporting very dissimilar perceptions of the relationship. This is in accordance with our claim that at an early stage of couple development, similarity may serve as a means of partner selection. Although social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibault, 1978) basically proposes both similar and complementary choices, we expected a higher frequency of couples sharing similar relationship experiences, which are suggested to be emotionally supportive and less conflictual for both partners (Shulman & Scharf, 2000). Thus, they should provide optimal rewards, which may be more functional to stabilize these early couple relationships compared with dissimilar perceptions. Furthermore, although the APIMs revealed several significant actor–partner interactions, which indicated that similarity of affiliative perceptions was a better predictor of relationship functioning than similarity of romantic perceptions, the cross-validation of the romantic partner subgroups clearly indicated that similarity with respect to affiliation and romance was linked to fewer and more constructively resolved conflicts (i.e., couples in the consummate group reported the fewest conflicts and the most constructively resolved conflicts). In a similar vein, partners who were more friends than lovers experienced fewer conflicts and were more constructive in resolving them, thus expanding upon the findings reported by Chen et al. (2006), Flam Kutler and La Greca, (2004), and McIsaac et al. (2008).

When both partners in an adolescent couple share a highly romantic view of their relationship, they tend to experience high levels of jealousy and conflict (Shulman et al., 2006). The high expectations of reciprocated love and fear of infidelity may challenge the relationship’s functioning, and it is reasonable to conjecture that in the long run they may lead to breakups. Such a preoccupied style of relating may also set the stage for a risk of depressive symptoms (Joyner & Udry, 2000). Moreover, in research on adult couples, dysfunctional conflict resolution styles are frequently linked with depression (Du Rocher Schudlich, Cummins, & Papp, 2011). Taken together, these findings seem to suggest that similarity alone does not assure better outcomes (Gaunt, 2006). Instead, for adolescent couples, a balance between affiliative and romantic experiences seems to promote the most adaptive relationship functioning.

In our study, we found two clusters with incongruent patterns of relationship perceptions. In the male-oriented couples, males reported average levels of affiliation and romance and had partners with low levels in both components. In the female-oriented couples, females reported average levels of affiliation and romance and had partners reporting low levels of both components. This finding seems to suggest that relationship asymmetries (Orina et al., 2011) are not limited to adult romantic relationships. Romantic couples are essentially voluntary relationships, and as such, partners may have different motives for continuing to maintain their relationship even when their respective investments are unbalanced. It is important to note that our findings did not lend support to the idea that unbalanced relationships are more prone to jealousy (Buunk, 1991). Instead, it was the preoccupied, highly romantic involvement that was consistently linked with high jealousy.

Overall, similarity in experiences was found to be beneficial for relationship functioning but did not contribute to more enduring relationships. This finding may be explained by one tenet of the social exchange theory (e.g., that the rewards are higher than the costs). On the basis of this exchange and the finding that most of the adolescent couples belonged to congruent types (i.e., partners shared a similar view of their relationship), it seems plausible to assume that the partners got what they wanted out of the relationship (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Thus, sharing similar perceptions about the relationship’s quality may increase attraction, facilitate mutual understanding of emotional states, and result in a feeling of validation, as has been found in adult couples (Gonzaga et al., 2007). In addition, even when both partners perceive an unsatisfying quality (nonlove) or have incongruent views of their relationship (male- and female-oriented dyads), the couple faces major barriers in ending their relationship. This underscores the importance for adolescents to have a romantic partner, for example, to increase peer group status (Brown, 1999) or to signal autonomy from their parents (Collins et al., 2009).

Limitations and future directions

Our study was conducted with certain limitations. Two of them concern the sample size and representativeness with respect to the population from which it was drawn. Since similar to other studies on couples (e.g., Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007), the response rate was low, which can be explained in part by the relatively lower frequency of couple formation in adolescence. Considering that 30% of the couples in our study had been together for over one year, we could have oversampled harmonious and more enduring relationships. Thus, our findings might be more applicable to reciprocated and enduring romantic relationships. In addition, most of the sample’s participants came from German backgrounds. Future research should include larger and more representative samples of adolescents from different ethnic backgrounds (Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). Future studies using a longitudinal design would permit an analysis of bidirectional associations between relationship perceptions and interpersonal functioning. We further suggest the inclusion of other features of close relationships that might provide a more complete picture of adolescents’ close relationships, particularly for those in nonlove relationships. Finally, studies pursuing sexual aspects of adolescents’ relationships might reveal that they play a substantial role in explaining some of our findings.

Conclusions

This study explored the developmental significance of dyadic similarity and the early developmental roots of diversity in romantic relationships. Indeed, studies of romantic development adopting an individual approach have documented substantial individual variability for most relationship qualities. Our findings expand upon earlier research findings on the importance of affiliative and romantic experiences in romantic couples and offer a more comprehensive picture of the diverse types of adolescent couples. Some adolescent romantic couples were marked by highly intense, passionate, and preoccupied relationships. Some couples integrated relationship qualities of friendship and love; others were less emotionally intense but relatively stable. Romantic experiences shared by partners in the couple were meaningfully related to conflict behavior and jealousy. A very important goal was to document the heterogeniety in romantic quality. We found evidence for six unique types, which differ in a number of outcomes. Such person-oriented methods allow for addressing questions of great importance for the study of romantic development, such as examining different romantic pathways and types of change. Given that early relationship experiences in romantic partnerships may be carried over in later couple relationships (Furman & Hand, 2006), a longitudinal design combining person-oriented and variable-oriented approaches allows researchers to explicitly model the heterogeneity of romantic development, which can lead to new and interesting hypotheses about stability, change, and their correlates.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Barelds

D. P. H.

Barelds-Dijkstra

(2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479–496.

Bergman

El-Khouri

B. M.

(2002). Sleipner. A statistical package for pattern-oriented analyses (Version 2.1) [Software]. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.

Bergman

L. R.

Magnusson

El-Khouri

B. M.

(2003). Studying individual development: A person-oriented approach. In Magnusson

(Ed.), Paths through life (Vol. 4, pp. 24–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown

B. B.

(1999). “You’re going out with who?” Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291–329). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Buunk

(1991). Jealousy in close relationships. An exchange-theoretical perspective. In Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 123–138). New York, NY: Guilford.

Byrne

(1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Carver

Joyner

Udry

J. R.

(2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cavanagh

S. E.

(2007). The social construction of romantic relationships in adolescence: Examining the role of peer networks, gender and race. Sociological Inquiry, 77, 572–600.

Chen

Cohen

Kasen

Johnson

Ehrensaft

Gordon

(2006). Predicting conflict within romantic relationships during the transition to adulthood. Personal Relationships, 13, 411–427.

10.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influence. In Lerner

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331–362). New York, NY: Wiley.

11.

Collins

W. A.

Welsh

D. P.

Furman

(2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652.

12.

Connolly

J. A.

Furman

Konarski

(2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71, 1395–1408.

13.

Connolly

J. A.

Goldberg

(1999). Romantic relationships in adolescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 266–290). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Connolly

J. A.

McIsaac

(2006). Adolescents’ explanations for romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1209–1223.

15.

Connolly

J. A.

McIsaac

(2008). Adolescent romantic relationships: Beginnings, endings, and psychosocial challenges. Newsletter of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, 32, 1–5.

16.

Creasey

Kershaw

Boston

(1999). Conflict management with friends and romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative mood regulation expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 523–543.

17.

Du Rocher Schudlich

T. D.

Cummins

E. M.

Papp

L. M.

(2011). Relations between spouses’ depressive symptoms and marital conflict: A longitudinal investigation of the role of conflict resolution styles. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 531–540.

18.

Feiring

(1996). Lovers as friends. Developing conscious views of romance in adolescence. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 7, 214–224.

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

Davila

(2007). Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 542–545.

20.

Flam Kutler

La Greca

A. M.

(2004). Linkages among adolescent girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 395–414.

21.

Furman

Hand

L. S.

(2006). The slippery nature of romantic relationships: Issues in definition and differentiation. In Crouter

A. C.

Booth

(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 171–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22.

Furman

Simon

(2006). Actor and partner effects of adolescents’ romantic working models and styles on interactions with romantic partners. Child Development, 77, 588–604.

23.

Furman

Simon

Shaffer

Bouchey

(2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255.

24.

Furman

Wehner

E. A.

(1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In Shulman

Collins

W. A.

(Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: Developmental perspectives (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Gaunt

(2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401–1420.

26.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2006). Gender and the meaning of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287.

27.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Campos

Bradbury

(2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34–48.

28.

Gottman

J. M.

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.

29.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

30.

Herrera

V. M.

Wiersma

J. D.

Cleveland

H. H.

(2008). The influence of individual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 284–296.

31.

Joyner

Udry

(2000). You don’t bring me anything but down: Adolescent romance and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 369–391.

32.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

33.

Kelley

Thibault

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

34.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

35.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

Cruz

M. G.

(2001). The role of relationship development and attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8, 2–29.

36.

Laursen

Bukowski

W. M.

Nurmi

J. E.

Marion

Salmela-Aro

Kiuru

(2010). Opposites detract: Middle school peer group antipathies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 240–256.

37.

Laursen

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

(1999). The nature and functions of social exchange in adolescence. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 50–74). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Linden-Andersen

Markiewicz

Doyle

A.-B.

(2009). Perceived similarity among adolescent friends: The role of reciprocity, friendship quality, and gender. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 617–637.

39.

Luo

Klohnen

E. C.

(2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326.

40.

Magnusson

(1988). Individual development from an interactional perspective. In Magnusson

(Series Ed.) Paths through life (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Magnusson

(2003). The person approach: Concepts, measurement models, and research strategy. In Peck

S. C.

Roeser

R. W.

(Eds.), Person-centered approaches to studying development in context. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development (Vol. 10, pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “non-relationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483.

43.

McIsaac

Connolly

J. A.

McKenney

K. S.

Pepler

Craig

(2008). Conflict negotiation and autonomy processes in adolescent romantic relationships: An observational study of interdependency in boyfriend and girlfriend effects. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 691–707.

44.

Mory

M. M.

(2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the attraction-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 561–584.

45.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

46.

Orina

M. M.

Collins

W. A.

Simpson

J. A.

Salvatore

J. E.

Haydon

K. C.

Kim

J. S.

(2011). Developmental and dyadic perspectives on commitment in adult romantic relationships. Psychological Science, 20, 1–8.

47.

Parker

J. G.

Walker

A. R.

Low

C. M.

Gamm

B. K.

(2005). Friendship jealousy in young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem, aggression and social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41, 235–250.

48.

Seiffge-Krenke

Bosma

Chau

Cok

Gillespie

Loncaric

(2010). All they need is love? Placing romantic stress in the context of other stressors: A 17-nation study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 106–112.

49.

Seiffge-Krenke

Nieder

(2001). Coping with stress in different phases of romantic development. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 297–311.

50.

Shulman

Scharf

(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.

51.

Shulman

Tuval-Mashiach

Levran

Anbar

(2006). Conflict resolution patterns and longevity of adolescent romantic couples: A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 575–588.

52.

Simon

V. A.

Kobielski

S. J.

Martin

(2008). Conflict beliefs, goals, and behavior in romantic relationships during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 324–335.

53.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 9, 119–135.

54.

Tuval-Mashiach

Shulman

(2006). Resolution of disagreements between romantic partners, among adolescents and young adults: Qualitative analysis of interaction discourses. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 561–587.

55.

van Straaten

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Finkenauer

Holland

(2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 685–697.

56.

Verhofstadt

Buysse

Ickes

Davis

Devoldre

(2008). Support provision inmarriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8, 792–802.

57.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Straatman

(2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277–293.