Romantic relationships among emerging adult African-American men: A latent profile analysis

Abstract

Studies of romantic relationships among emerging adult African-American men have the potential to inform downstream challenges observed in marriage and relationship development among African-Americans. To date, however, most research on African-American men has focused narrowly on sexual risk behavior, to the exclusion of normative relationship behavior. Accordingly, we focused on understanding heterogeneity in emerging adult African-American men’s romantic relationships. We conducted a latent profile analysis with 354 men participating in the African-American Men’s Project who had a main female romantic partner. To understand the significance of the resulting profiles, we examined the correlates of each profile in the areas of sociodemographics, adverse childhood experiences, masculinity attitudes, and health risk behaviors. Results revealed three romantic relationship groups: Supportive, Uncommitted, and Volatile. Differences were detected among the groups in education, fertility with partners, adverse childhood experiences, masculinity attitudes, substance abuse, and sexual concurrency.

Keywords

African-American early adulthood latent profile analysis men romantic relationships

Developmental theorists have identified the formation of increasingly intimate and committed bonds with a romantic partner as one of the critical tasks of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). Studies of romantic relationships during this period have documented the influence of factors in the rearing environment on the quality of emerging adult relationships and the prognostic significance of these relationships for marriage and marriage-like bonds in later adulthood (Fincham & Cui, 2011). Recent investigations, however, suggest that emerging adult relationships are becoming increasingly influenced by trends toward delaying marriage or expecting not to marry at all (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Many young people, particularly those who are college bound, have an extended moratorium during which they can experiment with romantic relationship roles and expectations outside of long-term marital commitments. In the case of young, rural, African-American men, on whom the present study focuses, marriage is unlikely to be delayed due to career trajectories. Rather, low rates of marriage in the community and difficulties in amassing the economic resources with which to establish a household lead many men to conclude that marriage is unlikely in the future (Barr & Simons, 2012). The extent to which young African-American men from resource-poor environments form more or less committed relationships and the characteristics of those relationships have not been studied.

The present study investigates romantic relationships among emerging adult (aged 18–22 years) African-American men who live in resource-poor rural environments in the South. For young African-American men, living in rural areas can be more challenging than life in urban environments because of restricted educational and employment opportunities, difficulties in obtaining physical and mental health care, and a lack of public transportation (James et al., 2017). These challenges can take a toll on close relationships. To date, however, the majority of studies on emerging adult rural African-American men’s relationships have focused on sexual health and engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors (Bowleg et al., 2017). Although important from a public health standpoint, this body of research does not take into account normal development or possible associations of emerging adult relationships with (a) adversity in the rearing environment, (b) masculinity attitudes, or (c) vulnerability to health risk behaviors during young adulthood. The present study is designed to meet the need for investigations of romantic relationship characteristics among this understudied population.

Describing rural African-American men’s relationships

Some research suggests that African-American couples experience, during young adulthood, elevated rates of conflict and diminished support, although these effects appear to be small (Kurdek, 2008). Other studies emphasize elevated rates of conflict and divorce among African-American adults who marry (Sweeney & Phillips, 2004). For couples of all demographic and ethnic groups, however, exposure to economic distress and life in unsafe, resource-poor communities in contemporaneous or rearing environments takes a toll on romantic relationship quality (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010). Rural African-American men are disproportionately exposed to poverty and low-resource environments, both as children and during the transition to adulthood when stressors associated with joining the labor force emerge (Probst et al., 2002). “Spillover” models emphasize the transfer of negative emotions from one social context to another, as with the capacity of environmental stress to undermine relationship quality (Conger et al., 2002). In contrast, other studies suggest that exposure to adverse experiences in childhood shapes cognitive schemas that organize views of and responses to future interpersonal behavior (Kogan et al., 2013).

Given the lack of research on African-American men’s relationship dynamics, the first aim of this study was to provide a better understanding of the relationships in which young, rural African-American men engage using self-report assessments of their relationships. We conducted an exploratory, person-centered analysis using men’s reports of their relationships’ characteristics. In contrast with variable-centered approaches, person-centered analyses use multiple variables to create a relationship typology. Any particular man’s relationship may manifest high or low levels of a range of variables that quantify its characteristics. The pattern among the variables provides a uniquely informative portrait of a group or class of relationships that can be linked to developmental or health outcomes and used to foster theory and hypothesis development in future studies.

Although multiple dimensions of romantic relationship processes have been linked to relationship outcomes and individual well-being, the profiles that we formed focused on self-reports of commitment, support, criticism, and conflict in a man’s relationship with his main partner. Commitment refers to partners’ desire to remain in a relationship on a long-term basis (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999). Commitment is a salient predictor of relationship satisfaction, not only among couples in long-term relationships but also in many emerging adult romantic relationships (Collins, 2003; Fincham & Cui, 2011). Although studies of commitment among African-American men are rare, exploratory research suggests that men not only are interested in committed relationships but also experience social pressure to have multiple sexual partners, often as a means of demonstrating masculine prowess and esteem (Towner, Dolcini, & Harper, 2015).

Relationship support, criticism, and conflict comprise related but distinct predictors of overall relationship quality and health. In general, conflict, support, and criticism have similar associations with relationship satisfaction among African-American and Caucasian couples (Kurdek, 2008). Support involves the provision and receipt of both instrumental and emotional care between partners. Support in a romantic relationship is linked to both individual and couple well-being (Carels & Baucom, 1999). Criticism, on the other hand, is a combination of negative judgments and expressions of dislike toward one’s partner that can be perceived as destructive and hostile (Gottman, 1994; Peterson & Smith, 2010). This relationship dimension is important because it has been linked directly to reports of elevated conflict, distress, and relationship dissolution (Gottman, 1994; Renshaw, 2008). A key aspect of romantic relationships involves the ways in which partners engage in and manage conflict. High levels of conflict in a romantic relationship can signal individual and relationship-level distress (Choi & Marks, 2008). Importantly, in dating relationships conflict management problems may escalate into physical violence. Aggressive conflict management has prognostic significance for risk of intimate partner violence in both present and future romantic relationships (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005).

Sociodemographic and theoretical links to relationship profiles

Studies of romantic relationships among African-American emerging adults have the potential to demonstrate how developmental stressors and other theoretical predictors affect relationship quality. Use of person-centered statistical methods typically yield a discrete set of relationship types, the significance of which can be evaluated through association with various theoretical and outcome-based constructs. The second aim of this study was to understand better the meaning and significance of emerging profiles. We thus examined associations of profile membership with men’s sociodemographic characteristics, histories of adverse childhood experiences, and masculinity attitudes.

Sociodemographic characteristics considered in the present study included age, education level, cohabitation with main partner, and the presence of a child with the main partner. These correlates are known to be associated with relationship quality; age and education level are associated positively with stability and commitment in romantic relationships (Fincham & Cui, 2011). Although cohabitation can suggest commitment to a relationship, in low-resource contexts, it may be related to economic necessity and be part of a pattern of on-and-off again residence sharing that depends on the partners’ proximal relationship status and economic struggles (Lichter, Qian, & Mellott, 2006). Similarly, having a child together may suggest high commitment, but research demonstrates complex links with the likelihood of downstream marriage and relationship quality (Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004). The present study is designed to shed light on the ways in which these factors coincide with relationship characteristics.

Characteristics of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood are also influenced by earlier interpersonal experiences that accumulate across childhood and adolescence (Collins, 2003). Adverse childhood experiences include economic deprivation; living in destructive home environments; and experiencing neglect, physical abuse, or verbal abuse. Research indicates that rural African-American youth are disproportionately exposed to childhood adversity (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2011) and suggests that African-Americans are particularly vulnerable to the negative influence of that adversity on their social relationships in adulthood (Umberson, Williams, Thomas, Liu, & Thomeer, 2014). Adverse childhood experiences can be particularly influential on romantic relationships (Miller et al., 2011). To understand better the potential developmental antecedents of emerging adult men’s relationship profiles, we investigated the profiles’ associations with men’s reported exposure to adverse childhood experiences.

Exploratory research underscores the importance of masculinity beliefs for young African-American men’s romantic relationship quality and commitment (Towner et al., 2015). Whitehead’s (1997) work with African-American and Caribbean men informed our approach to masculinity. Whitehead described a set of reputation-based attributes that men may adopt to maintain masculine self-esteem. These include sexual prowess, masculine “gamesmanship” skills (e.g., toughness and ability to seduce women), fathering numerous children, and “street smarts.” In contrast, masculine respect-based attributes include marriage, economic provision for one’s family, and educational attainment. When men from economically disadvantaged backgrounds experience barriers to respect-based pathways to masculinity, they become more likely to express and identify with reputation-based attributes to achieve a sense of masculine self-esteem (Roy & Dyson, 2010; Whitehead, 1997).

Relationship profile links to health behavior outcomes

Studies have linked the quality of romantic relationships to emerging adults’ health risk behaviors, including substance use and risky sexual behaviors such as concurrent sexual relationships (sexual relationships that overlap in time) and inconsistent condom use. Research has shown nurturing, committed romantic relationships to be associated with reduced involvement in health risk behaviors among emerging adults (Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham, 2010). Emerging adults involved in high-quality romantic relationships report lower levels of substance abuse than do those not in such relationships (Fleming, White, & Catalano, 2010). Conversely, transitioning in and out of romantic relationships is associated with elevated substance use (Catalano, Haggerty, Hawkins, & Elgin, 2011; Fleming, White, Oesterle, Haggerty, & Catalano, 2010). Braithwaite, Delevi, and Fincham (2010) found that being in a committed relationship decreased the likelihood of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by decreasing exposure to multiple or concurrent sexual partners. Associations with condom use are more complex. Among adolescents, both positive (commitment, intimacy) and negative (aggressive conflict management) relationship characteristics have been found to be associated with inconsistency in condom use (Manlove et al., 2011). Among young adults, commitment and intimacy have been linked to reduced condom use and increased reliance on hormonal methods of birth control (Manlove et al., 2011; Manning, Flanigan, Giordano, & Longmore, 2009). We explored the associations of men’s romantic relationship profiles with their engagement in substance use and risky sex, to understand better the potential impact of each profile on these behaviors.

Study summary

The goal of the present study was to characterize the romantic relationships of 354 unmarried, African-American men aged 19 to 22 years who reported being in a committed relationship with a female partner. We developed profiles based on patterns detected across four variables: commitment, support, criticism, and conflict. We then unpacked the significance of profile membership with sociodemographic, theoretical, and outcome-based covariates. Consistent with the exploratory nature of this study, we advanced no a priori hypotheses regarding the profiles that would emerge; consequently, we did not formulate any specific conjectures regarding the associations among specific profiles, adverse childhood experiences, masculinity attitudes, and health risk behaviors.

Method

Participants

Hypotheses were tested with data from the African-American Men’s Health Project (AMP), a study of health risk behavior, relationship development, and well-being among young African-American men. The focus of the study was on heterosexual men; however, men who reported same-sex activity (approximately 4%) were not excluded. AMP included 505 men between the ages of 19 and 22 years who were recruited from 11 counties in South Georgia. For this study, we focused on men who identified having a “main” female sexual partner, defined as “a woman or girl that you have a very special or committed relationship with, such as a girlfriend or a spouse.” This reduced the sample to 367. Thirteen married participants were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 354 participants. Men reported that the majority of their partners were African-American (92%); 2% were Latina, 2% were biracial African-American/Latina, and 2% were Caucasian. The remaining 2% were categorized as “other.”

Participants were recruited using respondent-driven sampling (Heckathorn, 1997, 2002), which is a referral-based recruitment method that alleviates the bias inherent in typical snowball sampling methods. Community liaisons in the 11 counties of interest recruited 45 initial participants, known as “seeds,” to complete a data collection survey. Participants completed surveys in their homes or at convenient locations in their communities. Upon completion, participants were asked to give the names of three other men they knew, other than a brother or other close kin with whom they grew up in the same home. The project staff contacted the referred participants and, upon verification of eligibility requirements and their completion of the survey, the referring participant received US$25 per person whom he referred to the study. After the referred participants completed the survey, each one was asked to refer three men in his network. Participants completed the survey on a laptop computer using an audio computer-assisted self-interview that enabled them to navigate the survey with the help of voice and video enhancements. Participants received US$100 for completing the survey. Participants provided written informed consent, and all study protocols were approved by the University of Georgia’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Relationship characteristics

Four relationship characteristics were assessed to construct latent romantic relationship profiles. Commitment was measured using the Reliable Alliance subscale of the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 2009). The 3-item subscale assessed the participants’ certainty that their relationships “will last no matter what,” “will continue in the years to come,” and “will last in spite of fights.” The response set ranged from 1 (not sure at all) to 4 (very sure). Scores were summed; higher scores indicated greater relationship commitment (α = .79). Support was assessed with the 4-item Support subscale of the NRI. Participants indicated their receipt of emotional and instrumental support from their partners. Sample items included, “How often do you turn to her for support with personal problems” and “How often does she help you figure out or fix things?” The response set ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Items were summed, and higher scores reflected greater support (α = .79). Criticism was measured with the 3-item Criticism subscale of the NRI. Participants responded on a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) regarding the frequency with which participants’ partners would “point out your faults or put you down,” “criticize you,” and “say mean or harsh things to you.” Items were summed; higher scores indicated perceptions of greater criticism (α = .74). Conflict was assessed with a subset of items from the Conflict Tactics Scales-2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The 14-item scale was introduced with instructions to assess the extent to which each item characterizes the ways in which conflict is managed in the relationship. Items were arranged in pairs that referred first to one’s own behavior (7 items) and then to the partner’s behavior (7 items). The response scale ranged from 0 (never) to 3 (very often). We included items representing verbally aggressive (e.g., insult, swear, or yell), psychologically aggressive (e.g., threaten, damage the other’s property), and physically aggressive (e.g., hit, slap, or kick) conflict tactics. One pair of items representing nonaggressive, problem-solving forms of conflict resolution (I show respect for my partner’s feelings; my partner shows respect for my feelings) was included. The negotiation items were reverse coded before summing to represent total conflict in the relationship (α = .77).

Adverse childhood experiences

Adverse childhood experiences were assessed using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale (Felitti et al., 1998). The ACE scale is a 10-item risk index that assesses cumulative exposure to maltreatment (abuse and neglect) and a range of household dysfunctions (e.g., substance abuse or mental illness in family members) during the first 16 years of life. Participants responded yes (1) or no (0) to items such as, “During the first 16 years of your life, did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you?” Items were summed, with higher scores representing more adverse experiences; Cronbach’s α for the composite index was .71.

Masculinity

Men completed the Masculine Attributes Questionnaire (MAQ; Cho & Kogan, 2017). The introduction to the 18-item subscale read, “Being a ‘man’ means different things to different people. Below are some statements that men may believe shows that someone is a ‘real man.’” For each item, the stem, “A real man…” was followed by a particular behavior. Men responded to the items on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Example items included, “can handle himself in a fight” and “has children by many different women.” The MAQ yields two subscales, reputational masculinity (e.g., can handle himself in a fight, α = .83) and respect-based masculinity (e.g., provides for his family, α = .77).

Health risk behaviors

Participants reported their use of cigarettes, frequency of binge drinking, and use of marijuana with items adapted from the Monitoring Future Survey used in our prior research (Windle et al., 2016). For cigarette use, participants responded to the following item: “In the past 3 months, how much did you smoke cigarettes?” The response scale ranged from 0 (none at all) to 7 (more than two packs a day). Participants reported their binge drinking with the item, “Typically, about how many days per month did you have 4 or more drinks of alcohol at one time in the past 3 months?” The response scale ranged from 0 days to 30 days. Marijuana use was indexed with the item, “Thinking about the past 3 months, about how many days per month did you use marijuana?” The response scale ranged from 0 days to 30 days. DiClemente and Wingood (1995) developed the sexual risk behavior items. Participants reported the consistency of their condom use with their main partners. They first reported the frequency with which they had sex in the past 3 months. This was followed by the question, “Of the times you had vaginal sex in the past 3 months, how many times did you use a condom?” The responses were coded as 1 (never), 2 (rarely), 3 (less than half of the time), 4 (about half of the time), 5 (almost every time), and 6 (every time). Concurrency was measured by participants’ yes (1) or no (0) responses indicating whether, during the past 3 months, they had sex with someone else while dating their main partners.

Sociodemographic correlates

Participants reported their ages (in years); education levels, ranging from 1 (grade 9 or below) to 8 (bachelor’s degree); and current employment status (any employment vs. unemployed). Total monthly income was reported in dollars; it included, where applicable, pay from employment, child support, disability benefits, and public assistance. Participants were also asked if they lived with their main female partners during most of the past year and if they had children with her. Responses to each question were coded as 0 (no) or 1 (yes).

Plan of analysis

We performed a latent profile analysis (LPA) with Mplus Version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) on the relationship variables. LPA creates groups based on the similarity of participants’ patterns of responses to questions measuring a set of continuous variables. LPA models were evaluated in sequential order, starting with a one-group class. The number of classes was increased until the model fit indices indicated the most appropriate number of classes. To identify the optimal number of classes, we examined Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the sample-size-adjusted BIC (SSA BIC). When comparing models, relatively lower scores suggest a better fitting model (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We also examined the Lo–Mendell–Rubin (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001) likelihood ratio test, which compares the estimated model with a model having one profile less than the estimated model. If the LMR has a p value less than .05, the model with one profile less is rejected in favor of the estimated model. A final criterion is entropy, which refers to accuracy in assigning individuals to profiles; values range from 0 to 1. The closer entropy is to 1, the more likely the individuals are to belong to the profile groups to which they have been assigned. Optimal models were chosen based on goodness of fit and parsimony. We then examined bivariate associations of profiles with respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, adverse childhood experiences, and health risk behaviors using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ² tests. Full information maximum likelihood procedures were used to account for missing data from item nonresponse, which was <.3% on each relationships variable used in the LPA.

We examined the associations between profile memberships and respondents’ (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) adverse childhood experiences, (c) masculinity attitudes, and (d) health risk behaviors. These associations were assessed with ANOVA and χ² tests using SPSS (IBM Corporation, 2016). Missing data were excluded pairwise for each test; missing data, in the correlates, however, were minimal (<.6%).

Results

Latent profile analysis

Table 1 presents model fit index information used to determine the optimal number of profiles based on commitment, support, criticism, and conflict. Decreases in AIC, BIC, and SSA BIC values; a significant LMR p value; and entropy greater than .70 suggested the superiority of a three-profile solution. Profiles were interpreted based on comparisons between the total sample means and the within-profile estimated means of each indicator (see Table 2). The Supportive profile group included the majority of participants (n = 218, 61.6%). On average, young men in this group reported the highest levels of commitment and support and the lowest levels of criticism and conflict among the three groups. Men in the second profile group, Uncommitted (n = 87, 24.6%), reported the least amount of commitment and support, on average, among the three groups. Young men in this group also reported more criticism and conflict than those in the Supportive relationship group. The third profile group, Volatile (n = 49, 13.9%), was characterized by moderate commitment and support as well as the highest levels of criticism and conflict of the three groups.

Table 1.

Model fit statistics for latent profile solutions for the total sample.

Number of profiles	AIC	BIC	SSA BIC	LMR p	Entropy
1	4,030.43	4,061.38	4,036.00	—	—
2	3,929.26	3,979.56	3,938.32	<.00	.83
3	3,860.03	3,929.68	3,872.58	<.00	.81
4	3,846.61	3,935.60	3,862.63	.35	.81

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SSA = sample-size-adjusted; LMR = Lo–Mendell–Rubin. Fit statistics for the best-fitting model are in boldface.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the romantic relationship profile groups.

	Supportive (n = 218, 61.6%)	Uncommitted (n = 87, 24.6%)	Volatile (n = 49, 13.9%)	Total (n = 354)	p
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	p
Commitment	10.42 (1.53)^a	5.24 (1.49)^b	9.98 (1.79)^a	9.08 (2.70)	<.01
Support	7.83 (2.70)^a	5.37 (2.56)^b	6.10 (3.30)^b	6.99 (2.96)	<.01
Criticism	1.90 (1.88)^a	2.47 (1.87)^a	3.71 (2.38)^b	2.29 (2.04)	<.01
Conflict	6.62 (3.18)^a	10.23 (4.05)^b	18.36 (3.67)^c	9.13 (5.30)	<.01

Note. Means designated with the same superscript do not differ significantly based on post hoc comparisons.

The emergence of a group characterized by high levels of conflict and the potential for violence in emerging adult relationships sponsored an additional examination of items in the conflict scale pertaining to physical violence (see Table 3). We determined the numbers of participants in each group who had reported experiencing physical violence as either a recipient or an initiator. We considered two questions that pertained to “pushes, shoves, or slaps” and “kicks or punches.” When reporting physical violence with their main partners, 4.1% of the Supportive group, 19.5% of the Uncommitted group, and 65.3% of the Volatile group reported initiating violence toward their partners at least sometimes during their arguments. Also, 24.8% of the Supportive group, 49.4% of the Uncommitted group, and 87.8% of the Volatile group reported being a recipient of violence from their partners at least sometimes during their arguments.

Table 3.

Frequencies and percentages for physical violence to and from the main partner.

	Supportive (n = 218)	Uncommitted (n = 87)	Volatile (n = 49)	Total (n = 354)	p
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	p
Physical violence to partner
Never	209 (95.9%)	70 (80.5%)	17 (34.7%)	296 (83.6%)	<.01
At least sometimes	9 (4.1%)	17 (19.5%)	32 (65.3%)	58 (16.4%)	<.01
Physical violence from partner
Never	164 (75.2%)	43 (49.4%)	6 (12.2%)	214 (60.5%)	<.01
At least sometimes	54 (24.8%)	44 (50.6%)	43 (87.8%)	140 (39.5%)	<.01

Correlates of profile group membership

Associations of profile group assignment with demographic variables, adverse childhood experiences, masculinity attitudes, and health risk behaviors are presented in Table 4. No differences among the demographic variables emerged based on age, F (2,351) = .69, p = .50; employment status, χ² (df) = 3.58 (2), p = .17; or monthly income, F (2,351) = .42, p = .66. Significant differences between profile groups, however, were evident in participants’ educational attainment, F (2,351) = 6.47, p = .002; living arrangements, χ² (df) = 6.72 (2), p = .04; and likelihood of having children with the current partner, χ² (df) = 10.92 (2), p = .004. Post hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Supportive group attained significantly higher levels of education than did those in the Volatile group. Men in the Volatile group were more likely than those in other groups to report that they lived and had children with their current partners.

Table 4.

Means and percentages for developmental correlates as a function of cluster membership.

	Supportive (n = 218)		Uncommitted (n = 87)		Volatile (n = 49)		Total (n = 354)			p
	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	Range	p
Demographics
Age	20.20 (1.06)		20.20 (1.03)		20.39 (1.12)		20.20 (1.06)		19–22	ns
Education	4.53 (1.22)^a		4.15 (1.33)^a,b		3.86 (1.71)^b		4.34 (1.34)		1–7	<.01
Employment		45.4		42.5		30.6		42.7	0–1	ns
Total monthly income	723.50 (608.12)		774.15 (690.71)		676.63 (500.49)		728.46 (615.25)		169–5,198	ns
Living with a main partner		11.5^a		10.3^a		24.5		13.0	0–1	<.05
Having children with a main partner		24.3^a,b		13.8^a		38.8		23.7	0–1	<.01
Theoretical predictors
Adverse childhood experiences (n = 353)^c	1.97 (1.83)^a		2.66 (2.34)^b		2.48 (2.29)^a,b		2.23 (2.05)		0–8	<.01
Reputational masculinity	17.70 (4.13)^a		18.61 (4.04)^a		21.22 (5.04)^b		18.41 (4.40)		9–36	<.01
Respect-based masculinity	31.93 (3.38)^a		30.53 (3.63)^b		31.20 (4.05)^a,b		31.49 (3.58)		19–36	<.01
Health risk behaviors
Cigarette use	0.89 (1.33)^a		1.38 (1.49)^b		1.24 (1.45)^a,b		1.06 (1.40)		0–6	<.05
Binge drinking (n = 352)^c	1.29 (2.98)^a		2.30 (3.29)^b		2.10 (3.44)^a,b		1.65 (3.15)		0–20	<.05
Marijuana use (n = 352)^c	7.96 (12.06)		9.34 (12.52)		12.30 (13.42)		8.89 (12.41)		0–31	ns
Condom use	3.84 (1.79)^a		4.49 (1.44)^b		3.81 (1.89)^a		4.04 (1.72)		1–6	<.05
Concurrency		32.7^a		50.6^b		53.1		39.9	0–1	<.01

Note. ns = not significant.

^a,bMeans designated with the same superscript do not differ significantly based on post hoc comparisons.

^c The denominator is provided due to missing data for this variable.

Young men in the Uncommitted relationship group reported more adverse childhood experiences than did those in the Supportive group. Regarding masculinity, men in the Volatile group were more likely to endorse reputational attitudes about masculinity than were men in the other groups. Men in the Supportive relationship group were more likely to endorse respect-based masculinity attitudes than were men in the Uncommitted group. Regarding health behavior, young men in the Uncommitted group reported more cigarette use and binge drinking than did those in the Supportive relationship group. No group differences were observed for marijuana use. The Uncommitted group reported more frequent condom use than the Supportive and Volatile groups. Concurrency rates during the past 3 months were similar among young men in Uncommitted and Volatile relationships (50.6% and 53.1%, respectively), whereas young men in the Supportive group reported the lowest rates of concurrency (32.7%). Young men in the Uncommitted and Volatile groups did not differ in adverse childhood experiences.

Discussion

Young people in general, and African-American men in particular, are increasingly engaging in romantic relationships that they do not expect to lead to marriage. Little is known about the forms romantic relationships take among young African-American men when long-term commitment and marriage are no longer key guideposts. We developed profiles representing patterns of relationship characteristics among 354 emerging adult African-American men. More than 60% of the men reported that they were in Supportive relationships, characterized by high levels of commitment and support and low levels of criticism and conflict. One quarter of the participants were in Uncommitted relationships, not expecting their relationships to endure. The remaining men were in Volatile relationships, characterized by both moderate levels of commitment and high levels of conflict and criticism. This group reported the highest rates of physical violence. Examination of a range of correlates of group membership revealed significant differences related to sociodemographic characteristics, childhood adversity, masculinity attitudes, and health risk behavior.

Men in supportive relationships

The majority of the young men (n = 218, 61.6%) were involved in Supportive romantic relationships, which were characterized by high levels of commitment and support with low levels of conflict and criticism. This group’s relationship patterns are similar to those identified as normative in the extant empirical (Wildsmith, Manlove, Steward-Streng, & Cook, 2013) and theoretical (Fincham & Cui, 2011) literature on relationship development among emerging adults. Their patterns are characterized by behaviors that would be conducive to supportive, long-term relationships (Wildsmith et al., 2013). No prior studies, however, have focused on normative relationship dynamics among African-American men; typically, studies document the struggles of African-American couples (Amato, 2011) or investigate risky sexual behavior (Bowleg et al., 2017). In fact, a majority of African-American couples in our low-socioeconomic status, rural sample, according to the male partners’ descriptions, appear to be in typical, well-functioning, and developmentally appropriate relationships.

Men in the Supportive relationship group evinced high educational levels. This is consistent with studies linking educational attainment to positive adjustment in romantic relationships (Brown, 2003) and stable marriages (Wilcox, 2010). Men in supportive relationships also tended to endorse attitudes about masculinity that favored stable relationships and monogamy and did not uphold attitudes that celebrate multiple sexual partnerships and other reputation-based behaviors. These masculinity attitudes, in conjunction with this group’s educational attainment, support Whitehead’s (1997) proposition that masculine esteem can be garnered via more than one pathway. For youth with few educational aspirations and little educational access, reputational approaches to masculinity are expected to be favored because the resources to sustain a marriage or attain conventional life-course milestones may seem unobtainable. In contrast, men pursuing higher education have access to conventional avenues to masculine esteem, such as a committed romantic partnership. Consistent with the greater conventionality expressed by men in this group, they evinced the lowest levels of substance use and concurrent sexual partnerships. Condom use, however, was lower in this group than in the Uncommitted group. This pattern is likely to reflect the tendency of couples in committed relationships to use forms of birth control other than condoms (Kogan et al., 2017).

Men in uncommitted relationships

The Uncommitted group comprised 87 participants (24.6%). They were below the sample average on commitment and support and slightly above average on conflict and criticism. This group’s characteristics are consistent with past research that underscores the fluidity of romantic relationships for many emerging adults (Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2013; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Many young people at this age move among romantic relationships with relatively little commitment to any one of them (Arnett, 2004; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Our results suggest that approximately one-fourth of African-American men who report committed relationships may be in this form of temporary relationship. It is conceivable, however, that members of this group may develop greater commitment in their current relationships or may have experienced greater commitment in the past. Additional research is needed to investigate these possibilities.

Men in Uncommitted relationships were unlikely to have children with their partners. This finding is not surprising, because children constitute a reason for continued relationship involvement and commitment. Among the theoretical predictors, Uncommitted men reported low levels of respect-based masculinity, suggesting that conventional relationships were not a particularly important source of masculine esteem for them. Uncommitted men also reported more adverse childhood experiences than did men in the Supportive group. This finding is consistent with the existing literature, which suggests that adverse childhood experiences are associated with less supportive adult relationships (Umberson et al., 2014). Studies suggest that adverse childhood experiences may disrupt the formation of secure attachments to caregivers; this, in turn, affects working models of relationships in adulthood (Miga, Hare, Allen, & Manning, 2010). Although scholars who study emerging adulthood maintain that casual relationships are developmentally normative during this period (Shulman & Connolly, 2013), our findings suggest that, among young African-American men, a lack of commitment to a main partner potentially may be a consequence of early adversity rather than a part of normative development.

Uncommitted men reported elevated rates of concurrent sexual partnerships, likely a consequence of low commitment, which has been linked to infidelity in past studies (Owen, Rhoades, & Stanley, 2013). They were more likely than were men in other groups, however, to use condoms during sexual activity. This finding is consistent with other research that found greater condom use among men with multiple sexual partners (Kogan et al., 2017). Greater condom use among men with several sexual partners appears to result from men’s awareness of the dangers of STIs in casual sexual encounters, their sexual partners’ preferences for protective behavior in casual encounters, and the likelihood that, in monogamous relationships, other means of birth control such as oral contraceptives will be used. These men also evinced elevated rates of cigarette use and binge drinking. These findings are consistent with social bonding perspectives (Catalano et al., 2011) wherein romantic partner commitments are associated with reductions in substance use, as men experience discouragement from substance use via their relationship commitments and express greater conventionality in their outlooks.

Men in volatile relationships

The Volatile group (n = 49, 13.9%) was characterized by a high level of conflict, above average scores on both commitment and criticism, and slightly lower than average scores on support. For these young people, relationship commitment is present despite a number of negative attributes, most alarming of which are elevated levels of physical aggression. Past research confirms that aggression and violence are relatively common in dating relationships (Straus, 2004). Of the men in Volatile relationships, 65% reported initiating physical violence toward their partners and 88% reported receiving physical violence from their partners. The precarious nature of these relationships is alarming and has prognostic significance for intimate partner violence in the future (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005).

Attitudes about masculinity that sanction reputational attributes (showing dominance, sexual prowess) were most common among the Volatile group compared with the other groups. This is consistent with research linking perceptions of masculinity that endorse power and control over women with heightened levels of conflict and violent behavior (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005). Men in the Volatile relationships also endorsed higher than average levels of respect-based masculinity attitudes, potentially a consequence of their greater commitment to romantic partnerships. Consistent with past research on domestic violence, men in this group evinced elevated levels of childhood adversity. Studies suggest that early adversity affects conflict management problems and relationship aggression via disruptions in attachment processes associated with trusting relationships (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998).

Integrative summary and limitations

Rural poverty has been described as particularly “grinding,” with low resources in the community diminishing expectations for stable employment and establishment of a family (Probst et al., 2002). Despite low rates of marriage among Black men in these areas, the majority of emerging adult men in the AMP sample reported a main romantic partner, and the vast majority of those in a romantic relationship reported committed, satisfying relationships. Furthermore, only one-fourth of the partnered sample appeared to have uncommitted relationships. Consistent with past studies, satisfying committed relationships may deter substance use and engagement in concurrent sexual activity. The prominence of satisfying relationships may suggest that the problems that affect marriage in the Black community may emerge later in men’s development, perhaps as men try to enter the workforce during their mid and late 20s. The combination of discriminatory hiring practices and poor preparation in rural educational systems may make joining the labor force a demoralizing process, one that limits men’s ability to engage in close, stable relationships and establish marriages.

Approximately 14% of men were in relationships at risk for domestic violence. This rate is well within the low prevalence range as reported for population samples by the World Health Organization (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). The finding of volatility in relationships with a child present, however, suggests the importance of unmarried childbearing. Black men tend to become fathers earlier than men from other racial/ethnic groups and are more likely to be unmarried during the transition to fatherhood (Carlson et al., 2004). For partners with a child who attempt to form committed families, the stress manifested in the transition to parenthood is likely amplified due to scarce resources. Stress then spills over to relationships and affects men’s ability to complete higher education. For men and women who do not form families after childbirth, future relationships are complicated and stressed by the presence of children from other relationships.

Additional findings support continued concerns regarding elevated levels of sexual concurrency among samples of rural African-Americans (Adimora et al., 2004). Recent research indicates that, for some rural African-American young men, concurrency conforms to a pattern which includes a “steady,” primary partner as well as one or more casual sexual partners. Although concurrency was elevated in the Uncommitted group, even among the men in the Supportive relationship group, 33% reported concurrent sexual activity. These rates suggest that forming monogamous relationships is difficult in this population.

A number of limitations to our findings should be noted. The findings are based on a rural sample, which may not be generalizable to urban men’s relationships. Although we identified three relationship groups using variables that are commonly used to describe relationship processes, the variables chosen were not all-encompassing. Future studies should examine additional dimensions of romantic relationships, such as interaction patterns and relationship power dynamics. Additionally, the information gathered in this study about romantic relationships was from the perspective of African-American men only. Although this provided a novel perspective that is rare in the literature, future studies would benefit from examination of profiles derived from reports from both partners. These limitations notwithstanding, the present study revealed three couple profiles that provided rich characterizations of men’s romantic relationships. Participation in a certain type of relationship was significant in terms of having a history of adversity, having a child together, and engaging in risky behavior.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Eileen Neubaum-Carlan, MS, for her editorial assistance.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by NIDA grants R01 DA029488 and P30 DA027827. NIDA had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

Adimora

A. A.

Schoenbach

V. J.

Martinson

F. E.

Donaldson

K. H.

Stancil

T. R.

Fullilove

R. E.

(2004). Concurrent partnerships among rural African Americans with recently reported heterosexually transmitted HIV infection. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 34, 423–429.

Amato

P. R.

(2011). Marital quality in African American marriages. Retrieved from http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/resource-detail/index.aspx?rid=3929.

Arnett

J. J.

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barr

A. B.

Simons

R. L.

(2012). Marriage expectations among African American couples in early adulthood: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 726–742. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00985.x

Bowleg

Del Río-Gonzalez

A. M.

Holt

S. L.

Pérez

Massie

J. S.

Mandell

J. E.

Boone

C. A.

(2017). Intersectional epistemologies of ignorance: How behavioral and social science research shapes what we know, think we know, and don’t know about U.S. Black men’s sexualities. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 577–603. doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1295300

Braithwaite

S. R.

Delevi

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17, 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x

Brown

S. L.

(2003). Relationship quality dynamics of cohabiting unions. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 583–601.

Carels

R. A.

Baucom

D. H.

(1999). Support in marriage: Factors associated with on-line perceptions of support helpfulness. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 131–144.

Carlson

McLanahan

England

(2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41, 237–261.

10.

Cassidy

E. F.

Stevenson

H. C.

Jr . (2005). They wear the mask: Hypervulnerability and hypermasculine aggression among African American males in an urban remedial disciplinary school. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 11, 53–74.

11.

Catalano

R. F.

Haggerty

K. P.

Hawkins

J. D.

Elgin

(2011). Prevention of substance use and substance use disorders: Role of risk and protective factors. In Kaminer

Winters

K. C.

(Eds.), Clinical manual of adolescent substance abuse treatment (pp. 25–63). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

12.

Choi

Marks

N. F.

(2008). Marital conflict, depressive symptoms, and functional impairment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00488.x

13.

Cho

Kogan

S. M.

(2017). Development and validation of the Masculine Attributes Questionnaire. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11, 941–951. doi:10.1177/1557988317703538

14.

Collins

W. A.

(2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.

15.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Martin

M. J.

(2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x

16.

Conger

R. D.

Wallace

L. E.

Sun

Simons

R. L.

McLoyd

V. C.

Brody

G. H.

(2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193.

17.

DiClemente

R. J.

Wingood

G. M.

(1995). A randomized controlled trial of an HIV sexual risk–reduction intervention for young African-American women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 1271–1276.

18.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

Williamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

… Marks

J. S

. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Cui

(2011). Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Fleming

C. B.

White

H. R.

Catalano

R. F.

(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

21.

Fleming

C. B.

White

H. R.

Oesterle

Haggerty

K. P.

Catalano

R. F.

(2010). Romantic relationship status changes and substance use among 18- to 20-year-olds. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 847–856. doi:10.15288/jsad.2010.71.847

22.

Furman

Buhrmester

(2009). The Network of Relationships Inventory: Behavioral Systems Version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 470–478.

23.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Halpern-Meekin

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2013). Relationship churning in emerging adulthood: On/off relationships and sex with an ex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 166–188.

25.

Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011, September). The health and well-being of children in rural areas: A portrait of the nation 2007. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

26.

Heckathorn

D. D.

(1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44, 174–199.

27.

Heckathorn

D. D.

(2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems, 49, 11–33.

28.

IBM Corporation. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.

29.

James

Moonesinghe

Wilson-Frederick

Hall

Penman-Aguilar

Bouye

(2017). Racial/ethnic health disparities among rural adults—United States, 2012–2015. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 66, 1–9. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6623a1

30.

Johnson

M. P.

Caughlin

J. P.

Huston

T. L.

(1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160–177.

31.

Kogan

S. M.

Cho

Allen

K. A.

Lei

M. K.

Beach

S. R.

Gibbons

F. X.

… Brody

G. H

. (2013). Avoiding adolescent pregnancy: A longitudinal analysis of African-American youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 14–20.

32.

Kogan

S. M.

Cho

Barnum

Barton

Hicks

M. R.

Brown

G. L.

(2017). Pathways to HIV-related behavior among heterosexual, rural Black men: A person-centered analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 913–924. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0661-7

33.

Kogan

S. M.

Lei

M. K.

Grange

C. R.

Simons

R. L.

Brody

G. H.

Gibbons

F. X.

Chen

Y. F.

(2013). The contribution of community and family contexts to African American young adults’ romantic relationship health: A prospective analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 878–890. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9935-3

34.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

35.

Kurdek

L. A.

(2008). Differences between partners from Black and White heterosexual dating couples in a path model of relationship commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 51–70.

36.

Lichter

D. T.

Qian

Mellott

L. M.

(2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 223–240.

37.

Mendell

Rubin

(2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778.

38.

Manlove

Welti

Barry

Peterson

Schelar

Wildsmith

(2011). Relationship characteristics and contraceptive use among young adults. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 119–128.

39.

Manning

W. D.

Flanigan

C. M.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2009). Relationship dynamics and consistency of condom use among adolescents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 181–190. doi:10.1363/4118109

40.

Miga

E. M.

Hare

Allen

J. P.

Manning

(2010). The relation of insecure attachment states of mind and romantic attachment styles to adolescent aggression in romantic relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 463–481.

41.

Miller

Breslau

Chung

W. J. J.

Green

J. G.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Kessler

R. C.

(2011). Adverse childhood experiences and risk of physical violence in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65, 1006–1013. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.105429

42.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O

. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

43.

Owen

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

(2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships: Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12, 135–149. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.779097

44.

Peterson

K. M.

Smith

D. A.

(2010). An actor–partner interdependence model of spousal criticism and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 555–562. doi:10.1037/a0020115

45.

Probst

J. C.

Samuels

M. E.

Jespersen

K. P.

Willer

Swann

R. S.

McDuffie

J. A.

(2002). Minorities in rural America: An overview of population characteristics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

46.

Renshaw

K. D.

(2008). The predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of perceived criticism. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 521–534.

47.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

(2010). Making daddies into fathers: Community-based fatherhood programs and the construction of masculinities for low-income African American men. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 139–154.

48.

Schumacher

J. A.

Leonard

K. E.

(2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28–37.

49.

Shulman

Connolly

(2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27–39. doi:10.1177/2167696812467330

50.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790–811.

51.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

52.

Sweeney

M. M.

Phillips

J. A.

(2004). Understanding racial differences in marital disruption: Recent trends and explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 639–650.

53.

Towner

S. L.

Dolcini

M. M.

Harper

G. W.

(2015). Romantic relationship dynamics of urban African American adolescents: Patterns of monogamy, commitment, and trust. Youth & Society, 47, 343–373. doi:10.1177/0044118X12462591

54.

Umberson

Williams

Thomas

P. A.

Liu

Thomeer

M. B.

(2014). Race, gender, and chains of disadvantage: Childhood adversity, social relationships, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55, 20–38. doi:10.1177/0022146514521426

55.

Wekerle

Wolfe

D. A.

(1998). The role of child maltreatment and attachment style in adolescent relationship violence. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 571–586.

56.

Whitehead

T. L.

(1997). Urban low-income African American men, HIV/AIDS, and gender identity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 11, 411–447.

57.

Wilcox

W. B.

(2010). When marriage disappears: The retreat from marriage in Middle America. Retrieved from http://stateofourunions.org/2010/when-marriage-disappears.php.

58.

Wildsmith

Manlove

Steward-Streng

Cook

(2013). The dynamics in young adult romantic relationships: Important for success in love—and in life. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-37DynamicsYoungAdultRomanticRelationships.pdf.

59.

Windle

Kogan

S. M.

Lee

Chen

Y.-F.

Lei

K. M.

Brody

G. H.

(2016). Neighborhood × Serotonin Transporter Linked Polymorphic Region (5-HTTLPR) interactions for substance use from ages 10 to 24 years using a harmonized data set of African American children. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 415–431. doi:10.1017/S095457941500053X