Content uploaded by Karin L. Brewster
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karin L. Brewster on May 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Annual Review of Sociology
Sexual and Romantic
Relationships in Young
Adulthood
Kathryn Harker Tillman,1Karin L. Brewster,1
and Giuseppina Valle Holway2
1Department of Sociology and Center for Demography and Population Health, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA; email: ktillman@fsu.edu, brewster@admin.fsu.edu
2Department of History, Sociology, Geography, and Legal Studies, University of Tampa, Tampa,
Florida 33606, USA; email: gholway@ut.edu
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019. 45:7.1–7.21
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
soc.annualreviews.org
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-
022625
Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
Keywords
marriage, cohabitation, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual identity, sexual
activity
Abstract
Sociological research has long recognized the important role that intimate
relationships play in young people’s lives. In recent decades, relationship
formation patterns and relationship trajectories during the early years of
adulthood have become increasingly diverse and complex. In recognition of
this, we review contemporary research on sexual and romantic relationships
among young adults in the United States, noting how relationship attitudes,
expectations, and experiences have changed in response to broader social and
economic developments and how they vary by gender,socioeconomic status,
race/ethnicity, and sexual identity. Data and methodological limitations are
also considered. We conclude by identifying promising directions for future
sociological research and data collection efforts.
.
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Intimate
relationship:
voluntary
interpersonal
interaction of either a
sexual or a romantic
nature, which may or
may not be ongoing
Young adulthood: the
late teens to the early
thirties, the point by
which most individuals
have achieved
independence and
started families
INTRODUCTION
“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage,” a phrase found within
a children’s playground rhyme familiar to most individuals who came of age in the United States
during the second half of the twentieth century, clearly and simply describes what was then the
ideal sequencing of events for young adult relationships. While not always practiced, prevailing
social norms held that sexual intimacy should occur after establishing a committed, heterosexual
marital relationship; that children provided evidence of a good marriage; and that marital rela-
tionships should last until the death of a partner.Together with other major life events—including
the completion of education, entry into the paid labor force (at least for men), and departure from
the parental home—the formation of an intimate relationship that culminated in marriage and
parenthood dened a critical marker along the pathway to twentieth-century adulthood (Billari
& Liefbroer 2010, Shanahan 2000).
The conceptualization of marriage and parenthood as critical signiers of adulthood has been
a hallmark of the life-course lens through which social demographers and family sociologists have
long viewed the sexual and romantic relationships of young adults. This conceptualization is evi-
dent in early work on the transition from adolescence to adulthood (e.g., Winsborough 1978), as
is concern for the possibly negative social and economic consequences of marriage or parenthood
prior to school completion or career entry (Card & Wise 1978, Hogan 1978,Marini 1984). Thus,
early research was concerned with not only particular types of intimate relationships (i.e., those
leading to marriage and parenthood) but also the sequencing of marriage and parenthood relative
to other key events (e.g., the completion of schooling).
Recent research has documented the changing nature of young people’s pathways to adult-
hood, reecting social and economic transformations that have rendered the love, marriage, and
baby carriage ideal unattainable or undesirable for many.Reecting the exigencies of an advanced
economy,the process of becoming an adult now takes longer and has grown less scripted and more
individualistic (Furstenberg et al. 2005, Waters et al. 2012). Although marriage and parenthood
still gure in the plans of most young Americans (Settersten 2012), they occur at older ages, on
average, and often only after the formation and dissolution of other intimate relationships. Indeed,
the number, types, timing, and sequencing of young adults’ intimate relationships have become,
like the life-course itself, less scripted and more varied (Arnett 2015, Cherlin 2010, Furstenberg
2010, George 1993, Rindfuss 1991).
Our focus in this review is the growing variability in intimate (i.e., sexual and romantic) rela-
tionships. We begin by clarifying young adulthood as a life stage and then move on to discussing
the social and economic shifts that have fundamentally altered this period of the life-course, al-
lowing for the development of a diverse array of relationship types and changes in sexual behavior.
We then summarize current patterns and recent trends in young adults’ intimate relationships in
the United States, noting the increasing attention paid to gender, sexual identity, race/ethnicity,
and socioeconomic diversity in relationship experiences, attitudes, and expectations. Next, we dis-
cuss important methodological limitations in the study of relationships during young adulthood,
as well as recent improvements in data collection and measurement. We conclude by identifying
promising directions for future sociological research.
WHAT IS YOUNG ADULTHOOD?
Social scientists have largely dened adulthood in terms of what Settersten (2012, p. 172) has de-
scribed as the Big Five life events: leaving home, school completion, employment, marriage, and
parenthood. In the post–World War II era, the typical individual met these markers—i.e., tran-
sitioned to adulthood—by age 25 (Sironi & Furstenberg 2012). In combination with legal age
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
norms (e.g., 18 and 21 in the United States), this informed a consensus that young adulthood
spanned the period from late adolescence to the mid-twenties. As the time needed to attain the
traditional markers of adulthood has increased, the upper boundary of young adulthood has be-
come more variable, with no clear consensus about the age at which this period ends or whether
that age might vary across social backgrounds or demographic groups (Arnett 2016, Furstenberg
2016, Rindfuss 1991, Silva 2016). At the same time, young people have increasingly linked the
notion of adulthood to nancial independence and decoupled it from family formation (Kefalas
& Carr 2012), and more individuals are remaining unmarried and childless (Rybínska & Morgan
2018, Wang & Parker 2014). Cognizant of the lack of consensus in this area of study, we dene
young adulthood broadly as encompassing the late teens to the early thirties, the point by which
most individuals expect to have achieved nancial independence and started families of their own
(Settersten 2012), and the age by which they have lived slightly more than one-third of the average
American’s expected life span (Natl. Cent. Health Stat. 2018).
CHANGING CONTEXT OF YOUNG ADULTS’ RELATIONSHIPS
In the mid-twentieth century, most people left home to marry and have children as soon as they
had the economic resources to do so (Billari & Liefbroer 2010, Furstenberg et al. 2005, Rindfuss
1991, Shanahan 2000). About 95% of women married (Glick 1977), and between 1947 and 1967,
the median age at rst marriage was low and stable, averaging just 20.3 years for women and
22.9 years for men (US Census Bur. 2017). Parenthood typically followed within two to three
years (Hum. Fertil. Database 2017). This nearly lockstep movement out of the parental home,
into marriage, and then into parenthood reected the increasingly standardized sequencing and
compressed timing of the transition into adult roles that occurred as social and economic modern-
ization increased opportunities for young adults’ economic independence (Hogan 1981, Modell
& Goodman 1990, Shanahan 2000).
Concurrently, modernization also freed individuals from some of the traditional constraints
of family and community, allowing individuals greater latitude for self-determination, including
decisions about marriage (D’Emilio & Freedman 1997, Giddens 1991). In particular, the amount
of time young adults spent beyond the supervision of parents increased, giving them more oppor-
tunity to engage in relationships of their own choosing. Therefore, although the normative tran-
sition to adulthood became more standardized, evidence also points to the growing occurrence
of extreme nonnormative ordering of major life-course events, such as nonmarital parenthood or
entering marriage before school completion (e.g., Hogan 1981).
Over the last quarter of the twentieth century, the highly scripted transition to adulthood
gave way and the traditional markers of young adulthood became decoupled (Waters et al. 2012,
p. 2). In marked contrast to the “early, contracted and simple” transition of the mid-twentieth cen-
tury,the currently prevailing pattern has been described as “late, protracted and complex” (Billari
& Liefbroer 2010, p. 60). Arnett (2015) has argued that this change has been sufciently large,
uniform, and impactful to constitute a new developmental stage of life—emerging adulthood—
characterized by self-discovery, excitement, and freedom, a proposal that has prompted ongoing
discussion within the life-course literature (e.g., Arnett 2016; Cherlin 2010; Furstenberg 2016;
Furstenberg et al. 2005; Silva 2013, 2016).
Whether young adulthood constitutes a new developmental stage or an extended transition,
one of its current hallmarks is the time to explore different types of intimate relationships. As
we discuss below, the past several decades have seen a growing array of relationship types, more
movement into and out of relationships, increasing prevalence of sexual engagement outside
of committed relationships, and rising variability in the sequencing of sexual engagement and
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
relationship formation. The roots of this increasing variability in relationship experiences lie in
long-term social and economic trends that have substantially altered young adulthood. Some of
the most frequently noted of these trends include the emergence of expressive individualism as a
powerful cultural ideology and the shifting economic roles and opportunities available to young
people.
Culture of Individualism
Recent decades have seen a remarkable liberalization of Americans’ attitudes toward once-
proscribed behaviors, including nonmarital sex and childbearing, cohabitation,and same-sex rela-
tionships, as well as a growing belief that marriage and parenthood are voluntary rather than oblig-
atory (Thornton & Young-DeMarco 2001, Twenge et al. 2015). Implicit in this liberalization is
the cultural endorsement of individualism, which emphasizes autonomy,freedom, and tolerance of
differences, and its derivate, expressive individualism, which emphasizes the pursuit of emotional
satisfaction and the expression of personal desires and feelings (Bellah et al. 1985, Cherlin 2010).
The ethos of individualism has become more rmly rooted in American culture in recent
decades, reecting, in part, demographic processes and technological innovation. Rising longevity
and lower fertility have reduced the pressure on young people to settle into adult roles quickly,
leaving more time to focus on self-development and personal happiness (Cherlin 2010, Klinenberg
2012). Urbanization and geographic mobility have brought more people into diverse metropolitan
areas and reduced familial and community oversight, thereby allowing individuals greater freedom
and more exposure to a variety of ideas and lifestyles (Cherlin 2010, Klinenberg 2012, Rosenfeld
2007). The internet and social media also have increased exposure to diverse lifestyles and the
ability of young people to meet and connect with potential partners in relative privacy (Christakis
& Fowler 2009, Klinenberg 2012, Rosenfeld & Thomas 2012).
Broad cultural acceptance of individualism has been both evident in and encouraged by several
US Supreme Court decisions that have institutionalized individual autonomy in sexual and re-
productive matters (e.g., Hafen 1991, Smolin 1992). The earliest of these decisions were Griswold
v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), which identied a constitutional right to pri-
vacy and guaranteed women the power to make decisions about contraception. Roe v. Wade (1973)
extended privacy rights to the decision to terminate a pregnancy, essentially removing the legal
barriers to heterosexual sex without reproduction (Robertson 1983). More recently, Obergefell v.
Hodges (2015) recognized personal choice in marriage partners as “inherent in the concept of in-
dividual autonomy.”
In concert with the growing emphasis on autonomy,Americans’ increasing embrace of expres-
sive individualism has encouraged a normative shift away from conformism and toward the pursuit
of self-fulllment (Giddens 1991, Lesthaeghe 1998). Most Americans now believe that committed
relationships should provide individuals with personal meaning, growth, and happiness (Cherlin
2010). This shift leaves relationship choices contingent on the continued personal benets experi-
enced by those involved, and some observers have suggested that social norms now almost require
the dissolution of unfullling or conicted intimate relationships (Cherlin 2010, Edin et al. 2004,
Klinenberg 2012). As Cherlin (2010, p. 31) writes in The Marriage-Go-Round, “a relationship that
no longer ts your needs is inauthentic and hollow. It limits the personal rewards that you, and
perhaps your partner, can achieve. In this event, a breakup is unfortunate, but you will, and must,
move on.”
Economic Change
A robust literature considers the implications of economic restructuring for trends in marriage
and the changing nature of family life. In the 1990s, this research identied industrial decline
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
and the resulting stagnation in male wages as key forces in the disappearance of the breadwinner-
homemaker model and the collapse of the gendered division of labor that supported it (e.g., Lichter
et al. 2002, Oppenheimer et al. 1997). More recent work focuses on the growing socioeconomic
divide in young adults’ family trajectories (e.g., Cherlin 2010, Lundberg et al. 2016), resulting
from an evolving knowledge economy (Powell & Snellman 2004). Rapid expansion of the nance
and high tech sectors, along with the offshoring of manufacturing and service jobs, has encouraged
a polarized labor market characterized by well-compensated jobs for well-educated, high-skilled
workers and stagnating wages and slack demand for mid- and low-skilled workers (Autor & Dorn
2013, Bernstein 2016). This new economy has inuenced young adults’ lives in three ways that
are particularly pertinent here.
First, the increasing wage premium attached to higher education (Khatiwada & Sum 2016)
has fueled increases in educational enrollment and attainment and lengthened the time required
to reach nancial independence. In the mid-twentieth century, fewer than half of persons aged
25–29 had completed high school, and just 10% held a college degree; by 2015, these numbers
stood at 91% and 36%, respectively (Ryan & Bauman 2016). Fewer than two-fths of under-
graduates complete their degrees in four years, however, and only 60% nish within six years of
initial enrollment (Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. 2017). Insofar as young adults prefer to defer family
formation until after degree completion, rising college enrollment rates are a key feature of the
contemporary context for relationship decisions.
Second, the expansion of credit in the 1990s and early 2000s has resulted in unprecedented
debt levels among young adults (Nau et al. 2015), with over one-third of all 24- to 28-year-olds
reporting a negative net worth (Houle 2014). Sources of indebtedness have shifted too, with unse-
cured consumer credit and educational loans displacing mortgages as the primary sources of young
adults’ debt (Houle 2014). Debt burden is associated with delayed exit from the parental home
and slower transition to family building (Addo 2014, Houle & Warner 2017, Min & Taylor 2018,
Nau et al. 2015), and its impact appears to be more pronounced among women and minorities
(Addo et al. 2016, Houle & Warner 2017).
Third, trends in women’s education, labor force participation, and wages suggest that the tran-
sition to a knowledge economy has contributed to growing gender equality in decisions about
partnership and parenthood (Bernstein 2016, Goldscheider et al. 2015). The nal quarter of the
twentieth century saw rising rates of female enrollment in higher education. Since 2000, young
women have led their male peers in college degree attainment, reversing a historical pattern of
male educational advantage, and this gender difference has grown within all racial/ethnic groups
since 2010 (Ryan & Bauman 2016). As the share of women with college degrees increased, the
longstanding gender difference in the relationship between economic prospects and marriage dis-
sipated (Sweeney 2002).
Marriage as an Aspirational Status and a Growing Array
of Intimate Relationships
Young adults value marriage and most report marriage aspirations (Cherlin 2010, Edin & Kefalas
2005, Edin & Nelson 2013, Settersten 2012, Thornton & Young-DeMarco 2001), but the
meaning of marriage has evolved. Although it once was viewed as a partnership and a pathway to
economic stability, marriage now functions as a capstone of young adulthood, a sign that the two
individuals have successfully achieved other adult markers already (Kefalas & Carr 2012, Watson
& McLanahan 2011). Indeed, most Americans view nancial independence as a prerequisite for
marriage (Cherlin 2010), but rising rates of college enrollment and indebtedness mean that fewer
individuals are nancially ready for marriage before their mid- to late twenties (Arnett 2016,
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Cherlin 2010). In this context, the average age at rst marriage has increased steadily, reaching
29.5 years for men and 27.4 years for women in 2017 (US Census Bur. 2017), and the share of
married adults has decreased (Lundberg et al. 2016, Manning et al. 2015b).
These changes in marriage, motivated largely by shifts in the economy, have provided an op-
portunity for greater diversity in young adult intimate relationships. The rising rate of college
enrollment means that a greater share of young adults have lived outside of a familial home and
beyond parental supervision; by implication, more young adults have experienced freedom to ex-
plore sexual and romantic relationships (Klinenberg 2012, Rosenfeld 2007). At the same time,
a changing cultural context, particularly the growing embrace of individual self-fulllment, has
encouraged individuals’ propensity to explore relationship alternatives. These forces, along with
the availability of birth control, have set the stage for an increased prevalence of nonmarital sex-
ual experience, both within and outside of romantic relationships (Furstenberg 2010, Rosenfeld
2007), and nontraditional partnerships, including cohabiting, same-sex, and interracial relation-
ships (D’Emilio & Freedman 1997, Jang & Snyder 2015, Rosenfeld 2007).
In short, the increased array of relationships does not signal a rejection of marriage or commit-
ted unions. Instead, these changes are products of a changing social and economic context. The
rise of a knowledge-based economy has made it more difcult for young adults, particularly for
those in the working and lower classes, to obtain the nancial independence most see as necessary
for marriage. Simultaneously, the evolution of cultural individualism has impressed upon young
people the grave importance of being as personally fullled and happy as possible in both their
own accomplishments and their intimate relationships.
CURRENT PATTERNS AND RECENT TRENDS
Relationship Attitudes and Expectations
Although the social importance of marriage has declined over the last 50 years (Twenge et al.
2012), about two-thirds of unmarried 18- to 29-year-olds report that they want to marry in the
future (Pew Res. Cent. 2010). Marriage aspirations remain relatively strong across all racial/ethnic
groups and social classes (Edin & Kefalas 2005, Edin & Nelson 2013, Manning et al. 2015b), but
the age at which most people desire to marry has increased over time to an ideal of the mid- to
late twenties (Allison & Risman 2017, Thornton & Young-DeMarco 2001), and expectations that
marriage will actually occur vary by gender, race/ethnicity, and social class. Growing evidence
indicates that individuals from socially and nancially disadvantaged groups have tempered their
marriage expectations ( James-Kangal et al. 2018, Manning et al. 2015b).
Accompanying these changes in marriage attitudes, Americans are becoming more permissive
in their attitudes toward nonmarital sexual relationships, same-sex sexual activity, and casual sex.
Twenge and colleagues (2015) report that the percentage of Americans aged 18–29 agreeing that
premarital (heterosexual) sex is “not at all wrong” increased from 47% in the early 1970s to 62%
in the 2010s, while the share expressing this opinion for same-sex relationships rose from 21% to
56%. The recent development of apps such as Grindr in 2009, Tinder in 2012, and CasualX in
2017 highlights the acceptance of a decoupling of sex from emotional commitment, particularly
among young adults (Hamilton & Armstrong 2009, James-Kangal et al. 2018, Lyons et al. 2014).
Interestingly, polling data suggest that attitudes toward nonmonogamy are more negative now
than in the past (Twenge et al. 2015), although a recent study suggests that cheating is subject to
more negative judgment than mutually consensual nonmonogamous relationships (Grunt-Mejer
& Campbell 2016).
While attitudes have shifted signicantly across generations, the degree of change has varied
across groups. Men experienced greater attitude liberalization across cohorts and typically report
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
greater acceptance of premarital sex and casual sex than do women (Hamilton & Armstrong 2009,
Lyons et al. 2014, Twenge et al. 2015). In contrast, women report more acceptance of same-sex
activity. Racial/ethnic and class differences exist as well, with Black and less-educated Americans
experiencing less change in attitudes across generations and, by the 2010s, less permissive attitudes
in general (Twenge et al. 2015).
Acceptance of cohabiting relationships also has increased. Only a little over one-third of Amer-
ican adults now believe that it is “very important” for partners to marry if they want to spend their
lives together (Wang & Parker 2014), and 44% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree that “marriage is be-
coming obsolete” (Pew Res. Cent. 2010). In the same vein, most young people (∼60%) expect to
cohabit during early adulthood, although this expectation is more likely among White than Black
women (Manning et al. 2015b). Young adults do not appear to believe that having a baby together
is sufcient motivation to marry a cohabiting partner, and they tend to be supportive of cohabita-
tion in the presence of children from prior relationships (Edin et al. 2004, Sassler & Cunningham
2008, Sassler et al. 2009).
These general attitudes about cohabitation may reect a rise in tolerance that is associated with
growing individualism and a practical recognition that marriage is an increasingly difcult mile-
stone to attain, particularly for more economically disadvantaged groups. At the same time, young
women of all class backgrounds hold personal expectations for marriage that are higher than their
expectations for cohabitation, and cohabitation continues to be viewed by most Americans of all
racial/ethnic groups and social classes as less desirable than marriage for a long-term commitment
or childbearing (Manning et al. 2015b).
Instead, individuals may view cohabitation as a means to determine compatibility or as a cost-
savings measure to help the couple establish a solid economic foundation prior to marriage (Edin
et al. 2004, Sassler & Miller 2017, Smock et al. 2005). Surveys of high school seniors show that
support for cohabitation as a testing ground for marriage increased from 40% in the mid-1970s to
71% by 2016 (Anderson 2016). Among young adults, expectations to cohabit as part of a marriage
process are also high, with about two-thirds of single young women who expect to marry also
reporting that they anticipate cohabiting prior to marriage (Manning et al. 2015b). Among those in
rst cohabitations, nearly half report that they planned to marry at the time they moved in together
(Guzzo 2009), although this may be more common among those with greater socioeconomic
resources and those who are older at the time of their rst coresidential relationship (Sassler &
Miller 2017).
Young adults also believe that cohabitation offers benets even when marriage is not imminent
or expected. Cohabitation allows couples to combine economic resources, giving them access to
better-quality housing and reducing food and other costs (Edin et al. 2004, Sassler 2004). Practi-
cal concerns are particularly salient among working class or low-income individuals and among
single parents (Edin et al. 2004, Jamison 2018, Sassler & Miller 2011). Cohabitation also allows
for greater time together and easier access to emotional support than does dating, without the
long-term commitment that might interfere with other goals, making cohabitation an acceptable
temporary alternative to being single (Sassler & Miller 2017).
Sexual Engagement and Relationships
Despite recent shifts in attitudes toward sexual engagement, the average age at rst vaginal in-
tercourse, the traditional marker of transition to sexual activity, has remained stable for several
decades at about 17 years for both women and men (Nat. Cent. Health Stat. 2017). The current
average age at rst marriage, however, is more than one decade older (US Census Bur. 2017), a
massive shift from the mid-twentieth century, when most people either married before engaging
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Hookup: casual sexual
encounter taking place
outside of a romantic
relationship, which
may range from
kissing to anal and
vaginal intercourse
in intercourse or married within only a year or two of sexual initiation. This extended period in
an unmarried state has increased opportunities for sexual exploration.
Evidence suggests that the normative period during which sexual transitions take place is quite
compressed. Using data from the 2011–2015 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to ex-
amine respondents under the age of 30, we nd that fewer than 15% report having had vaginal
intercourse by age 15, but 90% report having done so by age 23. Heterosexual oral and anal sex
experience is also strongly age-graded. Fewer than one-quarter of 15-year-olds report oral sexual
experience, but over four-fths of 23-year-olds do; similarly, fewer than 3% of 15-year-olds report
anal sex experience, rising to over one-third at age 23. By age 29, fewer than 2% of respondents
had not experienced vaginal intercourse, the vast majority (∼90%) had engaged in oral sex with an
opposite-sex partner, and a substantial minority (∼42%) reported heterosexual anal intercourse
(K.L. Brewster, unpublished data). Research ndings suggest that the likelihood of engagement in
heterosexual oral or anal sex is lower among the foreign-born, racial/ethnic minorities, and those
from families of lower socioeconomic status (Brewster & Tillman 2008, Holway & Hernandez
2018, Lindberg et al. 2008).
The NSFG data also allow us, for the rst time, to examine initiation into same-sex sexual ac-
tivity in a nationally representative sample. Roughly 4% of men and 16% of women have engaged
in sexual activity with a same-sex partner,and rst same-sex experience tends to occur several years
later than rst heterosexual experience (Brewster et al. 2019). Men with same-sex experience tend
to identify as gay or bisexual, and most have never engaged in vaginal intercourse. Among women,
however, prior coital experience is associated with an increased likelihood of same-sex experience
(Brewster et al. 2019, McCabe et al. 2011), and roughly 11% of all heterosexual-identifying women
report having had a same-sex partner (Brewster et al. 2019).
Despite high levels of sexual activity during the early adult years, sexual inactivity in the early
twenties has increased across recent generations. Compared to members of earlier cohorts, in-
dividuals born in the 1990s more often report having no “sex” partners between ages 18 and 24
(Twenge et al. 2017). This trend may be rooted in the heightened focus on schooling or training,
leading some young adults to eschew intimate relationships that could derail personal or profes-
sional plans. Alternatively, individualism, which has helped to increase the acceptance of sexual
activity among the unmarried, also may have emboldened individuals to resist social pressures
to engage in sexual activity that they do not truly desire (Twenge et al. 2017). At the same time,
increasing use of online pornography, entertainment, and communication technologies may re-
duce young people’s desire for or ability to condently negotiate the face-to-face interactions
necessary for physical-world relationships (Clark 1998, Goldsmith et al. 2017, Young-Petersen &
Willoughby 2017). Finally, higher rates of sexual inactivity might reect recent increases in the
proportion of young adults who continue to live with parents (Allison 2016, South & Lei 2015,
Twenge et al. 2017).
A growing literature considers the relationship context of sexual behavior, motivated in part
by concern that casual sexual encounters, or hookups (Paul et al. 2000), have replaced traditional
dating practices, as individuals have grown less willing or too busy to invest in relationships (e.g.,
Allison & Risman 2017, Hamilton & Armstrong 2009, Lyons et al. 2014). Most young adults have
had at least one hookup with an opposite-sex partner (Fincham 2012; Manning et al. 2006, 2005),
although respondents’ ideas about what constitutes a hookup can range from extended kissing
sessions to anal and vaginal intercourse (Armstrong et al. 2012). Estimates from two national data
sources provide clearer insight into the prevalence of casual sex: About one-quarter of young
women and two-fths of young men report that their rst vaginal intercourse occurred within the
context of a casual encounter (Manlove et al. 2012, Martinez et al. 2011).
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Living-apart-
together (LAT)
relationship:
long-term romantic
relationship between
partners who do not
coreside
Stayover (SO)
relationship:
romantic relationship
composed of partners
who regularly stay
over or spend nights
together, despite
having separate places
of residence
Living-together-
apart (LTA)
relationship:
relationship composed
of ex-partners, often
bound by shared
children, who continue
to coreside
Have casual sexual encounters become “a primary form of intimate heterosexual interaction”
for young adults (Hamilton & Armstrong 2009, p. 590)? An analysis using data from multiple
waves of the General Social Survey and focusing on 18- to 25-year-old respondents with a year or
more of college suggests not: Although sexually active respondents interviewed from 2004 through
2012 more often reported sex with a casual date/one-night stand than did those interviewed from
1988 through 1996 (45% versus 35%, respectively), they also more frequently reported sex with
a close friend (71% versus 56%) (Monto & Carey 2014). Moreover, most of the sexually active
individuals in both cohorts reported being married or in a stable relationship (78% and 85%,
respectively).
Despite the perception that college provides an environment that encourages self-exploration
and sexual freedom, hookups are less common among college students, who are more likely than
their nonstudent peers to remain sexually inactive (Raley 2012). This nding may reect a greater
willingness among college students to postpone sexual activity until the completion of personal
education and career goals, which may appear more easily within reach for them than for their
working-class peers. It also may reect nancial constraints that have led an increasing percent-
age of college students to reside with their parents (Allison 2016). Those without the nancial
resources and social freedom required for socializing and partying may be left outside the hookup
scene, as might those whose racial and class backgrounds mark them as less desirable partners
at predominantly White universities. These factors may help to explain the lower prevalence of
casual sexual encounters among working-class and racial/ethnic-minority college students, par-
ticularly Asians and Black and Hispanic women (Allison & Risman 2017).
Together, the ndings suggest that young adults are increasingly willing to shape relationships
to their own needs. As a result, the array of intimate relationships in which young Americans
engage has diversied and relationship boundaries have grown more ambiguous and difcult to
measure (Surra et al. 2007). Sexual intimacy can and does occur without expectation of emotional
intimacy or commitment, but casual sexual encounters also may evolve into more committed re-
lationships, as suggested by Fincham’s (2012) nding that 20% of steady relationships in a col-
lege sample started as “friends with benets.” Indeed, researchers struggle to distinguish between
hookups and friends with benets, as well as between serious dating and living-apart-together
(LAT) relationships that include couples who have a long-term commitment to one another but
who do not share a residence (Levin 2004, Strohm et al. 2009).
Similarly, many young people also now engage in part-time cohabitation or stayover (SO) re-
lationships that provide a step between dating and cohabitation (Arnett 2015, Jamison & Ganong
2011, Knab & McLanahan 2007, Pollard & Harris 2007). The rise in these relationships, com-
bined with the tendency for many people to gradually slide into cohabitation through a process of
increasingly frequent stayovers (Sassler 2004), complicates efforts to estimate cohabitation’s preva-
lence or pinpoint the beginning of many cohabiting relationships (Knab & McLanahan 2007,
Manning & Smock 2005, Pollard & Harris 2007). Adding to the difculty are living-together-
apart (LTA) relationships comprising ex-partners, often bound by shared children, who continue
to live in the same household due to economic need (Cross-Barnet et al. 2011). Individuals of-
ten transition multiple times between these various nonmarital relationships, engaging in a form
of serial monogamy that can include both semicommitted and more formal unions (Willoughby
et al. 2015).
Cohabiting and Marital Unions
An estimated three-quarters of women have at least one cohabiting relationship by age 30
(Lamidi & Manning 2016), but the likelihood of any particular cohabitation remaining intact or
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
transitioning to marriage has declined over the past two decades (Guzzo 2014b). Marriage has
declined as well: Only 26% of 18- to 32-year-olds were married in 2013, compared to 48% in
1980 (Pew Res. Cent. 2014). Never-married young adults often explain their unmarried status as
the result of being too young or not ready for marriage and having low levels of economic security
(Wang & Parker 2014). Indeed, research shows that employment, wages, housing affordability,
and home ownership are all positively associated with marriage (Gurrentz 2018, Ishizuka 2018).
Most young adults today place a high level of importance on nding a future spouse with a steady
job (Wang & Parker 2014), and recent data suggest that women’s economic security now matters
just as much as men’s for marriage (Gurrentz 2018). Projections suggest that one-quarter of
25- to 34-year-olds in 2010 will never marry, a group disproportionately comprising individuals
without a college degree (Wang & Parker 2014).
Women not attending college were once more likely than their college-going peers to marry
in their twenties, but this is no longer the case (Lamidi & Manning 2016). Now, women, like
men, are more likely to marry when they have a college degree (Lundberg et al. 2016, Raley et al.
2015). In fact, rst marriage rates of college-educated women are over twice as high as those of
their high school–educated peers (Payne 2018). Combined with evidence regarding the effects of
women’s employment and income on marriage (Cohen & Pepin 2018, White & Rogers 2000),
these ndings suggest that women’s increasing economic independence has not encouraged the
broad cross-cohort decline in overall rst marriage rates. Rather, rising female education likely
has kept marriage rates from falling even farther (Schneider et al. 2018).
Compared to their less-educated peers, college-educated adults tend to delay entry into their
rst coresidential union (Sassler & Miller 2017) and may be more likely to engage in SO or LAT
relationships during young adulthood (Arnett 2015). College-educated adults are more likely than
those without college degrees to marry without cohabiting rst (Copen et al. 2013); those who
do cohabit are more likely to begin cohabiting with plans to marry (Sassler & Miller 2017) and
to make the transition from cohabitation to marriage (Copen et al. 2013, Kuo & Raley 2016,
Sassler & Miller 2017). They are also less likely to divorce or separate (Wang 2015). Thus, young
adults appear to be experiencing diverging relationship destinies, with those who have low or
only moderate levels of education more likely to experience multiple transitions in and out of
coresidential relationships (Sassler & Miller 2017).
Recent relationship research has focused heavily on growing inequality by education, but re-
lationship processes also vary by race/ethnicity and nativity status. Although space precludes a
full consideration of the relevant research, we summarize broad patterns. Asians and Whites have
higher marriage rates than do Blacks and Hispanics, and Asians and Blacks marry at later ages
(Brown et al. 2008, Payne 2018, Raley et al. 2015, Wang & Parker 2014). In fact, most Black
women and men remain unmarried throughout their entire young adulthood (Valle & Tillman
2014). Three-year transition rates from cohabitation to marriage are higher for White and non-
native Hispanic women (44% and 42%, respectively) than for Black and US-born Hispanic women
(31% for each) (Copen et al. 2013). Overall, Asians are less likely to be in cohabiting relationships,
but among Asian women cohabitation rates rise sharply with immigrant generation (Brown et al.
2008, Willoughby et al. 2015). In fact, among third-generation women, Asians are more likely to
cohabit than White, Black, or Hispanic women. Asian men, on the other hand, are less likely to
cohabit than their male peers across generations (Brown et al. 2008) and are among the least likely
to form an intimate union of any kind (Balistreri et al. 2015, Brown et al. 2008).
Much of the research attempting to explain racial/ethnic differences in relationship patterns
pertains to Black–White differences. These differences often are attributed to a shortage of
men who are considered marriageable within the Black population (e.g., Edin & Kefalas 2005,
Oppenheimer et al. 1997), a factor that reects Black men’s disproportionately high incarceration
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
rates and low life expectancies, as well as higher rates of unemployment and lower incomes
compared to White and Hispanic men (Natl. Cent. Health Stat. 2018, Sentencing Proj. 2018,
US Bur. Labor Stat. 2018). By 2012, the ratio of employed, never-married young Black men to
never-married young Black women was about 50:100, compared to 90:100 several decades before
(Wang & Parker 2014). This sex ratio imbalance reduces the odds of Black women nding an
acceptable Black male partner.
Given social norms that men should have at least as much education as a female partner and
provide at least an equitable share of household income (Cherlin 2010), the 50:100 gure likely un-
derestimates the extent of Black women’s structural disadvantages. The ratio of men’s to women’s
earnings is much lower among Blacks than Whites (US Bur. Labor Stat. 2017), and young Black
women obtain higher levels of education than young Black men (Ryan & Bauman 2016). More-
over, many women are hesitant to marry someone with a criminal record, regardless of current
employment status, wages, or education (Browning & Miller 2000). Some scholars speculate that
the increasingly limited pool of marriageable partners has pushed many young Black women to
more strongly prioritize self-sufciency and self-development, perhaps reinforcing long-standing
cultural values within the Black community that emphasize female independence and ties between
female family members (Cherlin 2010, Klinenberg 2012).
College-educated Black men are more likely than their less-educated counterparts to enter
both cohabiting and marital unions and to exit cohabiting unions via marriage (Oppenheimer
2003). These ndings provide clear support for the marriageable man hypothesis; nevertheless, the
lower marriage rates of young college-educated Black men relative to their White peers suggest
that a more nuanced explanation is needed. Well-educated Black men may be slower to achieve
the nancial stability needed for marriage, as they typically are less able to translate their educa-
tion into stable, well-paying jobs; are more likely to shoulder student-related debt; and have less
accumulated wealth (Addo et al. 2016, Pew Res. Cent. 2016, Schneider 2011). Furthermore, highly
educated Black men also may nd themselves in professional and social settings with few poten-
tial partners of the same race. Although Black men are roughly twice as likely to marry outside of
their race as Black women, most will not. Together, these trends appear to be placing many Black
young adults on a trajectory toward long-term singlehood (Klinenberg 2012) and less permanent
coresidential relationships.
Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in relationship patterns in young adulthood have
downstream implications, in part because of their association with childbearing. Regardless of race,
women without college degrees report less access to contraceptive use, have higher rates of unin-
tended pregnancy,and less frequently marry or cohabit following an unplanned pregnancy (Sassler
& Miller 2017). Qualitative studies suggest that less-educated women frequently view children as
a meaningful addition to their lives, even if they are not nancially and emotionally ready for mar-
riage or a committed partnership (Edin & Kefalas 2005, Sassler & Miller 2017). As a result, over
half of births to 18- to 39-year-old women without college experience are nonmarital (68% for
women with less than high school experience and 58% for women with only high school/GED
experience), and only a slight majority of those occur within a cohabiting union; just 11% of births
to women with a college degree or more are nonmarital, and 73% of those occur within cohabita-
tion (Manning et al. 2015a). Reecting both racial/ethnic differences in marriage rates and these
educational differentials in childbearing, three-quarters of all births to Black women and 60%
of births to Hispanic women are nonmarital, compared to only 29% of births to White women
(Manning et al. 2015a). Nonmarital births are associated with lower marriage rates and marriage
quality (Graefe & Lichter 2008) and increased likelihood of multiple-partner fertility and the
formation of complex cross-household family relationships (Guzzo 2014a). Thus, comparatively
disadvantaged individuals less frequently experience stable, long-term, coresidential relationships
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
LGBT: acronym for
individuals who
identify as lesbian, gay
men, bisexual, or
transgender
in young adulthood and they are more likely to develop the kinds of complex family ties associated
with less stable relationship trajectories throughout the life-course.
Nontraditional Partnerships
The growing diversity in relationship types has been accompanied by the increasing preva-
lence of so-called nontraditional pairings, including interracial/interethnic and same-sex couples
(Rosenfeld 2007). Between 1970 and 2010, interracial/interethnic marriages grew from 1% to 8%
of all marriages, and by 2010, at least 15% of newly married couples were interracial/interethnic
(Passel et al. 2010, Pew Res. Cent. 2012). Most of these couples were either White-Hispanic (40%)
or White-Asian (15%), and about 11% were White-Black pairings (Passel et al. 2010). Reliable
statistics on nonmarital interracial/interethnic relationships are scarce, but research suggests that
cohabitation and dating are more common than marriage (Levin et al. 2007, Tillman et al. 2018).
Studies based on college samples nd that about 20% of students have engaged in a cross-group
romantic relationship, with such relationships more common among Asian and Hispanic students,
particularly those who are native-born and whose families have been in the United States longer
(Levin et al. 2007, Tillman et al. 2018). Black young adults are much less likely to report interra-
cial nonmarital relationships, particularly with Whites (e.g., Lee & Bean 2010, Levin et al. 2007),
even when they nd themselves within predominantly White social settings such as universities
(Tillman et al. 2018). Racial exclusion preferences on the part of Whites, Asians, and Hispanics
(Robnett & Feliciano 2011), as well as lower levels of support for interracial dating among Blacks,
particularly Black women (Field et al. 2013), appear to underlie this pattern of Black exception-
alism (Lee & Bean 2010). Black Americans remain clearly set apart from others with access to a
more limited pool of potential intimate partners, despite general trends toward more racial/ethnic
boundary crossing.
Although research has begun documenting patterns of sexual engagement among sexual mi-
norities, we still know little about the prevalence of same-sex relationships or trends in the rela-
tionship behavior of LGBT individuals. Same-sex cohabitation and marriage were not measured
directly in most nationally representative data sets until fairly recently (Brown & Manning 2011),
and although the rst state to recognize same-sex marriage did so in 2004, it has been legally recog-
nized across the entire United States only since 2015. During the period in which legalization was
occurring, however, the US Census tracked a signicant rise in same-sex married couple house-
holds. Between 2009 and 2016, the number of reported male-male and female-female marriages
increased by 255% and 193%, respectively, and approximately 55% of all same-sex coresidential
couples were listed as married by 2016 (US Census Bur. 2016). At the same time, Gallup Poll
results in 2017 showed that LGBT adults aged 18–29 remained less likely than the general popu-
lation to be married, with only 3.3% in a same-sex marriage and 6.2% in an opposite-sex marriage
( Jones 2017).
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Research on young adults’ intimate relationships is well-developed and thriving, yet challenges to
further development remain. As noted above, operationalizing the diverse array of young adults’
relationship experiences has posed one difculty for researchers; other issues pertain to data col-
lection and methodological quandaries. We note some key challenges here, as well as some recent
improvements in approaches to data collection and measurement, and discuss some promising
directions for future work.
One challenge to better understanding relationship trajectories is that we lack the data
necessary for understanding the formation of relationship attitudes and expectations or for
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
disentangling the linkages among attitudes, expectations, and behaviors. Although the roots of
attitudes and expectations likely lie in childhood experiences, researchers cannot ask children
about their sexual attitudes and adult relationship expectations. We generally obtain information
from respondents who are already old enough to have had some intimate relationship experience
that informs their attitudes and expectations. To understand better the complex interplay between
beliefs and behaviors as individuals move into and through the young adult period, we need
more longitudinal research that collects information at multiple points in time, ideally starting at
younger ages than is now the case.
A second challenge is the growing diversity of the population, growth that is concentrated
among children, teens, and young adults. Adequate representation of many population subgroups
in the survey-based data sets used in much relationship research is lacking. As a result, we know
much more about the intimate relationship expectations and behaviors of some groups than oth-
ers. Studies have focused disproportionately on women, and many data sets fail to collect adequate
information about sexual identity, so we know relatively little about the intimate relationship at-
titudes, expectations, and experiences of men or sexual minorities. We also know little about the
motivations underlying young people’s engagement in sexual behavior that appears to be at odds
with their expressed sexual identity, as is the case for a substantial percentage of contemporary
women (Brewster et al. 2019, McCabe et al. 2011). Similarly, we know of no nationally repre-
sentative data that allow for an examination of potential Asian subgroup differences in intimate
relationship behaviors, and we are limited in our ability to examine country of origin and nativity
differences within the larger Hispanic population (with the exception of Mexican Americans) or
subgroup differences among individuals who identify as multiracial or multiethnic. This is partic-
ularly problematic given that Asians, Hispanics, and multiracial/multiethnic individuals make up
the most quickly growing segments of our population (Krogstad 2017). Techniques for surveilling
small and hard-to-identify populations (e.g., Magnani et al. 2005, Marpsat & Razandratsima
2010) would allow for samples of underrepresented groups that are adequate to documenting and
explaining their relationship trends and patterns.
Most studies on union formation also gather information from only one partner, and research
suggests that partners do not always view the status of their relationship similarly (e.g., Knab &
McLanahan 2007). As yet, we know little about whether consistency between partners’ subjective
views of their relationship matters for relationship outcomes or individual well-being. Although
dyadic data collection efforts can be quite costly and time consuming, future research on relation-
ships should strive to collect information from both members of a partnership.
Another major challenge for scholars lies in how we dene (or fail to dene) and measure inti-
mate relationships. Surveys collecting data on sexual activity have focused predominantly on het-
erosexual experiences, and many are vague in their wording, assuming that all respondents share
a similar understanding of terms like “sex” and “sexual activity.” Research suggests, however, that
young people may be more likely than older generations to interpret these terms to include non-
penetrative and nonheterosexual activities and that substantial variation in interpretation exists
(e.g., Twenge et al. 2017). Even generation-specic terms (e.g., hooking up) are subject to inter-
pretation (Armstrong et al. 2012). Some major data collection efforts in recent years (e.g., NSFG,
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health) have made signicant advances in
terms of collecting detailed information about engagement in specic, well-dened types of sex-
ual activities (i.e., vaginal sex, oral sex, and anal sex) with both opposite- and same-sex partners,
but the lack of clearly dened terms remains problematic, especially when it comes to measuring
women’s same-sex sexual encounters (Brewster et al. 2019, McCabe et al. 2011).
In terms of coresidential relationships, we have seen major improvements in how the US
Census and other large-scale surveys ask questions about both opposite- and same-sex partners
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
(Brown & Manning 2011). Yet, the rising prevalence of more transitory and ambiguous rela-
tionships, such as SO and LTA relationships, may make it increasingly difcult for respondents
to determine if and when they began and stopped living with an intimate partner (Knab &
McLanahan 2007, Pollard & Harris 2007). Additionally, studies conducted in the United States
generally make no distinction between informal marriages and cohabitation. This may be partic-
ularly important for understanding racial/ethnic and nativity differences in union formation and
dissolution; Landale’s (1994) observation that Puerto Ricans have a strong cultural history of en-
gaging in consensual unions, which differ in function and meaning from cohabitation in broader
US culture, provides a pertinent example. The meaning of living together without (formal) mar-
riage may change as individuals assimilate to US cultural norms, yet current empirical data do not
allow for an adequate examination of this issue (Brown et al. 2008). Additional qualitative research
that examines young adults’ own interpretations of their coresidential relationships, in terms of
both subjective meaning and purpose, would help researchers to develop better ways to dene and
measure them.
Another denitional challenge for researchers specically interested in interracial/interethnic
relationships is that young people today do not appear to share one common understanding of
the terms “race,” “ethnicity,” and “interracial.” As a result, the particular method of data collection
and the wording of questions used to gather information on respondents and their partners may
strongly inuence what we know about the prevalence of interracial/interethnic relationships, par-
ticularly those that include Hispanic and Asian individuals (Tillman et al. 2018), as well as what
we know about interracial/interethnic relationship outcomes. These factors also may strongly in-
uence how young adults respond to questions about their attitudes toward and expectations for
engaging in these unions. Future research should pay closer attention to these issues.
Finally, it is important for future work to focus on the rising share of the young adult pop-
ulation that appears to be, at least temporarily, disengaging from intimate relationships, either
by remaining sexually inactive altogether or by participating in commitment-free hookups. How
might disengagement from intimate relationships in early adulthood inuence relationship and
family formation trajectories as individuals move into their thirties and beyond? Is sexual inactiv-
ity associated with strategic life planning or with exclusion from important skill-building social
interactions with peers, and does it make later relationship engagement easier or more difcult?
How might engagement in serial hookups inuence relationships with future partners, and what
might be the ramications for the quality and stability of relationships that are formed following
a casual sexual encounter? While some scholars have found evidence that relationship quality is
associated with prior casual sex (Paik 2010, Willoughby et al. 2014), we know of no nationally
representative studies to date that have addressed these important questions.
CONCLUSION
Social and economic developments over the last several decades have yielded signicant changes in
young adults’ relationship trajectories and family formation behaviors. The relinquishment of the
sequential “love, marriage, and baby carriage” convention among many young Americans today
has allowed for greater exploration of sexual and romantic relationships, with signicant variation
among socioeconomic and demographic groups. At the same time, the diversity in and complex-
ity of these experiences pose challenges for scholars working to understand relationships among
young people. New measures and methods characterizing young adult intimate relationships must
be developed, and data collection efforts must focus on populations who have long been under-
represented in this area of research. Such advancements are needed to understand more fully how
sexual and romantic relationships inuence individuals’ well-being throughout the life-course.
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful
comments.
LITERATURE CITED
Addo FR. 2014. Debt, cohabitation, and marriage in young adulthood. Demography 51:1667–701
Addo FR, Houle JN, Simon D. 2016. Young, black, and (still) in the red: parental wealth, race, and student
loan debt. Race Soc. Probl. 8:64–76
Allison R. 2016. Family inuences on hooking up and dating among emerging adults. Sex. Cult. 20:446–
63
Allison R, Risman BJ. 2017. Marriage delay, time to play? Marital horizons and hooking up in college. Sociol.
Inq. 87(3):472–500
Anderson LR. 2016. High school seniors’ attitudes on cohabitation as a testing ground for marriage. Rep. FP-16-13,
Natl. Cent. Fam. Marriage Res., Bowling Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH. https://www.bgsu.
edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-proles/anderson-hs-seniors-attitudes-cohab-test-marriage-
fp-16-13.html
Armstrong EA, England P, Fogarty AC.2012. Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college
hookups and relationships. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:435–62
Arnett JJ. 2015. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens Through the Twenties. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
Arnett JJ. 2016. Does emerging adulthood theory apply across social classes? National data on a persistent
question. Emerg. Adulthood 4(4):227–35
Autor DH, Dorn D. 2013. The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market.
Am. Econ. Rev. 103(5):1553–97
Balistreri KS, Joyner K, Kao G. 2015. Relationship involvement among young adults: Are Asian American
men an exceptional case? Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 34(5):709–32
Bellah RN, Madsen R, Sullivan WM, Swidler A, Tipton SM. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Com-
mitment in American Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Bernstein J. 2016. Wages in the United States: trends, explanations, and solutions. In The Dynamics of Oppor-
tunity in America: Evidence and Perspectives, ed. I Kirsch, H Braun, pp. 167–96. New York: Springer
Billari FC, Liefbroer AC.2010. Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Adv. Life Course Res. 15:59–
75
Brewster KL, Tillman KH. 2008. Who’s doing it? Patterns and predictors of youths’ oral sexual experiences.
J. Adolesc. Health 42(1):73–80
Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Holway GV. 2019. First sexual experience with a same-sex partner in the United
States: evidence from a national sample. In Same-Sex Unions, Health, and Well-Being, ed. H Liu, C Reczek,
L Wilkinson. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. In press
Brown SL, Manning WD. 2011. Counting couples, counting families. Rep., Natl. Cent. Fam. Marriage Res.,
Bowling Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/news/ncfmr-events/
research-conferences/counting-couples-counting-families.html
Brown SL, Van Hook J, Glick JE. 2008. Generational differences in cohabitation and marriage in the U.S.
Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 27:531–50
Browning S, Miller RR. 2000. Ain’t it a crime: Black women’s perceptions of intimacy with Black men involved
in crime. In With This Ring: Divorce, Intimacy, and Cohabitation from a Multicultural Perspective,ed.RR
Miller, SL Browning, pp. 173–84. Greenwich, CT: JAI
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Card JJ, Wise LL.1978. Teenage mothers and teenage fathers: the impact of early childbearing on the parents’
personal and professional lives. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 10(4):199–205
Cherlin AJ. 2010. The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. New York:
Vintage Books
Christakis NA, Fowler JH. 2009. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape
Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown
Clark LS. 1998. Dating on the net: teens and the rise of “pure” relationships. In Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting
Computer-Mediated Community and Technology, ed. S Jones, pp. 159–83. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cohen PN, Pepin JR. 2018. Unequal marriage markets: sex ratios and rst marriage among black and white
women. Socius. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118791084
Copen CE, Daniels K, Mosher WD. 2013. First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006–2010 National
Survey of Family Growth. Natl. Health Stat. Rep. 64, US Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Cent. Dis. Control
Prev., Washington, DC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr064.pdf
Cross-Barnet C, Cherlin AJ, Burton L. 2011. Bound by children: intermittent cohabitation and living together
apart. Fam. Relat. 60:633–47
D’Emilio J, Freedman EB. 1997. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 2nd ed.
Edin K, Kefalas MJ. 2005. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Edin K, Kefalas MJ, Reed JM. 2004. A peek inside the black box: what marriage means for poor unmarried
parents. J. Marriage Fam. 66:1007–14
Edin K, Nelson TJ. 2013. Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Field CJ, Kimuna SR, Straus MA. 2013. Attitudes toward interracial relationships among college students:
race, class, gender, and perceptions of parental views. J. Black Stud. 44(7):741–76
Fincham FD. 2012. Challenges in charting the course of romantic relationships in adolescence and emerging
adulthood. In Early Adulthood in a Family Context, ed. A Booth, SL Brown, NS Landale, WD Manning,
SM McHale, pp. 165–72. New York: Springer
Furstenberg FF. 2010. On a new schedule: transitions to adulthood and family change. Future Child. 20(1):67–
87
Furstenberg FF.2016. Social class and development in early adulthood: some unsettled issues. Emerg. Adulthood
4(4):236–38
Furstenberg FF, Rumbaut RG, Settersten RA. 2005. On the frontier of adulthood: emerging themes and
new directions. In On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research and Public Policy, ed. RA Settersten, FF
Furstenberg, RG Rumbaut, pp. 3–25. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
George LK. 1993. Sociological perspectives on life transitions. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:353–73
Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press
Glick RC. 1977. Updating the life cycle of the family. J. Marriage Fam. 93:5–13
Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappegard T. 2015. The gender revolution: a framework for understanding
changing family and demographic behavior. Popul. Dev. Rev. 41(2):207–39
Goldsmith K, Dunkley CR, Dang SS. 2017. Pornography consumption and its association with sexual concerns
and expectations among young men and women. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 26(2):151–62
Graefe DR, Lichter DT. 2008. Marriage among unwed mothers: before and after PRWORA. J. Policy Anal.
Manag. 27(3):479–97
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Grunt-Mejer K, Campbell C. 2016. Around consensual non-monogamies: assessing attitudes toward nonex-
clusive relationships. J. Sex Res. 53(1):45–53
Gurrentz B. 2018. Millennial marriage: How much does economic security matter to marriage rates for young adults?
SEHSD Work. Pap. 2018-09, US Census Bur., Washington, DC. https://www.census.gov/content/
dam/Census/library/working-papers/2018/demo/SEHSD-WP-2018-09.pdf
Guzzo KB. 2009. Marital intentions and the stability of rst cohabitations. J. Fam. Issues 30:179–205
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Guzzo KB. 2014a. New partner, more kids: multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Ann. Am. Acad.
Political Soc. Sci. 654(1):66–86
Guzzo KB. 2014b. Trends in cohabitation outcomes: compositional changes and engagement among never-
married young adults. J. Marriage Fam. 76(4):826–42
Hafen BC. 1991. Individualism and autonomy in family law: the waning of belonging. BYU Law Rev.1:1–42
Hamilton L, Armstrong EA. 2009. Gendered sexuality in adulthood: double binds and awed options. Gend.
Soc. 23(5):589–616
Hogan DP. 1978. The variable order of events in the life course. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:573–86
Hogan DP. 1981. Transitions and Social Change: The Early Lives of American Men. New York: Academic
Holway GV, Hernandez S. 2018.Oral sex and condom use in a U.S. national sample of adolescents and young
adults. J. Adolesc. Health 62(4):402–10
Houle JN. 2014. A generation indebted: young adult debt across three cohorts. Soc. Probl. 61(3):448–65
Houle JN, Warner C. 2017. Into the red and back to the nest? Student debt, college completion, and return
to the parental home among young adults. Sociol. Educ. 90:89–108
Hum. Fertil. Database. 2017. United States of America: period summary indicators. Hum. Fertil. Database,
updated Aug. 2018. http://www.humanfertility.org/cgi-bin/country.php?country=USA&update=
20171006
Ishizuka P. 2018. The economic foundations of cohabiting couples’ union transitions. Demography 55:535–57
James-Kangal N, Weitbrecht EM, Franics TE, Whitton SW. 2018. Hooking up and emerging adults’ rela-
tionship attitudes and expectations. Sex. Cult. 22(3):706–23
Jamison TB. 2018. Cohabitation transitions among low-income parents: a qualitative investigation of eco-
nomic and relational motivations. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 39(1):73–87
Jamison TB, Ganong L. 2011. “We’re not living together:” stayover relationships among college-educated
emerging adults. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 28(4):536–57
Jang BJ, Snyder AR. 2015. Moving and union formation in the transition to adulthood in the United States.
Adv. Life Course Res. 23:44–55
Jones JM. 2017. In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT adults now married to same-sex spouse. Gallup, June 22. https://
news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx
Kefalas MJ, Carr PJ. 2012. Conclusion. In Coming of Age in America: The Transition to Adulthood in the Twenty-
First Century, ed. MC Waters, PJ Carr, MJ Kefalas, J Holdaway, pp. 191–204. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Khatiwada I, Sum AM. 2016. The widening socioeconomic divergence in the U.S. labor market. In The Dy-
namics of Opportunity in America: Evidence and Perspectives, ed. I Kirsch, H Braun, pp. 197–254. New York:
Springer
Klinenberg E. 2012. Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. New York: Penguin
Press
Knab JT, McLanahan S. 2007. Measuring cohabitation: Does how, when, and who you ask matter? In Handbook
of Measurement Issues in Family Research, ed. SL Hofferth, LM Casper, pp. 19–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Krogstad JM. 2017. U.S. Hispanic population growth has leveled off. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington,
DC. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/03/u-s-hispanic-population-growth-has-
leveled-off/
Kuo JC, Raley RK. 2016. Diverging patterns of union transition among cohabitors by race/ethnicity and
education: trends and marital intentions in the United States. Demography 53(4):921–35
Lamidi E, Manning WD. 2016. Marriage and cohabitation experiences among young adults. Rep. FP-16-17,
Natl. Cent. Fam. Marriage Res., Bowling Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH. https://www.
bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-proles/lamidi-manning-marriage-cohabitation-young-
adults-fp-16-17.html
Landale NS. 1994. Migration and the Latino family: the union formation behavior of Puerto Rican women.
Demography 31:133–57
Lee J, Bean FD. 2010. The Diversity Paradox: Immigration and the Color Line in 21st Century America. New York:
Russell Sage Found.
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Lesthaeghe R. 1998. On theory development: applications to the study of family formation. Popul. Dev. Rev.
24(1):1–14
Levin I. 2004. Living apart together: a new family form. Curr. Sociol. 52(2):223–40
Levin S, Taylor PL, Caudle E. 2007. Interethnic and interracial dating in college: a longitudinal study. J. Soc.
Pers. Relatsh. 24(3):323–41
Lichter DT, McLaughlin DK, Ribar DC. 2002. Economic restructuring and the retreat from marriage. Soc.
Sci. Res. 31(2):230–56
Lindberg LD, Jones R, Santelli JS. 2008. Noncoital sexual activities among adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health
43:231–38
Lundberg S, Pollak RA, Stearns J. 2016. Family inequality: diverging patterns in marriage, cohabitation, and
childbearing. J. Econ. Perspect. 30(2):79–102
Lyons HA, Manning WD, Longmore MA, Giordano PC. 2014. Young adult casual sexual behavior: life-
course-specic motivations and consequences. Sociol. Perspect. 57(1):79–101
Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. 2005. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations
for HIV surveillance. AIDS 19:S67–72
Manlove J, Wildsmith E, Ikramullah E, Terry-Humen E, Schelar E. 2012. Family environments and the re-
lationship context of rst adolescent sex: correlates of rst sex in a casual versus steady relationship. Soc.
Sci. Res. 41(4):861–75
Manning WD, Brown SL, Stykes B. 2015a. Trends in births to single and cohabiting mothers, 1980–2013. Rep.
FP-15-03, Natl. Cent. Fam. Marriage Res., Bowling Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH. https://
www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-
15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdf
Manning WD, Giordano PC, Longmore MA. 2006. Hooking up: the relationship contexts of nonromantic
sex. J. Adolesc. Res. 21(5):459–83
Manning WD, Longmore MA, Giordano PC. 2005. Adolescents’ involvement in non-romantic sexual activity.
Soc. Sci. Res. 34:384–407
Manning WD, Smock PJ. 2005. Measuring and modeling cohabitation: new perspectives from qualitative data.
J. Marriage Fam. 67(4):989–1002
Manning WD, Smock PJ, Fettro MN. 2015b. Cohabitation and marriage expectations among single women
in the U.S. Work. Pap., Cent. Fam. Dem. Res., Bowling Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH.
https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/center-for-family-and-
demographic-research/documents/working-papers/2015/WP-2015-01-v2-Manning-
Cohabitation-and-Marriage-Expectations.pdf
Marini MM. 1984. Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood. Soc. Forces 63:229–44
Marpsat M, Razandratsima N. 2010. Survey methods for hard-to-reach populations: introduction to special
issue. Methodol. Innov. Online 5(2):3–16
Martinez G, Copen CE, Abma JC. 2011. Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity, contraceptive use,
and childbearing, 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat. 23(31):1–35. https://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf
McCabe J, Brewster KL, Tillman KH. 2011. Patterns and correlates of same-sex sexual activity among U.S.
teenagers and young adults. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 43(3):142–50
Min S, Taylor MG. 2018. Racial and ethnic variation in the relationship between student loan debt and the
transition to rst birth. Demography 55(1):165–88
Modell J, Goodman M. 1990. Historical perspectives. In At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent,ed.SS
Feldman, GR Elliot, pp. 93–122. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Monto MA, Carey AG. 2014. A new standard of sexual behavior? Are claims associated with the “hookup
culture” supported by General Social Survey data? J. Sex Res. 51:605–15
Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. 2017. Digest of education statistics, 2016. Rep., Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat., Washington, DC.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/
Natl. Cent. Health Stat. 2017. Sexual activity between males and females. Key Stat. Natl. Surv. Fam. Growth, Natl.
Cent. Health Stat., Cent. Dis. Control Prev., Washington, DC, updated Oct. 2017. https://www.cdc.
gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/s.htm#vaginalsexual
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Natl. Cent. Health Stat. 2018. Deaths: nal data for 2016. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 67(5), Natl. Cent. Health Stat.,
Cent. Dis. Control Prev., Washington, DC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_
05.pdf
Nau M, Dwyer RE, Hodson R. 2015. Can’t afford a baby? Debt and young Americans. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil.
42:114–22
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2071 (2015)
Oppenheimer VK. 2003. Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process.
Demography 40(1):127–49
Oppenheimer VK, Matthijs K, Nelson L. 1997. Men’s career development and marriage timing during a period
of rising inequality. Demography 34:311–30
Paik A. 2010. “Hookups,” dating and relationship quality: Does the type of sexual involvement matter? Soc.
Sci. Res. 39(5):739–53
Passel JS, Wang W, Taylor P. 2010. One-in-seven new U.S. marriages is interracial or interethnic: marrying
out. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/04/marrying-
out/
Paul EL, McManus B, Hayes A. 2000. “Hookups”: characteristics and correlates of college students’ sponta-
neous and anonymous sexual experiences. J. Sex Res. 37:76–88
Payne KK. 2018. First marriage rates in the U.S., 2016. Rep. FP-18-14, Natl. Cent. Fam. Marriage Res., Bowl-
ing Green State Univ., Bowling Green, OH. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-
proles/payne-rst-marriage-rate-fp-18-14.html
Pew Res. Cent. 2010. The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washing-
ton, DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-
families/
Pew Res. Cent. 2012. The rise of intermarriage. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.
pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/
Pew Res. Cent. 2014. Millennials in adulthood: detached from institutions, networked with friends. Rep., Pew Res.
Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/
Pew Res. Cent. 2016. On views of race and inequality, blacks and whites are worlds apart: About four-in-ten
blacks are doubtful that the U.S. will ever achieve racial equality. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington,
DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-
whites-are-worlds-apart/
Pollard MS, Harris KM. 2007. Measuring cohabitation in Add Health. In Handbook of Measurement Issues in
Family Research, ed. SL Hofferth, LM Casper, pp. 35–52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Powell WW, Snellman K. 2004. The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:199–220
Raley K. 2012. I just want your kiss? Sexual relationships in young adulthood. In Early Adulthood in a Fam-
ily Context, ed. A Booth, SL Brown, NS Landale, WD Manning, SM McHale, pp. 173–82. New York:
Springer
Raley K, Sweeney MM, Wondra D. 2015. The growing racial and ethnic divide in U.S. marriage patterns.
Future Child. 25(2):89–109
Rindfuss RR. 1991. The young adult years: diversity, structural change, and fertility. Demography 28(4):493–
512
Robertson JA. 1983.Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. Va. L a w R e v .
69(3):405–64
Robnett B, Feliciano C. 2011. Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Soc. Forces 89(3):807–28
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Rosenfeld MJ. 2007. The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions and the Changing American
Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ. 2012. Searching for a mate: the rise of the internet as a social intermediary. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 77(4):523–47
Ryan CL, Bauman K. 2016. Educational attainment in the United States: 2015. Rep. P20-578, US Census Bur.,
Washington, DC. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/
p20-578.pdf
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
Rybínska A, Morgan SP. 2018. Childlessness expectations and childlessness over the life course. Soc. Forces.In
press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy098
Sassler S. 2004. The process of entering into cohabiting unions. J. Marriage Fam. 66(2):491–505
Sassler S, Cunningham A. 2008. How cohabitors view childbearing. Sociol. Perspect. 51(1):3–28
Sassler S, Miller A. 2011. Class differences in cohabitation processes. Fam. Relat. 60(2):163–77
Sassler S, Miller A. 2017. Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships. Oakland: Univ.
Calif. Press
Sassler S, Miller A, Favinger SM. 2009. Planned parenthood? Fertility intentions and experiences among
cohabiting couples. J. Fam. Issues 30(2):206–32
Schneider D. 2011. Wealth and the marital divide. Am.J.Sociol.117:627–67
Schneider D, Harknett K, Stimpson M. 2018. What explains the decline in rst marriage in the United States?
Evidence from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 1969 to 2013. J. Marriage Fam. 80:791–811
Sentencing Proj. 2018. Trends in U.S. corrections. Fact Sheet, Sentencing Proj., Washington, DC. https://
www.sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/
Settersten RA. 2012. Becoming adult: meanings and markers for young Americans. In Coming of Age in America:
The Transition to Adulthood in the Twenty-First Century, ed. MC Waters, PJ Carr, MJ Kefalas, J Holdaway,
pp. 167–90. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Shanahan MJ. 2000. Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: variability and mechanisms in life course
perspective. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:667–92
Silva JM. 2013. Coming Up Short: Working Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty.NewYork:OxfordUniv.
Press
Silva JM. 2016. High hopes and hidden inequalities: how social class shapes pathways to adulthood. Emerg.
Adulthood 4(4):239–41
Sironi M, Furstenberg FF. 2012. Trends in the economic independence of young adults in the United States:
1973–2007. Popul. Dev. Rev. 38(4):609–30
Smock PJ, Manning WD, Porter M. 2005. Everything’s there except money: how money shapes decisions to
marry among cohabitors. J. Marriage Fam. 67(3):680–96
Smolin DM. 1992. The jurisprudence of privacy in a splintered Supreme Court. Marquette Univ. Law Rev.
75:975–1066
South SJ, Lei L. 2015. Failures-to-launch and boomerang kids: contemporary determinants of leaving and
returning to the parental home. Soc. Forces 94(2):863–90
Strohm CQ, Seltzer JA, Cochran SD, Mays VM. 2009. “Living apart together” relationships in the United
States. Demogr. Res. 21(7):177–214
Surra CA, Boettcher-Burke TM, Cottle NR, West AR, Gray CR. 2007. The treatment of relationship status
in research on dating and mate selection. J. Marriage Fam. 69(1):207–21
Sweeney MM. 2002. Two decades of family change: the shifting economic foundations of marriage. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 67:132–47
Thornton A, Young-DeMarco L. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United
States: the 1960s through the 1990s. J. Marriage Fam. 63:1009–37
Tillman KH, Miller B, Otte S. 2018. Who dates interracially and which couples count? An examination of romantically
involved college students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America,
Denver, CO
Twenge J, Campbell KW, Freeman EC. 2012. Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern
for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102(5):1045–62
Twenge J, Sherman R, Wells B. 2015. Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012.
Arch. Sex. Behav. 44(8):2273–85
Twenge J, Sherman R, Wells B. 2017. Sexual inactivity during young adulthood is more common among U.S.
millennials and iGen: age, period, and cohort effects on having no sexual partners after age 18.Arch. Sex.
Behav. 46:433–40
US Bur. Labor Stat. 2017. Table 37. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by selected char-
acteristics.Curr. Popul. Surv., US Bur. Labor Stat., US Dep. Labor, Washington, DC. http://www.bls.
gov/cps/cpsaat37.pdf
. Tillman •Brewster •Holway
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
SO45CH07_Tillman ARjats.cls March 25, 2019 13:41
US Bur. Labor Stat. 2018. Table E16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
Curr. Popul. Surv., US Bur. Labor Stat., US Dep. Labor, Washington, DC. https://www.bls.gov/web/
empsit/cpsee_e16.htm
US Census Bur. 2016. Characteristics of same-sex couple households: 2005 to present. Database, US Census Bur.,
Washington, DC. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/same-sex-couples/ssc-
house-characteristics.html
US Census Bur. 2017. Table MS-2. Estimated median age at rst marriage, by sex: 1890 to the present. Historical
Marital Status Tables, US Census Bur., Washington, DC. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-
series/demo/families/marital.html
Valle G, Tillman KH. 2014. Childhood family structure and romantic relationships during the transition to
adulthood. J. Fam. Issues 35(1):97–121
Wang W. 2015. The link between a college education and a lasting marriage. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington,
DC. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
Wang W, Parker KC. 2014. Record share of Americans have never married: as values, economics and gender patterns
change. Rep., Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-
share-of-americans-have-never-married/
Waters MC, Carr PJ, Kefalas MJ. 2012. Introduction. In Coming of Age in America: The Transition to Adulthood
in the Twenty-First Century, ed. MC Waters, PJ Carr, MJ Kefalas, J Holdaway, pp. 1–27. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Watson T, McLanahan S. 2011. Marriage meets the Joneses: relative income, identity, and marital status.
J. Hum. Resour. 46:482–517
White L, Rogers SJ. 2000. Economic circumstances and family outcomes: a review of the 1990s. J. Marriage
Fam. 62:1035–51
Willoughby BJ, Carroll JS, Busby DM. 2014. Differing relationship outcomes when sex happens before, on,
or after rst dates. J. Sex Res. 51(1):52–61
Willoughby BJ, Madsen B, Carroll JS, Busby DM. 2015. “Want to stay over?” Demographic, intrapersonal,
and relational differences among those who date, stay-over, and cohabit. Marriage Fam. Rev. 51:587–609
Winsborough HH. 1978. Statistical histories of the life cycle of birth cohorts: the transition from school-boy
to adult male. In Social Demography, ed. KE Taeuber, LL Bumpass, pp. 231–60. New York: Academic
Young-Petersen B, Willoughby BJ. 2017. The inuence of pornography on romantic relationships of emerging
adults. In Identity, Sexuality, and Relationships Among Emerging Adults in the Digital Age,ed.MFWright,
pp. 178–202. Hershey, PA: IGI Global
www.annualreviews.org •Relationships in Young Adulthood .
Review in Advance first posted on
April 2, 2019. (Changes may still
occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019.45. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 05/24/19. For personal use only.
