In the current study, we provided initial evidence for the factor structure and validity of the Brief Measure of Relationship Importance, a new measure of young adults’ beliefs about the values and costs of being in romantic relationships. Based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, this measure consisted of two subscales: relationship desire (two items; viewing relationships as important and satisfying parts of one’s life) and relationship dismissal (four items; viewing relationships as less desirable or valuable for one’s life). Relationship desire and dismissal scores were associated with participants’ happiness with their romantic experiences, relationship satisfaction, having experienced relationship cycling, marriage intentions, and general interest in being in a romantic relationship. Therefore, we concluded that the Brief Measure of Relationship Importance provides a reliable and valid assessment of young adults’ romantic relationship attitudes. We discuss how our measure can be used in future research on young adults’ romantic relationship development.
AmatoP. R.DeBoerD. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage?Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1038-1051. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01038.x
2.
AndersonL. R. (2016). First marriage rate in the U.S., 2014. Family Profiles. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research.
3.
ArnettJ. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BarrA. B.SimonsR. L. (2017). Marital beliefs among African American emerging adults: The roles of community context, family background, and relationship experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 352-382. doi:10.1177/0912513x16644640
5.
BeckmeyerJ. J.ComwellS. (2019). Romantic relationship status and emerging adult well-being: Accounting for romantic relationship interest. Emerging Adulthood, 7, 304-308. doi:10.1177/2167696818772653
6.
BlakemoreJ.LawtonC. A.VartanianL. R. (2005). I can’t wait to get married: Gender differences in drive to marry. Sex Roles, 53, 327-335. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6756-1
7.
BoisvertS.PoulinF. (2016). Romantic relationship patterns from adolescence to emerging adulthood: Associations with family and peer experiences in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 945-958. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0435-0
8.
CarrollJ. S.BadgerS.WilloughbyB. J.NelsonL. J.MadsenS. D.McNamara BarryC. (2009). Ready or not? Criteria for marriage readiness among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 349-375. doi:10.1177/0743558409334253
9.
CarrollJ. S.WilloughbyB.BadgerS.NelsonL. J.McNamara BarryC.MadsenS. D. (2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 219-247. doi:10.1177/0743558407299697
10.
CherlinA. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage Books
11.
ClaxtonS. E.van DulmenM. H. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138-150. doi:10.1177/2167696813487181
12.
CobbN. P.LarsonJ. H.WatsonW. L. (2003). Development of the attitudes about romance and mate selection scale. Family Relations, 52, 222-231. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00222.x
13.
CollinsA.van DulmenM. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood: Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In ArnettJ. J.TannerJ. L. (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 219-234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1-9.
15.
CrisseyS. R. (2005). Race/ethnic differences in the marital expectations of adolescents: The role of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 697-709. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00163.x
16.
EidelsonR. J.EpsteinN. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.5.715
17.
FinchamF. D.RoggeR. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 227-242. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x
18.
FletcherG. J.KininmonthL. A. (1992). Measuring relationship beliefs: An individual differences scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 371-397. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90066-D
19.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
20.
FurmanW.CollibeeC. (2014). A matter of timing: Developmental theories of romantic involvement and psychosocial adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1149-1160. doi:10.1017/s0954579414000182
21.
GiordanoP. C.ManningW. D.LongmoreM. A.FlaniganC. M. (2012). Developmental shifts in the character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. In BoothA.BrownS. L.LandaleN. S.ManningW. D.McHaleS. M. (Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 133-164). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
GuzzoK. B. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 179-205. doi:10.1177/0192513X08323694
23.
GuzzoK. B. (2014). Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement among never-married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 826-842. doi:10.1111/jomf.12123
24.
HallS. S. (2006). Marital meaning: Exploring young adults’ belief systems about marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1437-1458. doi:10.1177/0192513X06290036
25.
Halpern-MeekinS.ManningW. D.GiordanoP. C.LongmoreM. A. (2013). Relationship churning in emerging adulthood: On/off relationships and sex with an ex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 166-188. doi:10.1177/0743558412464524
26.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
27.
JamisonT. B.GanongL. (2011). “We’re not living together”: Stayover relationships among college-educated emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 536-557. doi:10.1177/0265407510384897
28.
JamisonT. B.ProulxC. M. (2013). Stayovers in emerging adulthood: Who stays over and why?Personal Relationships, 20, 155-169. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01407.x
29.
KefalasM. J.FurstenbergF. F.CarrP. J.NapolitanoL. (2011). “Marriage is more than being together”: The meaning of marriage for young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 845-875. doi:10.1177/0192513x10397277
30.
LamidiE.ManningW. D. (2016). FP-16-17 Marriage and cohabitation experiences among young adults. National Center for Family and Marriage Research Family Profiles, 60. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ncfmr_family_profiles/60/
31.
LaRossaR.ReitzesD. C. (1993). Symbolic Interactionism and family studies. In BossP. G.DohertyW. J.LaRossaR.SchummW. R.SteinmetzS. K. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-166). New York, NY: Plenum.
32.
LeB.AgnewC. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035
33.
MaccobyE. E. (1998). The two sexes. Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.
34.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
35.
NoronaJ. C.OlmsteadS. B.WelshD. P. (2017). Breaking up in emerging adulthood: A developmental perspective of relationship dissolution. Emerging Adulthood, 5, 116-127. doi:10.1177/2167696816658585
36.
RauerA. J.PettitG. S.LansfordJ. E.BatesJ. E.DodgeK. A. (2013). Romantic relationship patterns in young adulthood and their developmental antecedents. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2159-2171. doi:10.1037/a0031845
37.
RobersonP. N.NoronaJ. C.FishJ. N.OlmsteadS. B.FinchamF. (2017). Do differences matter? A typology of emerging adult romantic relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 334-355. doi:10.1177/0265407516661589
38.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.
39.
Seiffge-KrenkeI. (2011). Coping with relationship stressors: A decade in review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 196-210. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00723.x
40.
ShulmanS.ConnollyJ. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27-39. doi:10.1177/2167696812467330
41.
ShulmanS.ScharfM.LivneY.BarrT. (2013). Patterns of romantic involvement among emerging adults: Psychosocial correlates and precursors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 460-467. doi:10.1177/0165025413491371
42.
SprecherS.MettsS. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 834-851. doi:10.1177/0265407599166009
43.
WilloughbyB. J.HallS. S. (2015). Enthusiasts, delayers, and the ambiguous middle: Marital paradigms among emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 123-135. doi:10.1177/2167696814548478
44.
WilloughbyB. J.HallS. S.LuczakH. P. (2015). Marital paradigms: A conceptual framework for marital attitudes, values, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 188-211. doi:10.1177/0192513X13487677
45.
WilloughbyB. J.JamesS. L. (2017). The marriage paradox: Why emerging adults love marriage yet push it aside. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
