How do emerging adults negotiate Erikson’s first task of adult life (see Table 10.5)—intimacy, the search for love? Let’s first explore two major cultural shifts in the ways we choose mates before turning to our main topic: finding fulfilling love.

The following quotations perfectly introduce our first total transformation in how we search for enduring love:

Daolin Yang lives in Hebie Province, China. . . . At age 15, he married his wife Yufen, then 13. . . . A matchmaker proposed the marriage on behalf of the Yang family. They have been married for 62 years. . . . He says that they married first and dated later. It is “cold at the start and hot in the end.” The relationship gets better and better over the years.

(Xia & Zhou, 2003, p. 231)

312

I got married a month ago to the woman . . . I met on Match a year ago. I met my wife just a week after setting up my profile, and we have been together ever since . . . Thanks to the profiles, local singles matching, and easy chats, I found the girl of my dreams.

(Adapted from, Top 10 Best Dating Sites, 2014)

Many More Potential Partners

Throughout history, as I just illustrated in the first example, in many regions of the world, parents chose a child’s marital partner (often during puberty), and newlyweds hoped (if they were lucky) to later fall in love. Today, even in places like India, where, until recently, arranged marriages had been standard, many people accept freely choosing a mate (Gala & Kapadia, 2014, more about this topic in the next chapter).

Moreover, until very recently, romantic choices were confined to our own social network. People searched for their soul mates at parties, at school, or at synagogue. Often, they relied on family and friends to fix them up.

Today, with the explosion of on line dating, as we all know, the Internet has globalized the search for love. By the second decade of the twentieth century, an incredible 1 in 3 married couples in the United States had met on-line. Plus, new research suggests on-line marriages are more likely to be happy than those in which spouses meet in the old-style traditional way! (See Cacioppo and others, 2013.)

At the same time, since the 1960s lifestyle revolution, Western young people are far more willing to date outside of their own ethnic group. By the turn of the twenty-first century, 1 in 3 European Americans reported getting romantically involved with someone of a different ethnicity or race. More than one-half of all African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans had also made that claim (Yancey & Yancey, 2002).

Interest in dating and/or marrying outside one’s own ethnicity varies from person to person. In one survey of on-line daters, females—especially White women—were less open to contacting someone of another ethnic group than were men. As implied by the statistic above, minorities are more open to interethnic dating than are Whites. Interestingly, in this poll, there was special reluctance to getting romantically involved with African Americans, again if someone was female and White (Hwang, 2013).

Religious attitudes also make a difference. Contrary to popular opinion, one national U.S. poll found that having a strong religious faith might not matter. But if someone is White and accepts the bible as literal truth (and doesn’t attend a multiracial congregation), this person is apt to be more opposed to this widening of love choices (Perry, 2013).

Christians who believe biblical injunctions must be obeyed word for word are particularly aghast (no surprise!) at that other contemporary expansion in the landscape of love: same-sex romance.

Again, I think this research underlines the importance of being identity achieved in a positive way. Once you embrace your identity (or self), whether as a gay person or ethnic minority, there is a feeling of self-efficacy and relief. Problems arise if your other attachment figures cause you to dislike the person you “really” are, or when you languish untethered in moratorium for an extended time.

A More Erratic, Extended Dating Phase

Unfortunately, however, as I implied earlier in this chapter, romantic moratorium is built into Western society because the untethered dating phase of mate selection lasts so long (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). As the average age of marriage has shifted upward, people not only are delaying making serious love commitments, but younger emerging adults are even putting off getting romantically involved.

In tracking over 500 economically diverse young people from age 18 to 25, U.S. researchers found a fraction—about 1 in 4 respondents—did find an enduring, stable relationship soon after leaving their teens. Interestingly, the largest group—almost 1 in 3 people—fit into the low-involvement categories, having only sporadic relationships or no romantic involvement throughout those years (Rauer and others, 2013).

When emerging adults do find romance, they may have off-again on-again relationships. In another U.S. survey, nearly one-half of couples in their twenties who broke up, got back together again at some point. And, after ending the relationship, one-half continued to have sex with their ex (Halpern-Meekin and others, 2013).

This extended finding-love phase is related to the time it takes to construct a career (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). In Argentina, where young people have few enticing work identities, young people are passionate to find love in their early twenties (Facio & Resett, 2014). In Holland (Branje and others, 2014), the United States, and especially in Finland where there are many career options, people put relationships on the back burner until their mid-twenties when they are finished with school (Mayseless & Keren, 2014; Ranta, Dietrich, & Salmela-Aro, 2014). (“My first priority is to become a doctor or lawyer. I need to get my career in order before finding romance.”)

What happens when young people delay making love commitments? We might think that having casual sexual encounters is a risk-free way of spending these years. Unfortunately, data suggests otherwise. In tracking a national sample of U.S. emerging adults, people who reported one-night stands or friends-with-benefits encounters were at risk of having poorer mental health (Sandberg-Thoma & Kamp Dush, 2014). Friends-with-benefits relationships are less problematic for women than one-night stands. One-night stands have fewer mental health downsides for men than for the other sex (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). On the other hand, recall from page 305 that having a stable love relationship during the early twenties seems most critical to self-esteem for males!

At the risk of going out on a limb (your class can debate this point), I’m going to agree with Erikson that finding intimacy—meaning a significant other—is immensely helpful throughout the turbulent twenties. A high-quality love relationship helps buffer people from the ups and downs of this life stage and the ups and downs we face at every age. How can people achieve this goal?

315

Bernard Murstein’s now-classic stimulus-value-role theory (1999) views finding a satisfying love as a three-phase process. During the stimulus phase, we see a potential partner and make our first decision: “Could this be a good choice for me?” “Would this person want me?” Since we know nothing about the person, our judgment is based on superficial signs, such as looks or the way the individual dresses. In this assessment, we compare our own reinforcement value to the other person’s along a number of dimensions (Murstein, 1999): “True, I am not as good-looking, but she may find me desirable because I am better educated.” If the person seems of equal value, we decide to go on a date.

When we start actually dating, we enter the value-comparison phase. Here, our goal is to select the right person by matching up in terms of inner qualities and traits: “Does this person share my interests? Do we have the same values?” If this person seems “right,” we enter the role phase, in which we work out our shared lives.

So, at a party, Aaron scans the room and decides that Samantha with the tattoos and frumpy-looking Abigail are out of the question. If he is searching on Facebook or Cupid’s Arrow, he might be put off by Georgette, who looks too gorgeous or has posted photos of her glorious vacation at San Tropez. Aaron gravitates to Ashley, whose appearance and self-presentation suggests that she is more low maintenance, and maybe—like him—a bit shy. As Aaron and Ashley begin dating, he discovers that they are on the same wavelength. They enjoy the same movies; they both love the mountains; they have the same worldview. The romance could still end. On their third or tenth date, there may be a revelation that “this person is too different.” But, if things go smoothly, Aaron and Ashley begin planning their future. Should they move to California when they graduate? Will their wedding be small and intimate or big and expensive?

The “equal-reinforcement-value partner” part of Murstein’s theory explains why we expect couples to be similar in social status. We’re not surprised if the best-looking girl in high school dates the captain of the football team. When we find serious partner status mismatches, we search for reasons to explain these discrepancies (Murstein, Reif, & Syracuse-Siewert, 2002): “That handsome young lawyer must have low self-esteem to have settled for that unattractive older woman.” “Perhaps he chose that woman because she has millions in the bank.”

Most important, Murstein’s theory suggests that opposites do not attract. In love relationships, as in childhood and adolescent friendships, the driving force is homogamy (similarity). We want to find a soul mate, a person who matches us, not just in external status, but also in interests and attitudes about life.

The principle that homogamy promotes happiness (the eHarmony, Match, and Christian Mingle approaches to love) has scientific truth. Late-twentieth-century research consistently showed that sharing basic values promotes a happy married life (see Belsky, 1999 for review). Moreover, when people connect through their mutual passions (“I met my love on a theater blog”), they find an interesting side benefit. As you will see in the next chapter, sharing flow activities such as acting helps keep marital passion alive.

The Limits to Looking for a Similar Mate

But should couples be similar in every respect? When psychologists asked undergraduates to describe their ideal mate, in accordance with the homogamy principle, people selected someone with a similar personality. But, in actually examining happiness among long-married couples, these researchers discovered relationships worked best when one partner was more dominant and the other more submissive (Markey & Markey, 2007).

316

Logically, matching up two strong personalities should be unlikely to promote romantic bliss (people would probably fight). Two passive partners might frustrate each other. (“Why doesn’t my lover take the lead?”) Yes, in general, similarity is important. (Birds of a feather should flock together!) But, as in the other familiar saying, “opposites attract,” couples can mesh best when they have a few carefully selected opposing personality preferences and styles.

Moreover, suppose a given couple is very similar but in unpleasant traits, such as their tendency to fly off the handle or be pathologically shy. What really matters in happiness is not so much objective similarity (the eHarmony approach of matching people whose personality test scores agree), but believing that one’s significant other has terrific personality traits. People who see their partner as outgoing and emotionally stable (“He is a real people person, and open to new things”) have better relationships over time (Furler, Gomez, & Grob, 2013; Furler, Gomez, & Grob, 2014).

The bottom-line message is that finding a soul mate means something different than selecting a clone. We don’t want a reflection of our current real self. We want someone who embodies our “ideal self”—the person we would like to be. One study showed that when people believe their significant other embodies their best self (“I fell in love with him because he’s a wonderful actor, and that’s always been my goal”), they tend to grow emotionally as people, becoming more like their ideal. Idealizing a partner’s good qualities promotes more happiness over time (Rusbult and others, 2009).

Actually rather than “objectively” matching up, happy couples see their mates through rose-colored glasses (Murray & Holmes, 1997). They inflate their partner’s virtues (Murray and others, 2000). They overestimate the extent to which they and that person are alike in values and goals (Murray and others, 2002). So, science confirms George Bernard Shaw’s classic observation: “Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everyone else.”

The Limits to Charting Love in Stages

As soon as I met R, . . . he was just so kind and thoughtful and he was considerate. So we started talking on email and the phone and when I got back from the trip, and he came over a month after the cruise . . . I knew like right away . . . It was just like kind of a confirmation that, I don’t know, we were meant to be together.

(quoted in Mackinnon and others, 2011, p. 607)

This quotation implies that, by viewing mate selection in defined steps, Murstein is also missing the magical essence of real-world love. Couples may suddenly fall in love when they meet after months of emails. Or there may be an epiphany, at some point in your relationship, when you decide, “This person is the one.” As I mentioned earlier, couples often break up and then reconsider that decision and get back together again.

While turbulent relationships can spark passion, especially for men (that’s the thrill of the chase), one study found that married couples who recalled their courtship as accelerating in a positive direction were more likely to report being happy with their mates (Wilson & Huston, 2013). Happily married spouses, it turned out, recalled having similar levels of love as their relationship developed. They were on the same page about how their feelings progressed. Still, even though we should become surer of our love over time, any romance has some doubts and ups and downs.

To get insights into this ebb and flow, researchers asked couples who were seriously dating to graph their chances (from 0 to 100 percent) of marrying their partner (Surra & Hughes, 1997; Surra, Hughes, & Jacquet, 1999). They then had the young people return each month to chart changes in their commitment and asked them to describe the reasons for any dramatic relationship turning points, for better or worse.

317

You can see examples of these turning points in Table 10.7. Notice that relationships do often hinge on homogamy issues (“This person is really right for me”). Other causes may be turning points, too—from the input of family and friends (“I really like that person”) to social comparisons (“Our relationship seems better than theirs”) to the insight, “I’m too young to get involved.” Today, one milestone in the commitment journey is becoming “Facebook official” with your mate.

Although it makes romance (in Facebook terms) “complicated,” the on-line revolution is not apt to make or break a relationship. Studies tracking the real-world couples that I’ve been describing offer that crystal ball. To summarize: It helps to be similar in values to your partner and on the same page about your feelings of love; it’s a good sign if your relationship progresses without too much turmoil. It’s important to idealize your partner (“My mate is the greatest!”) and to find someone whose personal attributes you respect. This brings me to the importance of that final, critical personal attribute—Find someone who can reach out in love!

Think back to Chapter 4’s discussion of the different infant attachment styles. Remember that Mary Ainsworth (1973) found that securely attached babies run to Mom with hugs and kisses when she appears in the room. Avoidant infants act cold, aloof, and indifferent in the Strange Situation when the caregiver returns. Anxious-ambivalent babies are overly clingy, afraid to explore the toys, and angry and inconsolable when their caregiver arrives. Now, think of your own romantic relationships, or the love relationships of family members or friends. Wouldn’t these same attachment categories apply to adult romantic love? Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987) had the same insight: Let’s draw on Ainsworth’s dimensions to classify people into different adult attachment styles.

People with a preoccupied/ambivalent type of insecure attachment fall quickly and deeply in love (see the How Do We Know box). But, because they are engulfing and needy, they often end up being rejected or feeling chronically unfulfilled. Adults with an avoidant/dismissive form of insecure attachment are at the opposite end of the spectrum—withholding, aloof, reluctant to engage. You may have dated this kind of person, someone whose main mottos seem to be “stay independent,” “don’t share,” “avoid getting close” (Feeney, 1999).

319

Securely attached people are fully open to love. They give their partners space to differentiate, yet are firmly committed. Like Ainsworth’s secure infants, their faces light up when they talk about their partner. Their joy in their love shines through. Decades of studies exploring these different attachment styles show that insecurely attached adults have trouble with relationships. Securely attached people are more successful in the world of love.

320

Securely attached adults have happier marriages. They report more satisfying romances (Feeney, 1999; Mikulincer and others, 2002; Morgan & Shaver, 1999). Avoidant husbands are disengaged when their wives get upset (Barry & Lawrence, 2013). Perhaps because they are so frightened about being left, anxiously attached spouses are more apt to have affairs (Russell, Baker, & McNulty, 2013). Insecurely attached people get far more dissatisfied with their lovers over time (Hadden, Smith, & Webster, 2014). But, securely attached adults hang in during difficulties. They freely support their partner in times of need. Using the metaphor of mother–infant attachment, described in Chapter 4, people with secure attachments are wonderful dancers. They excel at being emotionally responsive and in tune.

Recall that Bowlby and Ainsworth believe that the dance of attachment between the caregiver and baby is the basis for feeling securely attached in infancy and for dancing well in other relationships in life. If you listen to friends anguishing about their relationship problems, you will hear similar ideas: “The reason I act clingy and jealous is that, during my childhood, I felt unloved.” “It’s hard for me to warm up and respond to kisses because my mom was rejecting and cold.” We already know that attachment styles can change throughout childhood and adolescence (see Chapter 4). In fact, a better predictor of being securely attached in your twenties is not your attachment status during infancy, but maintaining close friendships as a teen (Fraley and others, 2013; Pascuzzo, Cyr, & Moss, 2013). Once entering adulthood, how much can attachment styles change from year to year?

To answer this question, researchers measured the attachment styles of several hundred women at intervals over two years (Cozzarelli and others, 2003). They found that almost one-half of the women had changed categories over that time. So the good news is that we can change our attachment status from insecure to secure. And—as will come as no surprise to many readers—we can also move in the opposite direction, temporarily feeling insecurely attached after a terrible experience with love. The best way to understand attachment styles, then, is as somewhat enduring and consistent, arising, in part, from our recent experiences in love.

One reason attachment styles stay stable is that they may operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy. A preoccupied, clingy person does tend to be rejected repeatedly. An avoidant individual remains isolated because piercing that armored shell takes such a heroic effort. A secure, loving person gets more secure over time because his caring behavior evokes warm, loving responses (Davila & Kashy, 2009).

By now, you are probably impressed with the power of the attachment-styles perspective to predict real-world love. But alert readers might notice that these correlational findings have conceptual flaws: Let’s say, for instance, that a person labels his childhood as unhappy, is classified as having an insecure attachment style, and experiences relationship distress. It’s tempting to say that “poor parenting” caused this insecure worldview, which then produced the current problems; but couldn’t the causal chain go in the opposite way? “I’m not getting along with my partner, so I believe love can’t work out, and it must be my parents fault.” Or, couldn’t these self-reports be caused by a third force having nothing to do with attachment: being depressed. If you have a gloomy worldview, wouldn’t you see both your childhood and current relationship as dissatisfying, and also have an “avoidant” or “preoccupied” attachment style?

Still, as a framework for understanding people (and ourselves), the attachment styles perspective has great appeal. Who can’t relate to having had a lover (or friend or parent) with a “dismissing” or “preoccupied” attachment? Don’t the defining qualities of secure attachment give us a beautiful roadmap for how we personally should relate to the significant others in our lives? Attachment theory allows us to look at every love relationship through a fascinating new lens.

321

322

Question 10.14

1. There is now more interracial and interethnic dating.

2. Same-sex relationships are now much more acceptable.

3. Homophobia is now rare.

a and b

Question 10.15

Today many people are open to internet dating and on-line relationships are more apt to be successful than traditional relationships.

Question 10.16

value-comparison phase

Question 10.17

Actually, people who have dominant personalities might be better off with more submissive mates (and vice versa). Respecting a partner’s personality is more important than being alike in every attribute and trait. Rather than searching for a clone, it’s best to find a mate who is similar to one’s ideal self. Overinflating that person’s virtues helps tremendously, too!

Question 10.18

Kita’s status is preoccupied. Rena is avoidant/dismissing. Sam is securely attached.