Ch: 10 Intimacy

Parents and Peers as Targets of Intimacy

Two conclusions emerge repeatedly in studies of adolescents' intimacy with parents and peers. First, from early adolescence on, teenagers describe their relationships with their best friends and romantic partners as more intimate and less stressful than those with their mother or father (Persike & Seiffge-Krenke, 2014). Second, although there may be a slight drop in intimacy between adolescents and parents sometime during adolescence, the decline reverses as young people move toward young adulthood (see Figure 10.5) (Keijsers & Poulin, 2013). Intimacy between individuals and their parents declines between the 5th and 10th grades, but increases between 10th grade and young adulthood. Time spent in family activities declines throughout preadolescence and adolescence, but the amount of time adolescents spend alone with their mother or father follows a curvilinear pattern, increasing between preadolescence and middle adolescence, and then declining (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014). Intimacy with friends increases steadily throughout adolescence, although most dramatically during the early adolescent years. Intimacy with romantic partners also increases steadily throughout adolescence, but in this case, the most dramatic increase takes place during the late high school years (Szwedo, Hessel, Loeb, Hafen, & Allen, 2017). In other words, while peers become relatively more important during adolescence as confidants and sources of emotional support, by no means do parents become unimportant (De Goede, Branje, Delsing, & Meeus, 2009). At the same time, however, there are no changes over adolescence in the percentage of individuals listing their mother or father. More importantly, studies indicate that adolescents who spend a good deal of time with their parents also spend a good deal of time with their friends. Thus, rather than drawing distinctions between parent-oriented and peer-oriented adolescents, it makes more sense to distinguish between adolescents who have a lot of social contact and enjoy a great deal of support from others (both family and friends) and those who are socially isolated or lonely (Fallon & Bowles, 1997; Scholte, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2001). Chronically lonely teenagers are more sensitive to being rejected, less likely to expect social situations to be fun, and, as a consequence, less likely to accept invitations from others to get together, which only strengthens their sense of isolation. They do not experience the normal and adaptive reaffiliation motive that most of us have, which prompts us to reconnect with others when we feel lonely (Qualter et al., 2015). Similarly, brain scans of socially anxious teenagers show that they experience less activation in reward regions when anticipating feedback from peers (Spielberg et al., 2015). One of the most consistent findings to emerge from studies of adolescents' peer and family relationships is that the qualities of these relationships are closely linked (Kretschmer et al., 2016). In other words, we can see features of adolescents' relationships with their parents and their parents' marital relationship—how close they are, how much they tolerate independence, how they deal with conflict, how much control they assert over their children's friends, and so forth—in their relationships with their friends and romantic partners. On a theoretical level, this provides support for both social learning and attachment-based views of adolescent intimacy, in that it suggests that the lessons young people learn in close relationships at home provide a template for the close relationships they form with others. Teenagers whose relationships with parents are emotionally close but not very individuated tend to stay longer in romantic relationships, even when the relationships are not very good, suggesting that difficulties in establishing healthy autonomy at home may carry over to romantic relationships (Smetana & Gettmen, 2006). These findings suggest that one approach to improving the peer relationships of adolescents who are having difficulties might be to focus on improving the quality of their relationships at home (Updegraff, Madden-Derdich, Estrada, Sales, & Leonard, 2002). Studies of adolescents' preferences for social support similarly show that the likelihood of turning to a peer during a time of trouble increases during adolescence, but that the likelihood of turning to a parent remains constant. Between ages 7 and 14, the amount of support children receive from their immediate family remains fairly constant, while the amount of support received from friends increases (M. Levitt, Guacci-Franci, & Levitt, 1993). In other words, even though adolescents begin to see their friends as increasingly important sources of emotional support, they do not cease needing or using their parents for the same purpose. What seems to occur, instead, is that adolescents develop preferences for social support that vary as a function of the specific issue. Nevertheless, among children, support from parents is more effective than support from friends in diminishing the adverse physiological effects of stress; during adolescence, the reverse is true. Adolescents typically feel freer to express anger during arguments with family members than during arguments with friends, presumably because anger may lead to the end of a friendship but not to the end of a family relationship (Laursen, 1993). Perhaps because of this, adolescents report more angry feelings after conflicts with their parents than after conflicts with their friends (Adams & Laursen, 2001). And when asked to recall key events in their past that contributed to their sense of identity, college students' reminiscences of their relationships with their parents more often emphasize conflict and separation, whereas their recollections of their relationships with their friends more often emphasize closeness. Ethnic differences in the expression of intimacy between adolescents and parents are fairly modest (Fuligni, Hughes, & Way, 2009). Ethnic minority American adolescents are more likely to say that it is important to respect, assist, and support their family than are White adolescents (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999), but ethnic differences in adolescents' beliefs and expectations appear to be more substantial than ethnic differences in how adolescents and their parents actually interact. There are important differences between adolescents' relationships with mothers versus fathers, however. In general, adolescents interact much more often with, are closer to, and argue more with their mother than with their father, a pattern seen among males as well as females and across a variety of cultures (Fuligni, 1998). Of their two parents, adolescents see their mother as being more understanding, more accepting, and more willing to negotiate, and as less judgmental, less guarded, and less defensive. The difference between perceptions of mothers and fathers is especially large among girls: As a rule, the mother-daughter relationship tends to be the closest, and the father-daughter relationship the least intimate, with mother-son and father-son relationships falling in between (Monck, 1991; Noller & Callan, 1990; K. Rice & Mulkeen, 1995). In summary, an important transition in intimate relationships takes place during early adolescence. Peers become the most important source of companionship and intimate self-disclosure, surpassing parents and siblings (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Larson & Richards, 1991; Villalobos Solís, Smetana, & Comer, 2015). Peers become increasingly important targets of intimacy not simply because they are similar in age but because they grow up in a different family. As adolescents begin the process of individuation, they often need to seek intimacy outside the family as a means of establishing an identity beyond their family role. Although this shift in intimacy is normative, a shift in primary attachment figures at this age is not: Adolescents who report that their strongest attachment is to a friend or romantic partner are more likely to have insecure attachments with their parents (Freeman & Brown, 2001).

Patterns of Dating

"Dating" can mean a variety of different things, from group activities that bring males and females together (without much actual contact between the sexes), to group dates in which a group of boys and girls go out jointly (and spend part of the time in couples and part of the time in the larger group), to casual dating in couples, to serious involvement with a boyfriend or girlfriend (Carlson & Rose, 2012). Generally, casual socializing with other-sex peers and experiences in a mixed-sex social network occur before the development of romantic relationships (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). As a consequence, more adolescents have experience in mixed-sex group activities like parties or dances than in dating, and more have dated than have had a serious boyfriend or girlfriend, or a sexual relationship (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 2004; O'Sullivan, Cheng, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). However, involvement in one-on-one romantic relationships does not replace same-sex or mixed-sex group activities—like other aspects of intimacy in adolescence, new forms of relationships are added to the adolescent's repertoire while old ones are retained. The sequence of transitioning into romantic relationships follows similar patterns across ethnic groups, although Asian American youth appear to make this transition at a somewhat later stage than their peers from other backgrounds, consistent with other findings on ethnic differences in beliefs about the appropriate age at which adolescents should begin dating and engaging in other adult-like activities (Connolly et al., 2004). Even for adolescents with a history of intimate friendships with same- and other-sex peers, the transition into romantic relationships can be difficult. In one study, in which adolescents were asked to discuss social situations they thought were difficult, themes having to do with communicating with the other sex were mentioned frequently. Many adolescents discussed difficulty in initiating or maintaining conversations, in person ("He will think I am an idiot," "Sometimes you don't know, if you're like sitting with a guy and you're watching a basketball game or something, you don't know if you should start talking or if you should just sit there") and on the phone ("I think it is hard to call. After it's done with, you don't know how to get off the phone"). Others mentioned problems in asking people out ("Asking a girl out on a first date—complete panic!") or in turning people down ("How about if you go on a date and you're really not interested, but he keeps calling?"). Still others noted problems in making or ending romantic commitments ("You don't know if you are going out with someone or if you are just seeing them," "It is hard to say, 'so, are we gonna make a commitment?'" "I avoided [breaking up] for two weeks because I was trying to think of what to say") (Grover & Nangle, 2003, pp. 133-134).

To Date, or Not to Date?

About 10% of late adolescents report having had no serious romantic relationships, and another 15% have not been in a relationship that lasted more than a few months (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). In looking at the effects of being a "late bloomer," it is important to distinguish between adolescents who delay dating because it is culturally normative to do so (as is the case in many Asian American communities) and those who delay because they are shy, unattractive, or unpopular (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Although one would think that it is the latter group whose development is most at risk, not enough research has been done on late bloomers to draw definitive conclusions. In general, adolescents who do not date at all show signs of retarded social development and feelings of insecurity (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009), while adolescents who date and go to parties regularly are more popular, have a stronger self-image, and report greater acceptance by their friends; they also are more skilled at relational aggression (Houser, Mayeux, & Cross, 2015). Conversely, stopping or cutting back on dating after having dated heavily is associated with a drop in self-image and an increase in symptoms of depression (Davies & Windle, 2000). It is not clear, of course, whether age-appropriate dating leads to better social development or whether more socially advanced adolescents are simply more likely to date; both are probably true. But it does seem safe to conclude that a moderate degree of dating—and a delay in serious involvement until age 15 or so—appears to be the most potentially valuable pattern. This conclusion must be tempered by the fact that characteristics of the romantic partner play a role in shaping the impact of dating on psychological development. Adolescents who are not all that popular to begin with, but who date popular peers, gain in popularity over time, and adolescents with problems who date peers whose mental health is good show improvements in their psychological functioning over time (Simon, Aikins, & Prinstein, 2008). It is also the case, just as in the selection of friends, that adolescents tend to select romantic partners with whom they share certain attributes. (Generally speaking, the idea that "birds of a feather flock together" is more often true than "opposites attract.") And, as is the case with friendships, dating a romantic partner with a history of delinquent behavior leads to more antisocial behavior, especially among females. Indeed, once they are romantically involved, adolescents' pattern of drinking starts to resemble that of their romantic partner more than that of their friends. Regardless of the impact that dating does or doesn't have on adolescents' psychosocial development, studies show that romance has a powerful impact on their emotional state. Entering into a new relationship leads to increases in self-esteem—but only if the relationship is of high quality; if it is a low-quality relationship, self-esteem suffers (Luciano & Orth, 2017) (see Figure 10.9). According to several studies, adolescents' real and fantasized relationships trigger more strong emotional feelings during the course of a day (one-third of girls' strong feelings and one-quarter of boys') than do family, school, or friends. Not surprisingly, the proportion of strong emotions attributed to romantic relationships increases dramatically between preadolescence and early adolescence, and between early and middle adolescence as well. And although the majority of adolescents' feelings about their romantic relationships are positive, a substantial minority of their feelings—more than 40%, in fact—are negative, involving anxiety, anger, jealousy, and depression (Larson, Clore, & Wood, 1999). Adolescents who have entered into a romantic relationship in the past year report more symptoms of depression than do those who have not (Joyner & Udry, 2000). One reason for this is that many adolescents who are involved romantically also experience breakups during the same time period (Z. Chen et al., 2009b; W. A. Collins, 2003), and the breakup of a romantic relationship is the single most common trigger of the first episode of major depression (Monroe, Rohde, Seeley, & Lewinsohn, 1999). Breaking up is also associated with increases in substance use and delinquency (Hou et al., 2013; Larson & Sweeten, 2012). As you would expect, negative emotions associated with being in a relationship are more common among adolescents who are high in rejection sensitivity (G. Downey et al., 1999) or who have an insecure working model, especially those who form preoccupied attachments to romantic partners (because they are unable to fully trust their partner or see themselves as worthy of their partner's affection) (Davila, 2008). Not surprisingly, adolescents whose parents are psychologically controlling, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem, are more likely to be high in rejection sensitivity (Rowe et al., 2015) and more prone to feelings of jealousy in their friendships (Kim, Parker, & Walker Marciano, 2017). Breaking up does not have severe effects on all adolescents. Those who are most vulnerable to the potential negative consequences of ending a relationship are adolescents high in rejection sensitivity, those who have experienced a series of breakups, those who have other sorts of problems (such as binge drinking or involvement in delinquency), and, not surprisingly, those who identify themselves as the one who was broken up with (rather than the breaker-upper) (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Although breaking up often leads to a temporary drop in self-esteem, adolescents and young adults who are low in self-esteem are more likely to experience break-ups, in part because people with low self-esteem are less likely to have high-quality relationships (Luciano & Orth, 2017).

Changes in the Targets of Intimacy

Adolescence is a time of noteworthy changes in the "targets" of intimate behavior. During preadolescence and early adolescence, intimacy with peers is hypothesized to replace intimacy with parents, and during late adolescence, intimacy with peers of the other sex is thought to take the place of intimacy with same-sex friends. Actually, this view appears to be only somewhat accurate. As we'll see, new targets of intimacy do not replace old ones. Rather, new targets are added to old ones.

The Different Roles of Parents and Peers

Adolescents have very different sorts of intimate relationships with parents and peers, and these differences point to different ways in which mothers, fathers, and friends contribute to social development. Even in close families, parent-adolescent relations are characterized by an imbalance of power. Parents are nurturers, advice givers, and explainers whom adolescents turn to for their experience and expertise. Adolescents' interactions with their friends are more mutual, more balanced, and more likely to provide them with opportunities to express alternative views and engage in an equal exchange of feelings and beliefs. Conflicts between adolescents and their parents are relatively more likely to end with a "winner" and a "loser," whereas conflicts between adolescents and their friends are relatively more likely to end in compromise or, at least, equal outcomes (Adams & Laursen, 2001). Rather than viewing one type of relationship as more or less intimate than the other, it is more accurate to say that both types of intimacy are important. Each influences a different aspect of the adolescent's developing character in important ways. Intimacy with parents provides opportunities to learn from those older and wiser; intimacy with friends provides opportunities to share experiences with individuals who have a similar perspective and degree of expertise. Adolescents who have strong attachments to both parents and peers are better adjusted than those who have strong attachments in one type of relationship but not the other (Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000). In addition, the positive impact of having supportive friends in adolescence is greater when an adolescent also has supportive parents (Helsen, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 2000). The different functions of intimacy with parents and peers are nicely illustrated in a study of social support during a transition into a new school (S. Dunn, Putallaz, Sheppard, & Lindstrom, 1987). Changing schools during adolescence can sometimes be stressful, and social support—emotional or instrumental assistance from others—can help buffer adolescents against the potential negative effects of stress (Hauser & Bowlds, 1990). The study found that support from family members was more predictive of adaptation to the demands of the new school, as indexed by grades and attendance, but that support from peers was more predictive of psychological well-being, as indexed by low levels of depression and anxiety. The absence of peer support was especially critical for boys, perhaps because girls are more likely than boys to seek out other sources of support when their peers do not provide it. A lack of support from parents or from friends in school is associated with low self-worth and poorer social adjustment. Social support from one source (such as the family) can be especially important when other sources of support (such as friends) are lacking (Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & von Eye, 1994). Accordingly, having a supportive family is more important for the healthy adjustment of adolescents who do not have a close friend, whereas support from friends or romantic partners is more crucial among adolescents whose family relationships are strained (Szwedo, Hessel, & Allen, 2017). An absence of social support may be especially problematic for ethnic minority youth, who often rely on peers to provide emotional support in the face of stress and other difficulties inherent in living in high-risk environments (Benner, 2011; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2005). Optimal social development during adolescence may require healthy relationships with both parents and peers. Family relationships and peer relationships influence, rather than compete with, each other (Fallon & Bowles, 1997; Gavin & Furman, 1996). Although the importance of peer relationships undoubtedly increases during adolescence, the significance of family relationships does not decline so much as it narrows in focus. Parents do not cease to be important sources of influence or targets of intimacy. Throughout adolescence, parents and teenagers remain close, parents (especially mothers) remain important confidants, and both mothers and fathers continue to be significant influences on the adolescent's behavior and decisions. Having a supportive relationship with one parent can compensate somewhat from a less close relationship with the other (Rueger, Chen, Jenkins, & Choe, 2014). Even in adolescence, being close to one's parents has a more positive impact on psychological health than being close to one's friends (Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983). That said, peers take on an increasingly important role in the individual's social life over the course of adolescence (B. Brown & Larson, 2009). Although peers do not replace parents, they make unique and influential contributions to the adolescent's social development.

Conflict

Adolescents' close friendships also are distinguished from their casual friendships in the types of conflicts they have and the ways in which disagreements are resolved. Although conflicts between adolescents and their close friends are less frequent than they are between adolescents and less intimate peers, arguments with close friends are more emotional with lots of anger and hurt feelings. Conflict between close friends is more likely to provoke efforts to restore the relationship than is conflict between casual friends. Nonetheless, some best friendships don't survive, and others are "downgraded" from best friend to "good friend" (Bowker, 2011).

Cognitive Change and the Development of Intimacy

Advances in thinking—especially in the realm of social cognition—are also related to the development of intimacy (Rote & Smetana, 2011). Compared to children, adolescents have more sophisticated conceptions of social relationships, better communication skills, and more self-awareness. They know more about how to "repair" their emotions—how to get themselves out a negative mood and into a positive one (Hessel, Loeb, Szwedo, & Allen, 2016). These developments permit adolescents to establish and maintain relationships with greater empathy, self-disclosure, and sensitivity; they also contribute to adolescents' feelings of loneliness if they perceive themselves as socially isolated (Laursen & Hartl, 2013). Limitations in preadolescents' ability to look at things from another person's point of view may make intimate interpersonal relationships a cognitive impossibility, because it is hard to be an intimate friend to someone with whom you are unable to empathize. Recent neuroimaging studies show that the maturation during adolescence of connections among brain regions involved in decision making, emotional experience, and processing social information goes hand in hand with improvements in interpersonal competence.

Some Functions of Other-Sex Friendships

Although the emergence of close other-sex friendships in early adolescence is not explicitly in the context of romance, it sets the stage for later romantic experiences (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). In early and middle adolescence, age differences in other-sex friendships are similar to those seen between dating partners, with boys generally older than their female friends, rather than the reverse (Montgomery & Sorell, 1998). In addition, adolescents who have more other-sex friends than their peers early in adolescence tend to enter into romantic relationships at an earlier age and tend to have longer romantic relationships (Feiring, 1999). This could be due to many factors, including the adolescent's use of the pool of other-sex friends to "rehearse" for later romantic relationships (Kreager, Molloy, Moody, & Feinberg, 2016) or to develop a social network that is used to meet potential romantic partners later on (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). In any case, even preadolescents as young as nine differentiate between cross-sex relationships that are platonic and those that are romantic (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 1999). Not all relationships between males and females in adolescence are romantic, of course, and having close, other-sex friendships is a common experience (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009; Kuttler, La Greca, & Prinstein, 1999; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2005). Two very different types of adolescents appear to have close other-sex friends—adolescents who are socially competent and highly popular with same-sex peers, and adolescents who are socially incompetent and highly unpopular with same-sex peers (Bukowski, Sippola, & Hoza, 1999). Among boys, having an other-sex friend compensates for not having same-sex friends, leading to more positive mental health than is seen among boys without any friends at all. Among girls, however, the results are mixed. Although some studies have found that for girls "there is no advantage, or perhaps there is even a disadvantage, to having a friendship with a boy" (Bukowski et al., 1999, p. 457), others have found that, among less sexually advanced girls, having platonic friendships with boys is associated with a more positive body image—perhaps because these friendships permit girls to feel that boys like them for themselves, without the added cost of feeling pressured to have sex (Compian, Gowen, & Hayward, 2004). The downside is that having male friends increases girls' likelihood of being involved in antisocial behavior. All things considered, boys have more to gain from friendships with girls than vice versa. Having an intimate relationship with an other-sex peer is more strongly related to boys' general level of interpersonal intimacy than it is to girls' (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). Whereas boys report that their friendships with girls are more rewarding than their friendships with other boys, girls do not describe their friendships with boys as more rewarding than their friendships with other girls (J. Thomas & Daubman, 2001). These findings are not surprising, given that adolescents' friendships with girls (regardless of whether they themselves are male or female) tend to be more intimate and supportive than their friendships with boys.

Knowing Who Their Friends Are

As individuals move into and through adolescence, they gain knowledge about more intimate aspects of their friends' lives. Although preadolescents and adolescents have comparable degrees of knowledge about characteristics of their best friends that are not especially personal (such as the friend's telephone number or birthday), adolescents know significantly more things about their friends that are intimate (such as what their friends worry about or what they are proud of). Over the course of adolescence, adolescents' reports of friendship quality increase steadily. These improvements in friendship quality lead to gains in social competence and increases in positive affect, which in turn lead to further improvements in the quality of adolescents' friendships, creating what has been called an "upward spiral". Although there are ethnic differences in average levels of friendship quality—Asian American adolescents report more dissatisfaction with their friendships than do other adolescents—the rate of improvement in friendship quality over time is the same in different ethnic groups (Way & Greene, 2006). And, despite fears that spending time socializing over the Internet will undermine adolescents' social competence, the people adolescents interact with online are mainly the same people they interact with offline. Actually, adolescents who use the Internet a lot for social networking are less socially isolated than their peers.

Dating and the Development of Intimacy

Contemporary discussions of adolescent romance draw on Sullivan's theory of interpersonal development, attachment theory, and ecological perspectives on development (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). From Sullivan comes the idea that there is a developmental progression in individuals' capacity for intimacy, with the emergence of romantic relationships occurring after individuals have experienced emotional closeness within same-sex friendships. From attachment theory comes the idea that individuals differ in the quality of their romantic relationships and that these differences are paralleled by differences in the relationships individuals have with parents and peers. And from the ecological perspective comes the idea that romantic relationships, like all relationships, need to be viewed within the social context in which they occur.

Dating and Romantic Relationships

Dating plays a very different role in adolescents' lives today than it did in previous times (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). In earlier eras, dating was not so much a recreational activity (as it is today) as a part of the process of courtship and mate selection. Individuals would date in order to ready themselves for marriage, and unmarried individuals would play the field—under the watchful eyes of chaperones—for a relatively long period before settling down (Montgomery, 1996). At the turn of the twentieth century, most individuals did not marry until their mid-20s. The first half of the twentieth century saw a gradual decline in the average age of marriage, however, and as a result, individuals began dating more seriously at an earlier age. By the mid-1950s, the average age at first marriage in the United States had fallen to 20 among women and 22 among men—which means that substantial numbers of individuals were in premarital relationships during high school and marrying during their late adolescent years. The function of adolescent dating changed as individuals began to marry later and later—a trend that began in the mid-1950s and continues today (see Figure 10.6). Now, the average age at which people marry is considerably later than it was 50 years ago—about age 27 for women and 30 for men, although the age at which couples begin living together has not changed (Manning, Brown, & Payne, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). This, of course, gives high school dating a whole new meaning, because today it is clearly divorced from its function in mate selection. Adults continue to regulate and monitor adolescent dating in order to prevent rash or impulsive commitments to early marriage (Laursen & Jensen-Campbell, 1999), but in the minds of most young people, high school dating has little to do with finding a potential spouse. Nor do today's adolescents see cohabitation (living together) as a substitute for marriage (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007). Romantic relationships during adolescence are very common: One-fourth of American 12-year-olds, one-half of 15-year-olds, and more than two-thirds of 18-year-olds report having had a romantic relationship in the past 18 months. However, there has been a substantial decline in the past three decades in the proportion of adolescents who have gone out on a date (see Figure 10.7). Whether this reflects a drop in adolescents' interest in romance and sex (which is probably unlikely) or a decrease in the popularity of going out isn't known for sure, although some have speculated that teenagers' interest in online socializing has led more of them to spend time at home (Twenge & Park, 2017). That is, fewer adolescents are "going out" on dates, but are "dating" electronically instead through texts or social media. How this affects the development of interpersonal skills within romantic relationships is not known, although one recent study found that frequent use of technology-based communication with romantic partners was associated with lower social competence, especially among boys (Nesi, Widman, Choukas-Bradley, & Prinstein, 2017). As is the case with platonic friendships, girls tend to become romantically involved with boys who are slightly older, whereas boys tend to become involved with girls who are the same age or younger. Because the average duration of romantic relationships during the middle high school years is about 6 months, most adolescents report having experienced a breakup during the last year. Perhaps as a way of protecting themselves from more pain than is necessary, most teenagers say that they were in control of the breakup (either alone or by mutual agreement) (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Nevertheless, as you will read later in this chapter, the breakup of a romantic relationship is a significant source of distress for many adolescents, and, as you read earlier, the ups and downs of romantic life often dominate conversations between friends.

Early Starters

Entering into a serious romantic relationship before it is normative (say, before age 15) is associated with a wide range of negative correlates (Connolly, Nguyen, Pepler, Craig, & Jiang, 2013; Connolly & McIsaac, 2009; Furman & Collibee, 2014; Orpinas, Horne, Song, Reeves, & Hsieh, 2013). This is probably true for both sexes, but researchers have focused primarily on girls because boys are less likely to begin serious dating quite so early. Even so, the few studies that have looked at early dating among boys do not show consistent effects. The links between early dating and poorer mental health have been reported consistently for more than 50 years. Girls who begin serious dating early are worse off psychologically than their peers—less mature socially, less imaginative, less oriented toward achievement, less happy with who they are and how they look, more depressed, more likely to engage in disordered eating, less likely to do well in school, and more likely to be involved in delinquency, substance use, and risky behavior (Beckmeyer, 2015; Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Early dating seems to have particularly negative implications for White girls (Compian et al., 2004), girls whose family relationships are more strained (Doyle et al., 2003), girls who date older boys (Haydon & Halpern, 2010; Loftus, Kelly, & Mustillo, 2011), and girls who are early physical maturers (Natsuaki, Biehl, & Ge, 2009). Adolescents who are unpopular with same-sex peers are especially harmed by early serious dating, perhaps because having few same-sex friends makes the dating relationships excessively important (Brendgen, Vitaro, Doyle, Markiewicz, & Bukowski, 2002). Research also shows that adolescents who begin dating early and who have multiple dating partners experience a drop in the quality of their relationships over time (W. A. Collins, 2003) and poorer quality relationships in young adulthood (Madsen & Collins, 2011). Adolescents who begin dating early are also more likely to be victims of dating violence (Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, & Kupper, 2009). A variety of explanations for the link between early dating and psychological problems have been offered. There are all sorts of reasons that girls with psychological problems are more likely to get involved in dating relationships at a younger age, and because we cannot randomly assign some teenagers to date and others to remain single, we cannot be sure that early dating actually causes problems. Moreover, early dating may be part of a larger profile that includes precocious involvement in many adultlike activities (often because girls' dating partners are older), and there is a good deal of evidence that this sort of "pseudomaturity" is associated with a range of psychological problems (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Because this profile is itself associated with many factors known to place adolescents at risk (poor parenting, early puberty, or family instability, for example), it is hard to pinpoint early dating as the culprit. One recent study found, for example, that individuals who had poorer-quality relationships prior to adolescence were more likely to be dating at age 15. Another found that early dating was associated not only with puberty, but with having a sibling who was involved in risky behavior, having excessively lax parents, and having delinquent friends (Low & Shortt, 2017). That said, it has been suggested that the link between early dating and poor mental health may have something to do with pressures on girls to engage in sexual activity before they are willing or psychologically ready (Marin, Kirby, Hudes, Coyle, & Gomez, 2006). Sexual coercion and date rape are common during the high school years (B. Brown, 2004; McMaster, Connolly, & Craig, 1997; W. Patton & Mannison, 1995), although as it has become all too clear in recent years, sexual harassment and sexual assault are by no means limited to teenagers. Although boys may feel peer pressure to become sexually active, this may be a very different sort of pressure—with very different consequences—from what girls feel. Because boys generally begin dating at a later age than girls, and date people who are younger, dating may be less anxiety-provoking for boys, who have the advantage of a few additional years of "maturity."

Attachment in Adolescence

In addition to employing the four-way attachment classification scheme to study the links among infancy, childhood, and adolescence, attachment theorists have applied similar classifications to the study of adolescents' attachments to others, as well as to adolescents' internal working models. In some of these studies, adolescents' current relationships with parents and peers are assessed; in others, adolescents are asked to recount their childhood experiences through the use of a procedure called the adult attachment interview. The interview focuses on individuals' recollections of their early attachment experiences and obtains information on the ways in which the individual recounts his or her childhood history. A variety of schemes for coding responses to the interview have been devised, but most categorize individuals as "secure," "dismissing," or "preoccupied." Many researchers have found that adolescents in different attachment categories differ in predictable ways (McElhaney et al., 2009). Compared with dismissing or preoccupied adolescents, secure adolescents interact with their mothers with less unhealthy anger and more appropriate assertiveness, suggesting fewer difficulties in establishing emotional autonomy (Kobak et al., 1993). Individuals with dismissive or preoccupied attachment profiles are more likely to show a range of emotional and behavior problems in adolescence, including depression, maladaptive coping, anxiety, eating disorders, conduct problems, and delinquency. They are more likely to recall negative aspects of their interactions with others (Dykas, Woodhgouse, Ehrlich, & Cassidy, 2012). Not surprisingly, adolescents who are judged to have had a secure infant attachment have more stable romantic relationships than their insecure counterparts (K. Davis & Kirkpatrick, 1994). People's security of attachment in infancy predicts social competence in childhood, security of attachment to close friends in adolescence, and positive romantic relationships in adulthood. Numerous studies also have looked at the quality of adolescents' current attachments to parents and peers. Individuals who have secure attachments during adolescence are more socially competent, more successful in school, less likely to engage in substance use, and better adjusted than their insecure peers. There is also some evidence that adolescents' attachment to their mother is typically more secure and more important, and attachment to their father less so, over the entire adolescent period. One recent study of the ways in which adolescents' multiple attachments varied in importance found that individuals whose attachment to their father ranked very low—lower even than attachments to people outside the family—were at relatively greater risk for emotional and behavioral problems (Rosenthal & Kobak, 2010). Adolescents with secure attachments to their parents are more sensitive to their social environment and better able to use relationships with others to buffer the effects of stress on well-being (Gunnar, 2017). Security of attachment also predicts whether and at what age adolescents "leave the nest": Insecurely attached adolescents are more likely to delay moving out or to return to their parents' home than their more securely attached peers (Seiffge-Krenke, 2006). Although attachment security is generally very stable over adolescence, it can change if adolescents are living in dysfunctional family situations or under a lot of stress. In other words, early attachment security is not an "inoculation" that protects individuals from psychological problems forever, but rather a psychological advantage that increases the probability of developing in healthy ways. In general, attachments to parents become more secure over the course of adolescence. By the same token, the degree of security in an adolescent's attachment style interacts with other experiences to shape mental health and behavior: Positive experiences (like having an authoritative parent) have even more positive effects among adolescents with a secure style, whereas negative experiences are not as harmful. And, among adolescents with an insecure attachment style, negative experiences (like having excessively intrusive parents) have an even worse effect than they would otherwise (P. Marsh, McFarland, & Allen, 2003).

Changes in the Display of Intimacy

In addition to placing greater emphasis on intimacy and loyalty in defining friendship than children do, teenagers are also more likely to display intimacy in their relationships, in what they know about their friends, how responsive they are, how empathic they are, and how they resolve disagreements.

Attachment in Infancy

In writings on infant development, an attachment is defined as a strong and enduring emotional bond. Virtually all infants form attachment relationships with their mother (and most do so with their father and other caregivers as well), but not all infants have attachment relationships of the same quality. Psychologists differentiate among four types of infant attachment: secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant, and disorganized. A secure attachment between infant and caregiver is characterized by trust; an anxious-avoidant attachment is characterized by indifference on the part of the infant toward the caregiver; an anxious-resistant attachment is characterized by ambivalence. Children who develop a disorganized attachment, which is characterized by the absence of normal attachment behavior, are most at risk for psychological problems (Kerns & Brumariu, 2014). The security of the early attachment relationship is important, because studies show that infants who have had a secure attachment are more likely to grow into psychologically healthy and socially skilled children (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978). Attachment theory has given rise to two different, but related, questions about adolescent development. First, is there a link between the quality of attachment formed in infancy and mental health or behavior in adolescence? And, second, can the same three-category framework used to characterize attachments in infancy—secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant—be used to characterize interpersonal relationships in adolescence?

Other Individuals as Targets of Intimacy (Siblings, extended family, teachers, coaches

Intimacy in sibling relationships is complicated and often includes a mix of affection and rivalry (East, 2009). Generally, adolescents say they are less intimate with siblings than with their parents or friends (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). Adolescents fight more with brothers and sisters than they do with close friends, and their arguments with siblings tend to be resolved less often by giving in or by letting things slide than through the intervention of parents (Raffaelli, 1997). Over the course of adolescence, conflict between siblings decreases, but this may be due to the fact that siblings spend less time together in adolescence than they did in childhood as they become involved in close friendships, romantic relationships, and extracurricular activities. Although overt conflict between siblings declines during adolescence, so do warmth and closeness. Early adolescence is the low point in sibling relationships, but even college students report ambivalent feelings about their brothers and sisters (Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997). Comparatively little is known about intimacy with members of adolescents' extended family or with nonfamilial adults like teachers or coaches. Contact with extended family is infrequent for many adolescents, because those family members often live outside the adolescent's immediate area. There is a slight increase in intimacy with extended family members during childhood, but an especially steep drop-off in intimacy with grandparents and other extended family members between childhood and adolescence (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Creasey & Kaliher, 1994; M. Levitt, Guacci-Franci, & Levitt, 1993). Nevertheless, adolescents benefit from having grandparents involved in their life (Yorgason, Padilla-Walker, & Jackson, 2011). Although a decline in intimacy with grandparents is often observed during adolescence, this is not as common among adolescents who are living with a single, divorced mother (Dunifon, 2013). Divorce is associated with increased contact between adolescents and their grandparents, especially between the adolescent and his or her maternal grandfather. Ties to grandmothers are especially strong among Black adolescents, particularly among girls from divorced households (Hirsch, Mickus, & Boerger, 2002). Puberty seems to increase intimacy between adolescent boys from divorced homes and their grandfathers (perhaps to compensate for diminished contact with their father), whereas it seems to distance adolescent girls from their grandfathers (perhaps because of discomfort with the girl's sexuality). Researchers also have asked whether relationships between adolescents and nonfamilial adults in schools, workplaces, or neighborhoods can play a significant role in teenagers' lives (Greenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998; Munsch, Liang, & DeSecottier, 1996). Indeed, studies suggest that the development of relationships with nonfamilial adults is a normative part of adolescence, not a sign of difficulties at home (Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002; Rhodes & Lowe, 2009), and that relationships with positive role models outside the family, such as mentors, contribute to healthy development above and beyond the contribution of family relationships and well into late adolescence and even adulthood (Chang, Greenberger, Chen, Heckhausen, & Farruggia, 2010; Haddad, Chen, & Greenberger, 2011; Miranda-Chan, Fruiht, Dubon, & Wray-Lake, 2016). Close friendships may develop naturally between adolescents and their teachers or work supervisors or can be cultivated through community organizations, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, or similar programs designed to pair young people—especially those under stress—with supportive and caring adults. Linking an adolescent with a mentor is one of the most important components of successful youth programs (Theokas & Lerner, 2006). The benefits of having a Big Brother or Big Sister are especially great among adolescents with more difficulties at home, such as those living in foster care (Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999). Not all close relationships with nonparental adults benefit adolescents' development, however: Adolescent boys who have close friendships with young adult men are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior when they perceive their older friends as likely to condone or commit antisocial acts themselves (Greenberger et al., 1998).

Intimacy as an Adolescent Issue

Intimacy is an important concern throughout most of the life span. During childhood, not having friends is associated with a wide range of psychological and social problems (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). And during adulthood, having at least one intimate friendship is beneficial to an individual's health: People who have others to turn to for emotional support are less likely to suffer from psychological and physical disorders (Myers, Lindentthal, & Pepper, 1975). Close relationships are extremely important to people of all ages. Why, then, is the development of intimacy especially important during adolescence? One reason is that it is not until adolescence that truly intimate relationships—relationships characterized by openness, honesty, self-disclosure, and trust—emerge. Children certainly have important friendships, but their relationships are different from those formed during adolescence. Children's friendships are very concrete, built around games and shared activities. To a child, a friend is someone who likes to do the same things he or she does. But teenagers' close friendships are more likely to have a strong emotional foundation. They are built on the sorts of bonds that form between people who care about and know and understand each other in a special way (Kobak & Madsen, 2011). Another reason for the importance of intimacy during adolescence concerns the changing nature of the adolescent's social world—during early adolescence, the increasing importance of peers in general, and during middle and late adolescence, the increasing importance of other-sex peers in particular (Furman, Brown, & Feiring, 1999). Although experiences in the family are important for the initial development of social skills, experiences in friendships, especially during adolescence, contribute above and beyond the benefits of good parenting to the development of social competence (Glick & Rose, 2011). Several theorists point to significant links between the development of intimacy during adolescence and the biological, cognitive, and social changes of the period.

The Development of Intimacy in Adolescence

Psychologists interested in the development of intimacy during adolescence have focused mainly, but not exclusively, on relationships between adolescents and their peers. Among the most researched topics are how friendships change, how the display of intimacy changes (and whether and to what extent there are sex differences in the ways intimacy is expressed), and, most recently, whether the increased use of social media has changed the way adolescents form and maintain close relationships.

Intimacy and Psychosocial Development

Intimate relationships during adolescence—whether with peers or adults, inside or outside the family, sexual or nonsexual—play an important role in young people's overall psychological development. Close friends serve as a sounding board for adolescents' fantasies and questions about the future. Adolescents often talk to their friends about the careers they hope to have, the people they hope to get involved with, and the life they expect to lead after they leave home. Friends provide advice on a range of identity-related matters—from how to act in different situations to what sorts of occupational and educational paths to pursue. Having an intimate friendship is more central to adolescents' mental health than it is to children's (Buhrmester, 1990). Intimacy with same-sex friends and intimacy with romantic partners make distinct contributions to adolescents' self-esteem (Connolly & Konarski, 1994). Keep in mind, however, that the effects of having an intimate friendship with someone depend on who that someone is and what takes place in the relationship. Being popular is less important than genuinely having friends, and having friends is less important than having good friendships (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996; Berndt, 1996; Fontaine et al., 2009; Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Hussong, 2000). Not all friendships are consistently good. Some provide for positive things like self-disclosure, intimacy, and companionship, but others give rise to insecurity, conflict, jealousy, and mistrust (J. Parker, Low, Walker, & Gamm, 2005). Adolescents who are close to peers or romantic partners who have antisocial values or habits are themselves more likely to develop similar patterns of behavior (Cauffman et al., 2008; Haynie, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2005; Hussong & Hicks, 2003). It is easy to forget, but important to remember, that not all close relationships foster positive developmental outcomes. Nevertheless, studies consistently show that individuals with satisfying close friendships fare better than those without them, not only in adolescence but also in adulthood. And there appears to be an added benefit of being immersed in a larger peer group. One recent study found that "running with the pack" during adolescence—being embedded in the peer network—was predictive not only of mental health in adulthood, but physical health as well (Allen, Uchino, & Hafen, 2015). Adolescence is an especially important time in the development of close relationships because many of the capacities and capabilities that permit intimacy in adult relationships make their debut in adolescence.

The Development of Dating Relationships

It is not until late adolescence that dating relationships begin to be characterized by a level of emotional depth and maturity that can be described as intimate, and it is not until late adolescence that individuals develop genuinely deep attachments to individuals other than their parents (Furman & Simon, 1999; Montgomery, 2005). One study comparing the way adolescents interacted with their mother, a close friend, and a romantic partner found that interactions with romantic partners were characterized by more conflict and fewer positive interactions than with friends, and more off-task behavior than with mothers (Furman & Shoemaker, 2008). Over the course of adolescence, the importance of a romantic partner—relative to other relationships—increases, and by college, individuals typically name their romantic partner first on a list of significant others (up from fourth in grade 7 and third in grade 10) (Buhrmester, 1996; Furman & Wehner, 1994). The ways in which adolescents interact with romantic partners also changes with development, with increasing willingness to acknowledge, analyze, and work through disagreements. The major sources of conflict between boyfriends and girlfriends are issues related to how the relationship is going, such as jealousy, neglect, betrayal, dishonesty, and trust (McIsaac, Connolly, McKenney, Pepler, & Craig, 2008; Norona, Welsh, Olmstead, & Bliton, 2017). Compared to young adults, adolescents' behavior toward their partners is more negative, more controlling, and more characterized by jealousy; younger couples who have been dating for a long time are especially likely to report these problems. Adolescents whose conversations look more like those of the young adults are less likely to break up

The Origins of Sex Differences

Many theorists have suggested that sex differences in intimacy are the result of different patterns of socialization. From an early age, females are more strongly encouraged to develop and express intimacy—especially verbal intimacy—than males. Other factors could be at work, however. Social pressures on males and females during adolescence are quite different and may lead to differences in expressions of intimacy. Boys are punished much more for acting in feminine ways (like sharing feelings with others) than girls are for acting in masculine ways (like holding strong emotions in). This is especially so within ethnic groups that stress the importance of "machismo" (a strong and sometimes exaggerated sense of masculinity), as is often the case among Mexican Americans (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2005). One reason that adolescent males may not be as intimate in their friendships as adolescent females may be that boys are nervous that expressions of intimacy will be taken as a sign of their lack of masculinity. Consistent with this, boys who are members of peer groups in which individuals express a lot of prejudice toward gay teenagers have less positive interactions with their friends (Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015). Several studies of non-White youth find that there may not be similar patterns of sex differences in intimacy in some ethnic groups (DuBois & Hirsch, 1990; D. Jones, Costin, & Ricard, 1994). One study of Black, Asian American, and Latino adolescents found no sex differences in support between friends among African American teenagers; slight sex differences among Latino teenagers, with girls reporting more friendship support than boys; and large sex differences among Asian American teenagers, but with boys reporting more support than girls (Way & Chen, 2000).

Does Infant Attachment Predict Adolescent Intimacy?

Many theorists who study adolescent development believe that the nature of individuals' attachment to caregivers during infancy continues to have an influence on their capacity to form satisfying intimate relationships during adolescence and adulthood, in two ways (McElhaney et al., 2009). First, some theorists have argued that the initial attachment relationship forms the basis for the model of interpersonal relationships we employ throughout life (Bowlby, 1969). This internal working model determines to a large measure whether people feel trusting or apprehensive in relationships with others and whether they see themselves as worthy of others' affection. An internal working model is a set of beliefs and expectations people draw on in forming close relationships with others—whether they go into relationships expecting acceptance or anticipating rejection. According to the theory, individuals who enjoyed a secure attachment relationship during infancy will have a more positive and healthy internal working model of relationships during adolescence, whereas individuals who were insecurely attached as infants will have a less positive one. Several studies have found that adolescents' working models for their relationships with parents are similar to their working models of relationships with friends, and that adolescents' working models of relationships with friends are similar to their working models of relationships with romantic partners (e.g., Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). In addition, a number of writers have suggested that individuals who emerge from infancy with an insecure attachment are more sensitive to being rejected by others in later romantic encounters, a trait that psychologists call rejection sensitivity. Individuals who are high in rejection sensitivity and emotional insecurity are more likely to develop symptoms of depression and anxiety, which in turn, lead to further increases in rejection sensitivity. Adolescents who are frequently teased about their physical appearance by parents or peers may become especially sensitive about being rejected by others because of how they look. In recent years, several teams of neuroscientists have studied adolescents' neural responses to rejection by imaging their brain activity while playing an online game called "Cyberball". Adolescents high in rejection sensitivity actually show a different pattern of brain activity in response to exclusion, and those who do so are more likely to develop symptoms of depression (Masten et al., 2011). As young adults, adolescents who spent a lot of time with their friends in adolescence show patterns of brain activity that indicate less sensitivity to rejection (Masten, Telzer, Fuligni, Lieberman, & Eisenberger, 2012). A second reason for the continued importance of early attachment relationships during adolescence is that interpersonal development is cumulative: What happens during infancy affects what happens in early childhood, which affects what happens in middle childhood, and so on (Boyer & Nelson, 2015; Kerns, 1996). In other words, individuals who leave infancy with a secure attachment may be on a different interpersonal trajectory than those who leave infancy insecure. (Here's where you can see similarities between this perspective and Sullivan's.) The only way to examine this proposition is to follow individuals over time and trace their interpersonal development. Numerous studies that have done this show that insecure children are more likely to develop psychological and social problems during childhood and adolescence, including poor peer relationships. It is thought that these problems in peer relations during childhood affect the development of social competence during adolescence—in essence, forming a link between early experience and later relationships. In contrast, secure infants are more likely to grow into socially competent teenagers and young adults. The benefits of positive relations with peers also extend beyond adolescence: People who establish healthy intimate relationships with age-mates during adolescence are psychologically healthier and more satisfied with their lives as adults (Raudino, Fergussson, & Horwood, 2013). It is possible for interpersonal development to be cumulative without the root cause of this continuity being the individual's internal working model. Individuals who have positive peer relationships in childhood may simply learn how to get along better with others, and this may lead to more positive peer relationships in adolescence, which, in turn, may lead to better relationships in adulthood (Lansford, Yu, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2014). One study that followed individuals from birth through midlife found a cascade of interpersonal connections over time: low-quality parent-child relationships were linked to low-quality parent-adolescent relationships, which predicted low-quality romantic relationships in young adulthood and dissatisfaction with life in middle age. Individuals with more negative views of themselves disengage from peers, which may lead to poorer-quality peer relationships and peer rejection, thereby intensifying their negative self-image. Adolescents who have high-quality relationships with their parents are more likely to develop high self-esteem, which in turn facilitates the development of better romantic relationships in young adulthood How strong is the direct link between infant attachment and the quality of interpersonal relationships in adolescence and young adulthood? Do individuals who were securely attached as infants have more positive working models of relationships as adolescents or young adults? Studies that have followed individuals from infancy all the way through adolescence and beyond have yielded conflicting results. Some have shown considerable continuity from infancy through adolescence (e.g., C. Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000), but others have shown no continuity whatsoever. Some researchers have suggested that individuals' security of attachment remains stable only in the absence of major life events that could upset the course of interpersonal development (such as the loss of a parent or parental divorce), and that the lack of continuity observed in some studies is due to the importance of intervening events. Others, however, argue that the significance of early attachment for later relationships is far outweighed by the importance of the experiences the individual has in childhood and the context in which he or she lives as an adolescent (M. Lewis et al., 2000).

Friendships with the Other Sex

Not until late adolescence do close friendships with other-sex peers begin to be important. Studies of preadolescents and young teenagers point to very strong sex segregation in adolescents' friendships, with boys rarely reporting friendships with girls, and girls rarely reporting friendships with boys, at least until middle adolescence (Galambos, Berenbaum, & McHale, 2009).

How Females Aren't More Intimate

On some measures of friendship, adolescent boys and girls show similar degrees of intimacy. Although girls are more likely to mention self-disclosure when asked to define close friendship and report more self-disclosure in their friendships, boys and girls have equivalent degrees of intimate knowledge about their best friends. When boys are with their friends, they are just as likely as girls to share each other's emotional state. Although girls are generally more considerate, sex differences in helpfulness are very small. There's no question that intimacy is a more conscious concern for adolescent girls than it is for adolescent boys. But this doesn't mean that intimacy is absent from boys' relationships or unimportant for their mental health (Way, 2013). Rather, they express intimacy in different ways. Boys' friendships are more oriented toward shared activities than toward the explicit satisfaction of emotional needs, as is often the case in girls' friendships. The development of intimacy between adolescent males may be more subtle, reflected more in shared activities than in self-disclosure, even in young adulthood (McNelles & Connolly, 1999; Radmacher & Azmitia, 2006) and even in online communication (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Another possibility is that the development of close friendships among males starts at a later age than it does among females. There are substantial sex differences in friendship quality at age 13, but by age 18 these are gone. It's a familiar pattern: During early and middle adolescence, girls are more emotionally and socially mature than boys, but by late adolescence, boys have caught up.

Have Social Media Hurt the Development of Intimacy?

One of the most controversial topics in contemporary discussions of adolescent intimacy concerns the impact of social media on teenagers' social competence and friendships. Many social commentators have stoked fears that the increase in adolescents' use of digital devices to communicate with others is destroying young people's abilities to engage in meaningful face-to-face relationships (Turkle, 2015; Twenge, 2017). Thankfully, there is very little evidence of this. Headlines about smartphones destroying adolescents' brains may sell a lot of books, but they have created unnecessary anxiety and panic among parents and educators. In fact, some scientists believe that using social media may actually help teenagers develop social competence (Reich, 2017). There is no question that teenagers are using digital devices to stay in touch with their friends. But research clearly shows that digital communication among friends enhances, rather than detracts from, the quality of adolescents' friendships. A recent review of three dozen studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (rather than in the popular press) looked at the impact of digital communication on a variety of relationship components, including self-disclosure, support, companionship, and conflict (Yau & Reich, 2017). The main conclusion of this review is that social media provide opportunities to engage in many of the same activities that adolescents do in person, without compromising these relationships. For example, the authors found that digital communication helped adolescents seek social support and get advice on a wide range of problems, and that digital disclosure was effective in relieving emotional distress and increasing closeness between friends. Despite fears that adolescents don't appreciate the risks of disclosing sensitive information online, studies have found that adolescents, especially by the time they are in high school, are surprisingly thoughtful about what they share online and with whom they share it, and that they clearly understand the difference between sharing personal information with close friends and sharing it with mere acquaintances (Blachnio, Przepiorka, Balakier, & Boruch, 2016; Xie & Kang, 2015). A second conclusion about social media and adolescents' social development is that digital communication serves an important purpose in helping teenagers validate the importance of their friendships. For all the talk about cyberbullying, the fact is that far more online communication among adolescents involves positive communication about their relationships, the significance of their friendships, and their feelings of love, affection, and connectedness. Much of what is posted on social networking sites, like Facebook, for example, is reminiscent of what teenagers write in each other's yearbooks, except that these affirmations are viewed by many more people than would typically see yearbook inscriptions. And the nature of social media platforms permit friends to elaborate on their feelings or memories with pictures, emoticons, and, of course, "likes." Third, digital communication has provided new ways for adolescents to enjoy their friends' companionship. Teenagers share jokes, things they find interesting, music, and YouTube videos. They play video games with their friends, either in person or jointly online. And while studies have found that joint activities done in person lead to stronger feelings of bonding, the magnitude of the difference between reports of closeness during digital exchanges versus in-person contact is surprisingly small. An added benefit of digital communication is that it can take place in locations and at times of day when talking on the phone is inconvenient or difficult. Teenagers report that social media are an important source of information about their romantic partners (Van Ouytsel, Van Gool, Walrave, Ponnet, & Peeters, 2016). Finally, many of the negative interactions that occur between teenagers online are the same as those that occur in person. Gossip, jealousy, criticism, and conflict are features of adolescents' relationships that are expressed online, but they are also things that are expressed in person. Whether these negative aspects of adolescents' interpersonal interactions are amplified or diminished when they occur online compared to when they take place in person isn't known; most likely, some adolescents are bothered more by slights that occur in person, while others are more bothered by ones that are posted online. There is some evidence, however, that online contexts are especially likely to provoke jealousy between friends (Lennarz, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, Finkenauer, & Granic, 2017). By and large, the impact of social media on adolescents' relationships appears to be far more positive than negative. As the authors of the review concluded, "digital communication can provide greater opportunities for friends to disclose, spend time together, and display affection than in offline spaces alone. Rather than reducing intimacy in friendships, technology-mediated communication may provide the same benefits to teens as interactions that occur face-to-face" (Yau & Reich, 2017).

Caring and Concern

People also become more responsive to close friends, less controlling, and more tolerant of their friends' individuality during adolescence. Before preadolescence, children are actually less likely to help and share with their friends than with other classmates (perhaps because children are more competitive with their friends than with other youngsters and do not want to feel inferior). By about age 9, children treat their friends and other classmates similarly when it comes to sharing and cooperation. But by the time they have reached early adolescence, friends are more helpful and generous toward each other than toward other classmates (Burnett Heyes et al., 2015). Experiments in which individuals play computer games with an anonymous partner find increases with age in both trust and reciprocity (van den Bos, Westenberg, van Dijk, & Crone, 2010). Adolescents are also physically and physiologically responsive to their friends: Studies show that the behaviors and emotional states of pairs of friends are more frequently synchronized, or "on the same wavelength," than are those of acquaintances, even when the friends and acquaintances are engaged in the same task (Field et al., 1992). Perhaps because of this, adolescents show greater levels of empathy and social understanding in situations in which they are helping or comforting others. Compared with children, adolescents are more likely to understand and acknowledge how their friends feel when those friends are having problems. Over the course of adolescence, attempts to help friends with personal problems become more centered on providing support and less aimed at distracting them from their troubles (Denton & Zarbatany, 1996).

Reasons for Dating

Prior to middle or late adolescence, dating may be less important for the development of intimacy than it is for other purposes, including establishing emotional and behavioral autonomy from parents, furthering the development of gender identity (Feiring, 1999), learning about oneself as a romantic partner (Furman & Simon, 1999), and establishing and maintaining status and popularity in the peer group (B. Brown, 2004). Younger adolescents' choice of dating partners may have more to do with how they will be seen by others (for example, as "grown up," "macho," or "popular") than with the actual quality of the relationship itself. This explains why, between elementary school and middle school, there is an increase in girls' attraction to aggressive boys who stand out in the peer group (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000).

Interpersonal Development During Adolescence (Sullivan's perspective)

Sullivan distinguished between intimacy and sexuality; perhaps more importantly, he suggested that the need for intimacy—which surfaces during preadolescence—precedes the development of romantic or sexual relationships, which do not emerge until adolescence. In other words, Sullivan believed that the capacity for intimacy first develops prior to adolescence and in the context of same-sex, not other-sex, relationships. This turns out to be one of the most important observations in Sullivan's theory, because as you will read, the quality of individuals' same-sex friendships is predictive of the quality of their later romantic relationships. Not all youngsters feel secure enough as preadolescents to forge these more mature, intimate friendships. Their feelings of insecurity are so strong that anxiety holds them back. Some youngsters never fully develop the capacity to be intimate with others, a limitation that takes its toll on relationships throughout adolescence and adulthood. Sullivan felt that forming intimate friendships during preadolescence is a necessary precondition to forming close relationships—both sexual and nonsexual—as an adolescent or young adult. According to Sullivan, preadolescence comes to an end with the onset of puberty. Early adolescence is marked by the emergence of sexuality, in the form of a powerful, biological sex drive. As a consequence of this development, the preferred "target" of the adolescent's need for intimacy changes. He or she must begin to make the shift from intimate relationships with members of the same sex to intimate relationships with members of the other sex. The crucial interpersonal challenge for the young adolescent is not the movement from same-sex to other-sex friendships, but the transition from nonromantic to romantic relationships. Like all interpersonal transitions, the movement from nonromantic to romantic relationships can be fraught with anxiety. For adolescents who do not have a healthy sense of security, it can be scary to leave the safety of nonsexual friendships and venture into the world of dating and sexuality. Socially anxious adolescents are less likely to have satisfying friendships, which makes them less able to develop satisfying cross-sex friendships and romantic relationships. The overarching challenge of adolescence, according to Sullivan, is to integrate an established need for intimacy with an emerging need for sexual contact in a way that does not lead to excessive anxiety. Sullivan saw adolescence as a time of experimentation with different types of relationships. Some adolescents choose to date many different people to try to find out what they are looking for in a relationship. Others get involved very deeply with a boyfriend or girlfriend in a relationship that lasts throughout their entire adolescence. Others may have a series of serious relationships. Still others keep intimacy and sexuality separate. They may develop close platonic relationships (nonsexual relationships) with other-sex peers, for example, or they may have sexual relationships without getting very intimate with their sex partners. Sullivan viewed the adolescent's experimentation with different types of relationships as a normal way of handling new feelings, new fears, and new interpersonal needs. For many young people, experimentation with sex and intimacy continues well into late adolescence. If the interpersonal tasks of adolescence have been negotiated successfully, we enter late adolescence able to be intimate, able to enjoy sex, and, most critically, able to experience intimacy and sexuality in the same relationship.

Sullivan's Theory of Interpersonal Development

Sullivan took a far less biological view of development than other thinkers who have written about adolescence. Instead, he emphasized the social aspects of growth, suggesting that psychological development can be best understood by looking at our relationships with others. In his view, the challenges of adolescence (actually, of the entire life cycle) revolve around trying to satisfy changing interpersonal needs.

Stages of Interpersonal Needs (Sullivan's perspective)

Sullivan's perspective starts from the premise that, as children develop, different interpersonal needs surface that lead either to feelings of security (when the needs are satisfied) or feelings of anxiety (when the needs are frustrated). Sullivan charted a developmental progression of needs, beginning in infancy and continuing through adolescence (see Table 10.1) (Sullivan, 1953b). These changing interpersonal needs define the course of interpersonal development through different phases of the life span. During middle childhood, for example, youngsters need to be accepted into peer groups, or else they feel rejected and ostracized. In Sullivan's view, the security that is derived from having satisfying relationships with others is the glue that holds one's sense of self together. Identity and self-esteem are gradually built up through interpersonal relationships. Sullivan viewed psychosocial development as cumulative: The frustrations and satisfactions individuals experience during earlier periods affect their later relationships and developing sense of identity. The child who as an infant has her need for contact or tenderness frustrated will approach interpersonal relationships at subsequent ages with greater anxiety, a more intense need for security, and a shakier sense of self. In contrast, the infant who has his interpersonal needs met will approach later relationships with confidence and optimism. When important interpersonal transitions arise (for example, during childhood, when the social world is broadened to include significant relationships with peers), having a solid foundation of security in past relationships aids in the successful negotiation of the transition. An individual who is nervous about forming relationships with others is likely to have trouble forming new types of relationships, because they threaten an already tentative sense of security. A child who does not have a strong sense of security may have many friends in elementary school but be too afraid to form intimate friendships upon reaching preadolescence. She may try to maintain friendships like those more typical of childhood—friendships that focus on activities, for example, rather than talking—long after friends have outgrown getting together to "play." As a result, that youngster may be rejected by peers and come to feel lonely and isolated.

The Role of Context (ethnicity and dating, age, etc)

The age at which dating begins is influenced by the norms and expectations in the adolescent's community. Romantic relationships are more common at a younger age in other industrialized countries than in North America, but by late adolescence, rates of dating are similar. Within the United States and in Canada, Asian adolescents are less likely than other adolescents to date, whereas the prevalence of dating is very similar among Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White adolescents, although some studies find that Hispanic girls start dating at a later age than either Black or White girls (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). Westernization is leading many adolescents from Asian cultures to develop interests in dating at an earlier age than is typical within their culture (Dhariwal & Connolly, 2013). Although early maturers begin dating somewhat earlier than late maturers (Lam, Shi, Ho, Stewart, & Fan, 2002; Neemann et al., 1995), age norms within the adolescent's school and peer group are more important in determining the age at which dating begins than is the adolescent's physical maturity. In other words, a physically immature 14-year-old who goes to school where it is expected that 14-year-olds will date is more likely to date than is a physically mature 14-year-old who lives in a community where dating is typically delayed until age 16. Early maturers whose peers are dating are especially likely to date early (Friedlander, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2007). Dating also begins earlier among adolescents who have older siblings, who are less close to their parents, and who live with single mothers, especially if the mother is sexually active herself. Family instability (changes in parents' marital status through divorce or remarriage) is associated with dating, especially among boys, with adolescents from more unstable families more likely to date and more likely to have multiple romantic partners (Valle & Tillman, 2014). Whether this is due to less vigilant parental monitoring, a desire on the part of the adolescent to escape a difficult home environment, or both is not known (Cavanagh, Crissey, & Raley, 2008).

The Nature and Significance of Romance

The capacity for intimacy, which initially develops out of same-sex friendships, eventually is brought into romantic relationships, which for the vast majority of adolescents are with members of the other sex. In this sense, relationships between romantic partners are better thought of as a context in which intimacy is expressed rather than where it is learned. Consistent with this, the quality of adolescents' friendships is predictive of the quality of their subsequent romantic relationships, whereas the reverse is not true (Connolly et al., 2000). Romantic relationships play a different role in the development of intimacy for females than for males (Feiring, 1999). In many cultures, boys are not encouraged to develop the capacity to be emotionally expressive, particularly in their relationships with other males. During middle adolescence, girls are better than boys at self-disclosure and interpersonal understanding, so that when adolescents first start having serious romantic relationships, girls generally are better at being intimate. Early sexual relationships are far more likely to revolve around love, emotional involvement, and intimacy for girls than for boys (Montgomery, 2005; Shulman & Scharf, 2000). This is very important, because for girls romantic relationships provide a context for the further expression of intimacy, whereas for boys they provide a context for the further development of intimacy. Relationships with the other sex therefore play a more important role in the development of intimacy among boys than among girls, who, on average, develop and experience intimacy earlier with same-sex friends than boys do (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). The way a girl interacts with her boyfriend is more strongly related to the girl's internal working model of relationships than the boy's, perhaps because girls' greater prior experience with intimacy has led them to better align how they behave with how they really feel (Furman & Simon, 2006). Although boys' capacity for intimacy may lag behind girls', it is important not to confuse ability with aspiration. In the past, much was made of the different meanings of romantic relationships to adolescent males and females, but today it appears that the sexes are more similar than different in how their romantic relationships develop (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). The stereotype of the emotionally stunted but swaggering boy who enters into a romantic relationship purely for sex and uses his power and influence to get it no longer appears accurate, although adolescent couples are more likely to have intercourse when the girl reports that her boyfriend holds the power in the relationship (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010). Boys are often more awkward and less confident than the girls they are dating and just as eager to be emotionally close. There are also important cultural differences in how adolescents approach dating: In one study, Hispanic adolescents were more likely to emphasize romantic aspects of the relationship and were more willing to accept traditional views of the roles of males and females in relationships, whereas Black adolescents were more pragmatic and egalitarian in their attitudes (Milbrath, Ohlson, & Eyre, 2009).

Phases of Romance

The development of intimacy and more sophisticated social cognitive abilities is paralleled by changes in the ways adolescents think about and behave within romantic relationships. Several stage theories of romantic relationships have been proposed, but they make roughly the same points (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). The evolution of romance in the adolescent's life proceeds through three distinct phases. During the first phase (roughly between 11 and 13), adolescents first discover an interest in socializing with potential romantic and sexual partners. The focus of activity during this phase is primarily on learning about themselves, as adolescents broaden their self-conceptions to include seeing themselves as a potential romantic partner. Actual romantic relationships tend to be short-lived (the average romantic relationship at this age lasts only a few weeks), though, and are frequently based on superficial infatuations. Success in socializing with the other sex becomes an important determinant of status in the peer group, and high-status adolescents generally start dating before their lower-status peers (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). The main purpose of romantic activity at this age involves establishing, improving, or maintaining one's social status. During the second phase (from about 14 to 16), adolescents slowly move toward more meaningful dyadic relationships. Dating is very casual and often occurs in a group context in which peer networks start to include couples who have a special relationship. Although adolescents are still learning about themselves as romantic and sexual partners and are still aware of the way their peers view their romantic relationships, they are now sufficiently involved in the emotional side of romance for this to completely overshadow the personal and status concerns that dominated the earlier phases of romantic involvement. Relationships become a source of passion and preoccupation—recalling the themes expressed in popular love songs that appeal to teenagers. Although relationships are more enduring at this age than they were during early adolescence, the average romance still lasts only about six months (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). One reason for this is that "dating the 'wrong' person or conducting romantic relationships in the 'wrong' way can seriously damage one's standing in the group. This makes it difficult to sustain relationships that are too heavily focused inward, on the quality of the interaction or needs of the couple" (B. Brown, 1999, p. 297). Finally, toward the later years of high school (around 17 or 18), concerns about commitment begin to move to the forefront, as adolescents begin to think about the long-term survival and growth of their romantic attachments. Often during this stage, there are tensions between partners' needs for intimacy (which draw them together) and their needs for autonomy (which distance them). As conceptions of romance develop, adolescents come to value commitment and caring as features of relationships that are as important as passion and pleasure, if not more so (B. Brown, 1999; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). Relationships begin to look more like those seen among young adults, and couples increasingly spend time by themselves, rather than in the larger peer group. The average romantic relationship at age 18 lasts more than a year (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009). The quality of someone's romantic relationships has a much more significant impact on his or her mental health than it did at younger ages (Collibee & Furman, 2015). Although the progression through the different phases of dating and romance may characterize the development of most adolescents, a number of writers interested in the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) adolescents have pointed out that this picture may be less applicable to LGBTQ youth—adolescents who are not exclusively or conventionally heterosexual (Diamond, 2000; Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dubé, 1999). Although great strides have been made in increasing the public's tolerance and understanding of sexual-minority youth, stigmas and stereotypes still make the development of intimate relationships—whether nonsexual friendships, dating relationships, or sexual relationships—more complicated among LGBTQ youth than among their straight peers. For example, because LGBTQ youth don't always have the freedom to publicly express their romantic and sexual interests, they often find it difficult, if not impossible, to engage in many of the social and interpersonal activities that their heterosexual friends are permitted to enjoy. Thus, many LGBTQ youth end up pursuing sexual activity outside the context of a dating relationship, because the prejudices and harassment of others may preclude any public display of romantic intimacy with a same-sex partner. At the same time, for LGBTQ youth who are even somewhat open about their sexual identity, the development of close, nonsexual friendships with same-sex peers may be hampered by the suspicions and homophobia of others. As one group of writers explains the special predicament faced by LGBTQ adolescents, "A sexual-minority adolescent may already be privately plagued by the sense that he or she is profoundly different from other youths. To have this differentness acknowledged and perhaps ridiculed by peers may prove intolerable" (Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dubé, 1999).

Sex Differences in Partner Preferences

There are both age and sex differences in what adolescents look for in romantic partners, and these differences parallel what is known about age and sex differences in romantic relationships. During middle adolescence, boys are more likely than girls to emphasize physical attractiveness and girls are more likely than boys to place more weight on interpersonal qualities, such as support or intimacy, although controlled studies, in which characteristics of potential dates are experimentally manipulated, find that girls are influenced more by attractiveness than they think they are (Ha, Overbeek, & Engels, 2010). By late adolescence, both sexes emphasize interpersonal qualities, and the ingredients of a satisfying relationship are very similar for males and females (and quite similar to those mentioned by adults): passion, communication, commitment, emotional support, and togetherness (W. A. Collins, 2003).

Jealousy

The importance of intimacy as a defining feature of close friendship continues to increase throughout early and middle adolescence. But an interesting pattern of change occurs around age 14. During middle adolescence (between ages 13 and 15), particularly among girls, concerns about loyalty and anxieties over rejection become more pronounced and may temporarily overshadow concerns about intimate self-disclosure. Adolescents who keep a lot of secrets from their friends report higher levels of depression. The sorts of conflicts adolescents have with their friends change during this time. Whereas older adolescents' conflicts are typically over private matters, younger adolescents' conflicts are often over perceived public disrespect. Adolescents who report high levels of peer conflict and low levels of peer support are more likely to engage in risky behavior, perhaps as a response to the stress caused by problems with their friends (Telzer, Fuligni, Lieberman, Miernicki, & Galván, 2015). Girls in particular show a pronounced increase in jealousy over their friends' friends during early adolescence (J. Parker, Low, Walker, & Gamm, 2005). Girls who have low self-esteem and are high in rejection sensitivity are especially likely to become jealous of their friends' relationships with other girls. In some senses, then, intimate friendship is a mixed blessing for young adolescent girls—they get the benefits of having confidantes with whom they can easily talk about their problems, but their friendships are more fragile and more easily disrupted by feelings of betrayal. As a consequence, girls' friendships on average do not last as long as boys' do (Benenson & Christakos, 2003). How might Sullivan have explained this pattern? Why might loyalty become such a pressing concern for girls during the middle adolescent years? One possibility is that at this age, girls may start to feel more nervous about their relationships with friends because they are beginning to make the transition into other-sex relationships. As Sullivan noted, these transitions can make teenagers feel insecure. Anxiety over dating and heightened feelings of insecurity can cause adolescent girls to place a premium on the trust and loyalty of their close friends. Indeed, close friends who have highly intimate and exclusive relationships with each other often behave more aggressively with other close friends than they do toward peers who are not their close friends.

Puberty and the Development of Intimacy

The link between puberty and intimacy is obvious: Changes in sexual impulses at puberty provoke interest in sex, which leads to the development of romantic relationships. With romance and sexuality come new issues and concerns requiring serious, intimate discussions. Some young people feel hesitant to discuss sex and dating with their parents and turn instead to relationships outside the family. And some of the most intimate conversations adolescents have with their friends involve their relationships with actual or potential romantic partners. These concerns may also prompt the development of intimate friendships with other-sex peers, perhaps for the first time.

Theoretical Perspectives on Adolescent Intimacy

The most important theoretical perspectives on the development of intimacy during adolescence are those of Harry Stack Sullivan (1953a) and various writers who have studied attachment relationships in adolescence (Kobak & Madsen, 2011; McElhaney, Allen, Stephenson, & Hare, 2009). Let's look at each of these views in turn.

Origins of the "Sex Cleavage."

The schism between boys and girls during early adolescence results from various factors. First, despite whatever changes may have taken place in American society in sex-role socialization during the past 50 years, it is still the case that preadolescent and early adolescent boys and girls have different interests, engage in different sorts of peer activities, and perceive themselves to be different from each other (Galambos, Berenbaum, & McHale, 2009). The sex cleavage in adolescent friendships results more from adolescents' preferring members of the same sex—and the activities they engage in—than from their actually disliking members of the other sex. Boys express more positive feelings about their female classmates than vice versa (Bukowski, Sippola, & Hoza, 1999). The transitional period—between same-sex nonsexual relationships and other-sex sexual ones—can be a trying time for adolescents. This period usually coincides with the peer group's shift from same-sex cliques to mixed-sex crowds. The interpersonal strains and anxieties inherent in the transition show up in the teasing, joking around, and overt discomfort that young adolescents so often display in situations that are a little too close to being romantic or sexual. One reason for the mutual physical playfulness that boys and girls engage in is that it satisfies normal curiosity about sexual feelings while being ambiguous enough to be denied as motivated by romantic interest. Whereas rough play—play fighting—between boys is typically done to show who is dominant, the same behavior between boys and girls is often semi-sexual in nature—what some have labeled "poke and push courtship" (Pellegrini, 2003). These observations support the claim that intimacy between adolescent boys and girls is relatively slow to develop and generally is tinged with an air of sexuality. Contrary to the idea that cross-sex intimacy comes to replace intimacy with peers of the same sex, however, intimate friendships between adolescents of the same sex are not displaced by the emergence of intimacy between adolescent males and females (Connolly & Johnson, 1993). Although the likelihood of other-sex peers appearing on adolescents' lists of people who are important to them increases during early and middle adolescence, and although the amount of time adolescents spend with other-sex peers increases as well, the number of same-sex peers listed also increases or remains constant, and time spent with same-sex peers does not decline (Richards, Crowe, Larson, & Swarr, 1998; Zimmer-Gembeck, 1999). However, there are substantial individual differences in patterns of time allocation to same- and other-sex relationships. Some adolescents shift their energy from same-sex friends to other-sex relationships early and abruptly, others do so gradually over the course of high school, and still others do not shift their focus at all (Zimmer-Gembeck, 1999). Although intimacy between the sexes increases during early adolescence (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987), many adolescents do not list a single other-sex peer as a significant person in their lives. In middle school, only 8% of adolescents' friendships are with members of the other sex; by high school, this figure has risen only to 13% (Değirmencioğlu & Urberg, 1994). One exception to this general trend is seen among gay male adolescents, who tend to have more female than male friends (Diamond & Dubé, 2002). When females do include other-sex peers on their list of important people, the boys they mention are often older and often from another school; when boys list girls as important friends, they generally are of the same age or younger (Poulin & Pedersen, 2007). Consequently, the increase in time spent with other-sex peers that occurs in adolescence takes place much earlier among girls than boys—by 11th grade, the average girl spends 10 hours each week alone with a boy, compared to only 5 hours per week spent by the average boy alone with a girl. Young adolescents of both sexes spend a lot of time thinking about the other sex, but relatively little time with them. As adolescents get older, the time they spend thinking about the other sex tends to be increasingly associated with negative moods, perhaps because the fantasies about the other sex experienced in early adolescence come to be replaced by unrequited longings for romantic companionship (Richards et al., 1998).

Conflict Resolution

The ways in which close friends resolve conflict also change. As individuals move from childhood into adolescence, and from adolescence into young adulthood, they become more likely to end their disagreements by negotiation (trying to compromise or find a solution that is acceptable to both friends) or disengagement (walking away from the situation) and less likely to end them with one person coercing or overpowering the other and getting his or her way; across cultures, negotiation is the main way that adolescents cope with conflicts they have with friends. Negotiation is also more common between romantic partners than between friends and more common between close friends than between acquaintances, although generally speaking, the ways in which adolescents resolve conflicts with their friends are similar to the ways in which they resolved conflicts with their parents when they were younger and predictive of how they resolve conflicts with romantic partners when they are older (Staats, van der Valk, Meeus, & Branje, 2018).

Sex Differences in Intimacy

There are striking sex differences in intimacy during adolescence.

Attachment Theory

Today, a different theoretical perspective guides the study of intimate relationships in adolescence, one that draws on theories of the development of the attachment relationship during infancy (Kobak & Madsen, 2011). In many ways, the basic ideas developed by Sullivan (namely, that early relationships set the stage for later ones) were maintained, but a different perspective and vocabulary have come to dominate contemporary theory and research on adolescents' intimate relationships. In order to understand how attachment theory is applied to the study of adolescence, we need to look first at how the concept of "attachment" has been used to understand development in infancy.

Violence in Dating Relationships

Unfortunately, many romantic relationships in adolescence are characterized by hostility, aggression, and abuse (B. Brown, 2004; Exner-Cortens, 2014). More distressingly, a high proportion of young adolescents believe that physical violence in a relationship is acceptable. In a recent study of more than 5,000 American 6th-graders, over half said that it was acceptable for a girl to hit her boyfriend if he had made her mad or jealous, and a quarter of the students thought it was fine for a boy to hit his girlfriend. Nearly a third of the girls in the sample and more than 25% of the boys who either were in, or had been in, a romantic relationship had been physically aggressive toward their partner. Although more than half of all parents talk to their adolescent about dating violence, parents are less likely to talk about this topic than about drugs, alcohol, family finances, money management, or even the economy (Rothman, Miller, Terpeluk, Glauber, & Randel, 2011). Estimates vary from study to study, but recent national surveys find that about 40% of American adolescents have been the victim of violence within the context of a romantic relationship at some time (Halpern et al., 2009); close to 10% of high school students have been the victim of dating violence within the previous 12 months (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). About 25% of dating teenagers report having been the victim of "cyber dating abuse"—abuse via technology and social media—during the past year (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). As with other forms of cyberbullying, individuals who perpetrate cyber dating abuse are more likely to be abusive toward their partners in other ways, such as sexual coercion. Dating abuse increases between early adolescence and mid-adolescence, and then becomes somewhat less common (Foshee et al., 2009). Male and female adolescents are equally likely to be the victims of violence in dating relationships, and violence is often associated with drinking and drug use and exposure to stressful life events. One recent study of young adults found, however, that drinking only elevates the likelihood of dating violence in relationships that are characterized by jealousy and negative interactions, which are risks for dating violence regardless of whether the couple drinks (Collibee & Furman, 2018; Novak & Furman, 2016). Because beliefs about the acceptability of violence in romantic relationships influence adolescents' behavior toward their partners, adolescents whose friends perpetrate dating violence are themselves more likely to do so. One survey of high school students found that more than 90% of the sample had seen dating violence or sexual aggression, or a situation likely to escalate into one or the other, during the last year. Some schools have adopted programs designed to promote bystander intervention in such circumstances. Dating violence is more common in rural areas than in suburban or urban communities (G. A. Spencer & Bryant, 2000), and among ethnic minority adolescents, adolescents from single-parent households, adolescents from lower socioeconomic homes, and LGBTQ youth. Individuals who are aggressive in romantic relationships are more likely to have had problems with aggression earlier in life (Foshee et al., 2014; Vagi et al., 2013). Being in a violent relationship also increases the chances of an adolescent girl behaving violently as a young adult (Herrera et al., 2011). Adolescents who have been the victims of violence within the context of a romantic relationship are more likely to be depressed, contemplate suicide, use illegal drugs, become pregnant during adolescence, and drop out of school (Hagan & Foster, 2001; Kim & Capaldi, 2004; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001), with many of these problems persisting into young adulthood (Adam et al., 2011). They are also more likely to be victimized again in the future. We also know that adolescents behave in a variety of ways within dating relationships that are shaped by "scripts" for how males and females are expected to behave—scripts that are learned at home and from the mass media (Feiring, 1999; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Larson, Clore, & Wood, 1999). In general, adolescents' ways of dealing with conflict in their romantic relationships are linked to the models they've had at home (Fosco et al., 2016). Adolescents who have witnessed a great deal of conflict between their parents (either physical or verbal) report higher levels of verbal aggression, physical aggression, and relationship difficulties with their romantic partners, as both perpetrators and victims (Liu, Mumford, & Taylor, 2018; Simon & Furman, 2010; Tschann et al., 2009). A number of different mechanisms have been hypothesized, including the development of beliefs about the appropriateness of violence in close relationships and the adverse impact of exposure to violence on adolescents' mental health, which then leads to mental health problems and difficulties in regulating anger (Cascardi, 2016; Foshee et al., 2016; Madan Morris, Mrug, & Windle, 2015; McNaughton Reyes et al., 2015; Mumford, Liu, & Taylor, 2016). Other studies have found that adolescents who are either perpetrators or victims of violence in dating relationships are more likely to have had parents who were abusive, harsh, or behaved inappropriately toward them. These studies, along with those discussed earlier about adolescent attachments, suggest that variations in adolescents' romantic relationships may have their origins—at least in part—in adolescents' family experiences. The main point to keep in mind is that the qualities of adolescents' relationships with others—whether with parents, siblings, friends, or romantic partners—are correlated across different types of relationships. Adolescents who have supportive and satisfying relationships at home are more likely to have high-quality friendships, and adolescents who have high-quality friendships are more likely to have high-quality romantic relationships. Thus, individuals' early experiences in the family, in interaction with their cumulative experiences with peers during childhood and preadolescence, affect the nature and quality of their romantic relationships in adolescence, and the quality of adolescents' family relationships affect the quality of the romantic relationships they have in young adulthood.

Changes in Social Roles and the Development of Intimacy

We can also point to changes in the adolescent's social roles as potentially affecting the development of intimacy. The behavioral independence that often accompanies the transition into adolescence provides greater opportunities for adolescents to be alone with their friends, engaged in intimate discussion, either in person or online. Adolescents spend more time in conversation with their friends than in any other activity (Dijkstra & Veenstra, 2011). Moreover, the recognition of adolescents as "near adults" may prompt their parents and other adults to confide in them and turn to them for support. Shared experiences such as working, as well as the development of emotional autonomy, may help give young people and their parents more of a basis for friendship and communication (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Finally, changes in the structure of schools during early adolescence—often giving younger teenagers more contact with older ones—may promote new types of peer relationships (Eccles & Roeser, 2009).

How Females Are More Intimate

When asked to name the people who are most important to them, adolescent girls—particularly in the middle adolescent years—list more friends than boys do, and girls are more likely to mention intimacy as a defining aspect of close friendship. In interviews, adolescent girls express greater interest in their close friendships, talk more frequently about their intimate conversations with friends, express greater concern about their friends' faithfulness and greater anxiety over rejection, and place greater emphasis on emotional closeness in their evaluation of romantic partners. Girls are more likely than boys to make distinctions in the way they treat intimate and nonintimate friends and to fight about relationships; girls prefer to keep their friendships more exclusive and are less willing to include other classmates in their cliques' activities (Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993; Raffaelli, 1997). In conversations, girls are more collaborative, whereas boys are more controlling (Strough & Berg, 2000). In situations in which people need help, girls are more likely to provide it than boys (Van Rijsewijk, Dijkstra, Pattiselanno, Steglich, & Veenstra, 2016). And girls are better than boys at seeing things from the perspective of others, especially, others who are less fortunate (Tucker Smith, Shepperd, Miller, & Graber, 2016). When self-disclosure is used as the measure of intimacy, boys' friendships with other boys aren't comparable to girls' friendships with other girls until late in adolescence, if at all. And girls are more sensitive and empathic than boys, especially in knowing when their friends are depressed or comforting them when they are distressed (Swenson & Rose, 2003; Van der Graaff et al., 2014). One reason girls are more likely than boys to confide in friends is that girls expect that self-disclosure will make them feel better, whereas boys expect it to be a waste of time that will make them feel "weird" (Rose et al., 2012). Girls value friendships characterized by emotional support and concern; boys place a premium on having fun (Rose & Asher, 2017). In these very numerous—and very important—respects, the expression of intimacy is more advanced among adolescent girls than among boys (Buhrmester, 1996). Although this carries many advantages for girls, it also carries some liabilities. Girls' mental health is more positively affected than boys' when things are going well with their friends, but girls suffer more when things are going poorly (Flook, 2011). Girls also are more likely than boys to spend excessive time discussing each other's problems—something called co-rumination. Co-rumination, often done in the context of discussing problems with romantic relationships, turns out to be a double-edged sword, especially for girls—it brings friends closer, but it also contributes to depression and anxiety. Co-rumination among depressed adolescent girls is especially toxic. In fact, co-rumination makes anxiety and depression "contagious," transmitting symptoms between the pair of individuals, either because listening to someone's problems is itself distressing (Smith & Rose, 2011) or through "emotional mimicry," where one person unconsciously takes on the feelings of another (Schwartz-Mette & Rose, 2012). Among boys, co-rumination also improves friendships, but does not increase depression or anxiety as much or as consistently as it does among girls (A. J. Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007), because girls are more likely to get upset when they hear that their friends are having problems (Smith & Rose, 2011) and because boys are more likely to also use humor when they are discussing problems with each other, which draws them closer (Rose, Smith, Glick, & Schwartz-Mette, 2016). This doesn't mean that adolescents should avoid talking to friends about their feelings and problems—they just need to keep it in check and focus on gaining insight into the source of the problem, rather than just sitting around and brooding about it (Bastin, Vanhalst, Raes, & Bijttebier, 2018). Adolescents also have to be careful not to engage in too much "negative feedback seeking" (asking other people to verify their flaws, as in, "My voice is so annoying, right?"). Too much of this leads to rejection by others, which then only makes people feel even worse (Borelli & Prinstein, 2006). There also are interesting sex differences in the nature of conflicts between close friends during adolescence. Boys' conflicts are briefer, typically over issues of power and control (such as whose turn it is in a game), more likely to escalate into physical aggression, and usually resolved without any explicit effort to do so, often by just "letting things slide." Boys are far less likely than girls to become jealous of their friends developing friendships with others (Rose & Asher, 2017). Girls' conflicts, in contrast, are longer, typically about some form of betrayal in the relationship (such as breaking a confidence or ignoring the other person), and only resolved when one of the friends apologizes (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006; Raffaelli, 1997). When friendships end, girls are more adversely affected than boys by the loss of the relationship.

Changes in the Nature of Friendship

When asked what makes someone a friend, both children and adolescents mention things like sharing, helping, and common activities, but not until early adolescence do people mention things like self-disclosure, common interests, similar attitudes and values, or loyalty. In childhood, friendship is defined by companionship; it is not until adolescence that intimacy is a part of the definition (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). The fact that conceptions of friendship come to place greater weight on things like intimacy, loyalty, and shared values and attitudes during early adolescence is consistent with Sullivan's theory. As adolescents' needs for intimacy increase, so does the emphasis they place on intimacy as an important component of friendship. The findings are also consistent with what we know about other cognitive changes during early adolescence. Compared to children, adolescents are better at thinking about abstract concepts such as intimacy and loyalty, and their judgments of others are more sophisticated, more psychological, and less tied to concrete attributes like how they look or the things they own.

The Impact of Dating on Adolescent Development

When considering the impact of dating on adolescents' development and mental health, it is important to differentiate between group and couple activities. Participating in mixed-sex activity in group situations—going to parties or dances, for example—has a positive impact on the psychological well-being of adolescents, because at this stage of development, participating in these activities is status enhancing. The impact of more serious dating is complicated and depends on the adolescent's age. Early starters (those who enter into dating relationships well before their peers) and late bloomers (those who do not have a romantic relationship until young adulthood) may both be at risk, although for different reasons and with different consequences. This is not to say that dating is not a valuable interpersonal experience for the adolescent, just that its benefits may only accrue among teenagers who begin dating at a certain age (Neemann et al., 1995).