True Love Waits?

A Sibling-Comparison Study of Age at First Sexual Intercourse and

Romantic Relationships in Young Adulthood
Author(s): K. Paige Harden
Source: Psychological Science, Vol. 23, No. 11 (NOVEMBER 2012), pp. 1324-1336
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological Science
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23484535
Accessed: 18-05-2019 21:31 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc., Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Psychological Science

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I ÂSSQi
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Research Article

Psychological Science
23(11) 1324-1336
True Love Waits? A Sibling-Comparison ©The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:

Study of Age at First Sexual Intercourse sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1 177/0956797612442550

and Romantic Relationships in Young

http://pss.sagepub.com

(DSAGE
Adulthood

K. Paige Harden
The University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

This study tested whether the timing of first sexual intercourse in adolescence predicts romantic outcomes in
including union formation, number of romantic partners, and relationship dissatisfaction. Participants were 1
sibling pairs from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, who were followed from adolescence
16 years) to young adulthood (mean age = 29 years). The timing of participants' first sexual intercourse was class
(at age 14 or earlier), on time (between the ages of 15 and 19), or late (at age 19 or older). Compared with early
age at first sex, late age at first sex was associated with decreased odds of marriage or nonmarital cohabitation
romantic partners in adulthood. Among individuals who had married or cohabited with a partner, late timing of
associated with significantly reduced levels of relationship dissatisfaction, even after controlling for genetic and
differences between families (using a sibling-comparison model), demographic outcomes in adulthood, an
in dating during adolescence. These results underscore the contribution of a life-span approach to our un
romantic relationships.

Keywords
adolescent development, behavior genetics, relationship quality, sex

Received 9/8/1 I; Revision accepted 2/17/12

The attainment of sexual maturity is one of the defining devel- The few empirical studies examining the adult correlates of
opmental processes of adolescence. Much psychosocial adolescent sexual activity have come from sociologists, who
research on the timing of sexual development has focused on have shown that earlier sexual activity in adolescence is asso
the immediate consequences of early age at first sexual inter- ciated with strikingly higher rates of nonmarital cohabitation,
course for adolescents' physical and mental health, such as more rapid transitions to cohabiting relationships following
risk for sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy, first sexual intercourse, earlier age at first marriage, higher
depression, and delinquency. Adolescents' involvement in rates of nonmarital pregnancy, and higher rates of marital dis
sexual relationships may also have long-term implications solution (Raley, Crissey, & Muller, 2007; Teachman, 2003;
for psychosocial functioning beyond adolescence. A number Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). The sociological evidence has
of current "marriage promotion" policies are guided by the been interpreted in terms of the accumulation of social and
proposition that adolescents' romantic and sexual relation- educational capital: Earlier sexual initiation, particularly if it
ships provide formative experiences that influence the quality results in a pregnancy, may disrupt educational attainment, as
of marital relationships in adulthood (Karney, Beckett, Col- well as the relative socioeconomic security and improved
lins, & Shaw, 2007). However, the empirical research examin- occupational conditions that typically accompany high levels
ing this proposition has been limited. In the research reported of education (Frisco, 2008; Schvaneveldt, Miller, Berry, &
here, I used longitudinal sibling-comparison data to examine
whether the timing of sexual initiation during adolescence
r- r- i ' r ■ i Corresponding Author:
predicts patterns of union formation and satisfaction With K. Paige Harden,
romantic relationships during young adulthood (i.e., the late Austin,TX
20s). E-mail: harden@psy.utexas.edu

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Timing of First Sex 1325

Lee, 2001). Moreover, sexual activi

lescence may decrease individual
whereas sexual abstention may bo
conservatism. In turn, educatio
advantage, and high levels of relig
ciated with stable forms of uni
marital satisfaction (Bradbury,
ger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999; Mah
war, & Swank, 2001; Thornton,
Wilcox, Chaves, & Franz
In addition to studies of adoles
there is an emerging literature
adolescent dating relationships
& Furman, 2009). From a social-
relationships in adolescence are
munication and emotion-regulat
Seiffge-Krenke (2003) posited that
ment in dating affords more opp
produces better outcomes: "Sheer
involvement Participants
provides the individua
that ensure a positive romantic ou
Madsen and Collins (2011) found
partners in adolescence was associa
interactions with romantic part
hood. In addition, it is unclear wh
dating generalize to sexual experie
ers lose their virginity in the con
adolescents who are in serious dati
likely to be sexually active, there
abstain from sex, as well as teens
ing relationships (Harden & Mendi
& Longmore, 2006; Manning, Lo
One study showed that, controllin
relationships during adolescence, i
ally active in adolescence reported
tic partners by emerging adulth
have married or cohabited (M
Parsing the association between s
cence and romantic relationships in
plicated by the possibility of no
different environmental experien
based on genetic factors (gene-
Accordingly, in the study repor
data on the timing of sexual deve
tionships in young adulthood that
dinal study of sibling pairs. This
controlled for both genetic- and e
variables that are shared by sibling
and that might otherwise confoun
timing of first sex. Although gen
twin siblings and aspects of the f
between siblings (e.g., parental
trolled in a sibling-comparison
offers a rigorous alternative to th
family correlational design (Dick

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1326 Harden

Analyses fo
Wave IV, wh
= 29.1 years,
Of the 3,298
able for 2,67
these partici
ing 980 indiv
individuals
intact marri
their relationship dissatisfaction. had not subsequently married (yes: 49.3%, no: 50.4%). The
sibling-pair correlations (expressed as phi coefficients) were
•21 (p < .05) for having married and .18 (p < .05) for having
Measures
cohabited.

Timing of first sexual intercourse. At Waves I and II, par

ticipants reported whether they had ever had vaginal inter- Number of romantic partners. At Wave IV, participants
course and, if so, in what month and year they had had sex for reported how many people they (a) had married, (b) had
the first time. From these reports, age at first sexual intercourse cohabited with for more than a month, (c) had impregnated or
(in years) was calculated. At Waves III and IV, participants been impregnated by, (d) were currently romantically involved
were asked whether they had ever had vaginal intercourse and, with, and (e) had been romantically involved with for at least
if so, how old they had been (in years) when they first had 6 months since 2001. All categories were mutually exclusive;
sex. As in previous studies using this data set (e.g., Harden, for example, participants were asked to not count people they
Mendie, Hill, Turkheimer, & Emery, 2008), to minimize tele- had married when counting the number of people they had
scoping, analyses used the age at first sex from the earliest lived with. Values for these five categories were summed to
wave in which the participant reported having had sex. For produce a total number of romantic partners (possible range =
example, if an adolescent reported having had sex for the first 0-100, M = 2.73, SD = 3.75). The sibling-pair correlation for
time at age 13 in Wave I and at age 14 in Wave II, the reported number of romantic partners (log-transformed to reduce posi
age from Wave I was used. If nonvirgin participants reported tive skew) was .22 (p < .05).
an age at first sex that was likely prepubertal and possibly non
consensual (11 years of age or younger), their data were coded Relationship dissatisfaction. At Wave IV, participants who
as missing; hence, the measure of age at first sexual inter- were in an intact marriage or cohabiting relationship corn
course ranged from 11 to 30 years (M= 16.85 years, SD = pleted seven items assessing their satisfaction with the rela
2.82). Participants' age at first sexual intercourse was classi- tionship ("We enjoy doing even ordinary day-to-day things
fied as early (before age 15; n = 766,23.2%), on time (between together"; "I am satisfied with the way we handle our prob
15 and 19 years of age; n= 1,988, 60.3%), or late (after age 19; lems and disagreements"; "I am satisfied with the way we
n = 540, 16.4%). (By "on time," I mean only that losing one's handle family finances"; "My partner listens to me when I
virginity between the ages of 15 and 19 is normative for need someone to talk to"; "My partner expresses love and

Table I. Sample Sizes and Mean Age at First Sexual Intercourse for Sibling Pairs Concordant and Discordant for
Timing of First Sex

Sample size

Timing and within-pair concordance Mean age at first sexual

of timing of first sex Total sample Males Females intercourse (years)

Early 766 (23.2%) 440 (26.9%) 326 (19.6%) 13.2 (0.96)

Concordant 309 (9.4%) 199 (12.2%) 110(6.6%) 13.3 (0.90)
Discordant 457 (13.9%) 241 (14.7%) 216 (13.0%) 13.0(1.01)
On time 1,988 (60.3%) 924 (56.5%) 1,064(64.0%) 16.7 (1.28)
Concordant 1,363 (41.3%) 614(37.5%) 749 (45.1%) 16.7(1.26)
Discordant 625 (19.0%) 310(18.9%) 315 (19.0%) 16.8 (1.32)
Late 540 (16.4%) 271 (16.6%) 269 (16.2%) 21.8 (1.99)
Concordant 208 (6.3%) 96 (5.9%) 112(6.8%) 22.1 (2.14)
Discordant 332 (10.1%) 175 (10.7%) 157 (9.5%) 21.6(1.88)

Note: Values in parentheses in the right-most column are standard deviations.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Timing of First Sex 1327

affection to me"; "I am satisfi

my partner to be faithful to
Responses were made using Li
agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). S
summed to form a composite sc
sible range = 0-28), with higher
satisfaction with the relationsh
strongly positively skewed, and
item was 0, indicating no dissat
relation for relationship dissa
reduce positive skew) was .08 (p < .05). observations nested within sibling pairs.
Models were estimated in three steps. First, I estimated the
Dating involvement and physical characteristics during phenotypic association between timing of first sex and
adolescence. At Wave I, adolescents were asked whether tionship outcomes,2 without using statistical controls
they had had a "special romantic relationship" with anyone in family-based information (but correcting for nonindepende
the last 18 months; if their response was "yes," they were clas- of observations). This association is analogous to the "ra
sified as being in a dating relationship. Adolescents who association that would be observed in a sample of unrel
denied having a special romantic relationship but reported that persons. Second, I constructed pair-level averages for ea
they had told another person (who was not a family member) first sex and for late first sex by averaging the scores of
that they "liked" or "loved" him or her and had held hands lings in each pair, which resulted in pairwise variables with
with and kissed this person were also classified as being in a values of 0 (e.g., neither sibling's timing of first sex was earl
dating relationship. Involvement in dating was reported by .5 (e.g., one sibling's timing of first sex was early), or 1 (e.g
63.6% of adolescents. In addition, the interviewer at Wave I both siblings' timing of first sex was early). I also construc
rated each adolescent on three measures of attractiveness: individual-level deviation scores by subtracting the pair
grooming (using a scale from 1, very poorly groomed, to 5, average from each individual's score, which resulte
very well groomed), physical attractiveness, and attractiveness individual-level variables with values of-.5 (e.g., the indi
of personality (using scales from 1, very unattractive, to 5, ual's timing of first sex was not early, but that of his or h
very attractive). Scores for these items were summed (M = sibling was), 0 (e.g., the individual and his or her sibling wer
10.6, SD = 2.01). Finally, adolescents reported their height (in concordant for early timing of first sex), or .5 (e.g., the
feet and inches) and their weight (in pounds); these were used vidual's timing of first sex was early, but that of his or
to calculate body mass index (BMI; M = 22.4 kg/m2, SD = sibling was not).
4.45). On the basis of previous research with this data set The second, family-based set of analyses used these pa
(Halpern, King, Oslak, & Udry, 2005; Halpem, Waller, wise averages and individual-level deviation scores as pr
Spriggs, & Hallfors, 2006), I included attractiveness and BMI tors. The effect of the pairwise average is the between-fam
in my analyses as indices of an adolescent's opportunity for effect, indicating whether relationship-based experiences in
sexual activity. adulthood differ between members of families in which at
least one sibling's first sex was early or late and me
Demographic factors in adulthood. At Wave IV, partici- families in which all siblings' fir
pants reported their annual household income, using a scale this association is confounded by
from 1 (less than $5,000) to 12 ($150,000 or more; M= 7.94, selection factors that vary between
corresponding to approximately $40,000-$49,000; SD = individual-level deviation is the w
2.66). Participants also reported whether they had completed ing whether siblings who differ in
high school (graduated with a high school diploma, earned a significantly different experience
high school equivalency degree, or earned another certificate hood. Unlike the between-family
of completion; yes: 94.1%, no: 5.9%) and whether they had effect controls for genetic and env
completed college (attained a bachelor's degree or higher; yes: that are shared by siblings
23.6%, no: 76.4%). Finally, they rated their degree of reli- thus constitutes a stronger te
giousness by responding to five items assessing frequency of between the timing of first sex
attendance at religious services and other religious activities, adulthood.
importance of religious faith, frequency of private prayer, and Third, I added a number of st
reliance on religious beliefs for help. Responses were made els, including variables relevant to
using 5-point scales, with higher scores indicating greater reli- for sexual activity in adolesce
giousness (Cronbach's a = .86). Scores for these items were involvement in dating) and de
summed to produce a composite religiousness score (M = hood (religious participation,
11.41, SD = 6.14). household income). The key question to be addressed using

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1328 Harden

these models
of first sex
were included in the model. course was early or on time. However, this lack of romantic
and sexual involvement does not appear to have been due to
unattractiveness. On average, males who lost their virginity
Results
late were rated by interviewers to be as attractive as males who
Phenotypic analyses lost their virginity on time and more attractive than early ini
tiators. Females who lost their virginity late were rated to be
Results from the phenotypic analysis are summarized in Table more attractive, on average, than those who lost their virginity
2. As illustrated in Figure 1, for both males and females who either early or on time. Finally, males who reported early first
experienced late first sex, the likelihood of ever having cohab- sex had the highest average BMI, whereas females whose first
ited with a nonmarital partner was substantially reduced. In sex was on time reported the lowest average BMI.
contrast, for both males and females who experienced early
first sex, the likelihood of ever having cohabited with a non- Associations between timing of first sexual intercourse
marital partner was significantly increased, and among females and demographic factors in adulthood. Consistent with
who experienced early first sex, the odds of ever having mar- previous findings, our results revealed a broad array of demo
ried were reduced. Both males and females who experienced graphic differences among the early, on-time, and late groups,
early first sex reported an increased number of romantic part- As shown in Figure 3, African American adolescents, Native
ners, whereas males and females who experienced late first American adolescents, and adolescents of "other" races and
sex reported a reduced number. Finally, among both males and ethnicities were the most likely to report early timing of first
females currently in a marriage or cohabiting relationship, late sex (31%, 33%, and 36%, respectively), whereas White ado
timing of first sex was associated with reduced levels of rela- lescents were the least likely to report early timing of first sex
tionship dissatisfaction, with a small but significant effect size (19%). Asian Americans were the most likely to report late
(Cohen's d ~ 0.3). timing of first sex (30%), and African American and Native
American adolescents were the least likely to report late
ing of first sex (9% and 4%, respectively).
Sibling comparisons plus statistical covariates
Figure 4 presents the remaining associations between
Associations between timing of first sexual intercourse ing of first sex and demographic variab
and sexual opportunity during adolescence. As shown in these associations by race-ethnicity to d
Figure 2, individuals who initiated sex after adolescence were are not artifacts of racial-ethnic differenc

Table 2. Phenotypic Associations Between Age at First Sex and Relationship Outcomes in Early Adulthood

Group
Group Effect Effect size
size

Early
Early vs. on-time Late vs. on-time
vs. on-time Late
Relationship
Relationship outcome
outcome Early
Early first On-time
first sex first sex first
sex On-time Late first
sex sex first sex
Late first first
sex first
sex first sex
sex

Ever
Ever married
married(%)
(%)
Males
Males 47.1
47.1 47.2 47.2
43.2 OR43.2
=1.000ROR
= 1.00 = OR = 0.83
0.83
Females
Females 47.0
47.0 57.0 51.2
57.0 OR 51.2
= OR = OR
0.70* 0.70* = 0.79
OR = 0.79
Ever cohabited with

partner (%)
Males
Males 62.962.9
52.0 26.7
52.0 OR =1.51*
26.7 0R=
OR 1.51* = 0.37*
OR = 0.37*
Females
Females 65.0
65.0 53.4 22.4
53.4 OR 22.4
=1.59*0R =
OR1.59* = 0.26*
OR = 0.26*
Mean
Meannumber of number of
romantic
romanticpartners partners
Males
Males 4.05 (7.75) 3.13 (4.45)
4.05 (7.75) 3.13 (4.45) 1.65 1.65
(1.51) d = 0.17*
(1.51) d = O.I7* d = -0.38*
d = -0.38*
Females 3.12 3.12
Females (1.92)
(1.92) 2.59 2.59
(2.30)
(2.30) 1.561.56
(1.18)
(1.18) d = 0.23* d
d = 0.23* d = -0.48* = -0.48*

Relationship
dissatisfaction

Males
Males 13.4 (5.21
13.4 (5.21)) 13.3 13.3
(5.54)
(5.54) 11.9
11.9(4.80)
(4.80) d = d 0.02
= 0.02 d = -0.26*
d = -0.26*
Females
Females 14.314.3
(6.82)
(6.82) 13.813.8(6.38)
(6.38) 11.9 (5.19) d =d =0.07
11.9 (5.19) 0.07 d = -0.31*
d = -0.31*

Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Data for males and females were analyzed separate
faction ranged from 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating greater dissatisfaction. OR = odds ratio.
*p < .05.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Timing of First Sex 1329

Males
Males -a-
-a- Females
Females¿Males
Males -o-
-o- Females
Females
70 1
60 -
I |70 70
i£
60 60
50 -
^^50 50
40 -
30 -
g|40 40
"o 30 -
CD
20 - g
S 20
10 - £ io M
o
0- —, " 0
o
Early On Time Late > Early On Time Late
Timing of First Sex Timing of First Sex

p Males Males -o- Females

-o- Females Males
Males -o-
-o- Females
Females
8 145 i-L 52 4.5« 4.5ii
CO
c 14.0 - 4.0
4.0- -
e
-e

I >3,
CO
Q_
Q_ 3.5
3.5- -
3.0
3.0- -
1 13.0
CO
2.5
2.5- -

£ 12.5
o
o 2.0
I
Q. 1.5
Icz 12.0 -
CO
c
^
^ CD
a5 1.0
1.0-Q
o 11.5
E 0.5
CD 11.0 1 1 1 ^ 0.0
CC
Early On Time Late Early On Time Late
Timing of First Sex Timing of First Sex

Fig. I. Union formation, number of romantic partners, and relationship dissatisfaction in young adulth
timing of first sex. Scores for relationship dissatisfaction ranged from 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating g
dissatisfaction.

first sex was associated with higher educational attainment, Because the pattern of associations with timing of first sex
particularly among White and Asian American individuals, was highly consistent across males and females in the pheno
Later first sex was also associated with higher household typic analyses, subsequent sibling comparisons combined
income and greater religiousness in adulthood. males and females into a single set of analyses but included

•Males
Males -o-
-o- Females
Females Males
Males -o-
-o- Females
Females -s- Males
Males Females
Females
11.2 24.0
24.0 90 -,
o
O
CO g
g 80
80
11.0 23.5
23.5 H
CO
CO
CD
I 70
10.8 H Ü 23.0
23.0
"I 60 -
- 50
g 10.6 § 22.5
22.5 -- O)

ti
CO 40
g 40
_aj
_CD

5 10.4 H o
•g 22.0 -
22.0 Q
□ 30
30
<

21.5
21.5- -
"Í2020
g
S 10-2 CJ

O 1 10
_aj
o
10

< 10.0 21.0

21.0 -o 0
<
Early On Time Late Early On Time Late Early On Time Late
Timing of First Sex Timing of First Sex Timing of First Sex

Fig. 2. Attractiveness, body mass index (BMI; kilograms/meter2), and involvement in dating relationships during adoles
first sex. Scores for attractiveness ranged from 3 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater attractiveness.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1330 Harden

Timing
Timing of of indicating that the difference between early and on-time initia
First
First Sex Sex tors was due to genetic or environmental confounds that dif
□□Late|_ate fered between families. In contrast, the within-family effect
□□On On
Time Time for late timing of first sex was significant: The odds of non
■^Early
Early marital cohabitation for individuals who had lost their virgin
ity late were almost half (OR = 0.63) those of their siblings
100 -|i
100
who had not. Again, including adult demographic outcomes in
90 -
the model did not change the estimated within-family effect of
§ 8080 --
CD
late timing of first sex.
.9- 70
70 -
0
o

t
60 -
ro 60
cd Number of romantic partners. Results from sibling
Q_
Q_

^ 50
■5 50 H
-| comparison models for number of romantic partners are sum
CD
a> marized in Table 5. Compared with individuals from sibling
g" 40
S" 40 H
pairs concordant for on-time first sex, individuals from sibling

I■ Mill
Mill
I1 30
30 H
1 pairs concordant for early timing of first sex had 1.3 times
£ 20 -
Q. more romantic partners, whereas individuals from sibling
10 -i pairs concordant for late timing of first sex had about half
(0.57 times) the number of romantic partners. There was a sig
0
nificant within-family effect for late timing of first sex, such
White Asian Hispanic African Native Other
American American that for sibling pairs in which one sibling's first sex had been
late and the other's had been early or on time, the later-initiat
Race-Ethnicity
Race-Ethnicity jng individual reported nearly half (0.61 times) the number of
Fig. 3.3.Timing
Fig. Timingofof first
first sexual
sexual intercourse
intercourse as a function
as a function of race-ethnicity. romantic partners as his Or her sibling.
of race-ethnicity.

Relationship dissatisfaction. Results for sibling-comparison

gender as a statistical covariate. Follow-up analyses indicated models of relationship dissatisfaction are summarized in Table
that interaction parameters with gender were consistently non- 6. Because the models used negative binomial regression,
significant (full results are available upon request), so they are parameters are presented as exponentiated regression coeffi
not presented here. cients. Neither the between-family effects nor the within-fam
ily effects of early timing of first sex were significant, which
Marriage. Results from sibling-comparison models of mar- indicates that individuals who lose their virginit
riage are summarized in Table 3. Neither the between-family early (before age 15) and those who lose their virgin
effect nor the within-family effect for early timing of first sex high school (between the ages of 15 and 19) do no
was significantly associated with likelihood of marriage; how- their relationship satisfaction in young adulthood.
ever, both the within-family and between-family effects for significant effect was specific to late timing of fir
íate timing of first sex were associated with decreased odds of pared with their siblings who lost their virginity du
marriage. That is, if only one sibling in a pair had lost his or teens, individuals who delayed sexual intercourse un
her virginity late, that individual's odds of having married adolescence reported 0.81 times as much relationship
were 0.62 times those of his or her sibling. Including statistical faction in their late 20s.
covariates in the models did not change the estimated within
family effect of late timing of first sex. _,
Discussion

Nonmarital cohabitation. Results from sibling-comparison This article presents analyses of longitud
models of cohabitation are summarized in Table 4. The than 1,500 sibling pairs followed fr
between-family effects of both early and late classifications through the end of young adulthood. Two
for timing of first sex were significant. The odds of nonmarital First, the timing of adolescents' first
cohabitation for individuals from families in which at least one dieted the quality and stability of their ro
sibling's first sex had been early were 1.37 times greater than in young adulthood. Although resear
those for individuals from families in which neither sibling's focused on the putative consequences of e
first sex had been early. Even more strikingly, the odds of non- sexual activity, individuals in the curren
marital cohabitation for individuals from families in which at virginity relatively early (before age 15)
least one sibling's first sex had been late were 3 times lower guishable from individuals who lost their v
(OR = 0.31) than those for individuals from families in which adolescence (between the ages of 15 and 19
neither sibling's first sex had been late. Flowever, the within- phenotypic association between early tim
family effect for early timing of first sex was not significant, nonmarital cohabitation did not persist

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Timing of First Sex 1331

White
White -m-
Asian
Asian
White
White
Hi- Asian
Asian
Hispanic African American Hispanic African American
100
70 1
70- 100

60 - 60 H P 98
_ 98

£ 50
50
§§ 96
96-Ih
CD
CD
CD o
m
03 CO
CO

*340o
0
4°H
1 yf .a) 9494
TD
CD

Id b 30 h y/ ^ ■=
30 -a
a)

cl // |j_ 9292
-4—1
Q. as
CL

O
1 2020H-
o
o
90 -\
90
10 -

Early OnTime Late Early OnTime Late

Timing of FirstSex Timing of FirstSex

White
White Asian
Asian White
White -»■Asian
Asian
Hispanic
HispanicAfrican
AfricanAmerican
American-tr-
Hispanic
Hispanic
African
AfricanAmerican
American
15 -i
15 1 75-100
75-100 i
'c/T
14 - 14 - oo
o
<3
O

13 -13 J '"J| 50-75

50-75
c

CD
CD

12 E
o O —^#o
o
o

= ■ / J= 40-50
CD
-E 40-50

- 11 " . J / 1
CD td
CC 11
o

CD
CO CO
O
§.
10 -
10 i / 5
=3
Q.

E E / i 5 30-40
30-40
o
o
5H
9-
<

1 ' ' 25-30

25-30
Early OnTime Late Early OnTime Late
Timing of FirstSex Timing of FirstSex
Fig. 4. Demographic outcomes in adulthood as a function of timing of first sexual intercourse and race-ethnicit
scores ranged from 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater religiousness.

compared, which indicates that this association was due to appears to have been driven not by ea
between-family confounds. In contrast, later timing of first a "risk" factor, but rather by late
intercourse (after age 19) was associated with lower odds of tective" factor.
entering into any type of romantic union in young adulthood Second, the associations betw
and with fewer romantic partners. In addition, among partici- and relationship outcomes in adu
pants who were married or in cohabiting unions, those whose methodological and statistical cont
first sexual intercourse had been late reported significantly siblings who were discordant for ti
less dissatisfaction with their relationship than did individuals pared, delayed loss of virginity (
who had lost their virginity during their teenage years. Thus, significantly associated with decr
although the timing of adolescents' sexual experiences pre- tion. Moreover, this association could
dieted aspects of their relationships in adulthood, this effect differences in educational attainm

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1332 Harden

Table 3. Odds R

Sibling-comparison Sibling-comparison model

Predictor model with demographic covariates

Age 1.27 [1.20,1.32]* 1.24 [1.18, 1.32]*

Female (compared with male) 1.58 [1.33,1.87]*
[1.33,1.87]* 1.49 [1.24, 1.81]*
1.81]*
Minority race-ethnicity
race-ethnicity (compared
(compared with
withWhite)
White)
Asian American 0.85 [0.60, 1.20] 0.61 [0.41,0.92]*
African American 0.31 [0.25,0.39]* 0.26 [0.20,0.34]*
Hispanic 0.80 [0.63,1.01] 0.68 [0.52,0.89]*
Native American 0.94 [0.53,1.69] 1.01 [0.52, 1.96]
Other race 0.91 [0.32,2.42]
1.31 [0.31,5.47]
Attractiveness in adolescence 1.03
—

[
BMI in adolescence 1.01
—

Dating involvem 1.15

—

Completed 0.77
high [
—

Completed
—

college 0.63
Household income 1.20 [1.15, 1.24]*
Religiousness 1.07 [1.06, 1.09]*
Between- vs. within-family effects for timing of first sexual intercourse
Between-family effect, early first sex 1.09 [0 80. 1.47] 1.13 [0.81,1.59]
Within-family effect, early first sex 1.09 [0.80, 1.49] 1.02 [0.72, 1.45]
Between-family effect, late first sex 0.72 [0.54,0.98]* 0.60 [0.43,0.84]*
Within-family effect, late first sex 0.61 [0.44,0.84]* 0.62 [0.43,0.89]*

Note: Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals. Attractiveness, body mass index (BMI), and dating involvement were measured at Wave I.
Completion of high school and college, household income, and religiousness were measured at Wave IV. Between-family effects reflect differences
between sibling pairs in which at least one sibling's timing of first sex was early or late and sibling pairs in which both siblings' first sex had been on
time. Within-family effects reflect differences between siblings from sibling pairs discordant for early or late first sex.
*p < .05.

in adulthood or by differences in dating involvement, BMI, or however, Add Health did not include a sufficient number of
attractiveness in adolescence. Together, the sibling-comparison monozygotic twins for this analysis to have adequate power,
design and use of demographic controls provided a strong test Moreover, the precise mechanisms by which late timing of
of the association between sexual experiences (or lack thereof) first sex is associated with low relationship dissatisfaction
in adolescence and romantic relationships in adulthood. remain unknown. At least two types of explanations, not mutu
Nevertheless, there are methodological limitations to using ally exclusive, are viable. First, late timing of first sex may be
the Add Health sample that are worth noting. Specifically, at the a marker for an intrapersonal characteristic, such as a secure
most recent survey assessment, participants were about 30 years attachment style (Belsky, Houts, & Fearon, 2010; Senchak &
old on average, and only half had married or cohabited with a Leonard, 1992) or strong self-regulatory ability (Moffitt et al.,
romantic partner. Consequently, it remains unclear whether the 2011), that has environmentally mediated effects on both sex
observed associations would persist into middle adulthood, ual delay and relationship quality. Individuals may also differ
Timing of first sex may be a relevant predictor of levels of rela- in their "pickiness" regarding romantic and sexual partners,
tionship dissatisfaction relatively early in life but not neces- such that some individuals are reluctant to enter into or main
sarily of longer-term trajectories of relationship quality or of tain intimate relationships unless those relationships are highly
romantic relationships initiated after early adulthood. Future satisfying. Alternatively, earlier and later timing of first sex
research is necessary to examine how sexual experiences in may result in different interpersonal experiences in adoles
adolescence are related to the quality of romantic relationships cence that influence relationships in adulthood. For example,
across adulthood. In addition, the current analyses used data for an individual who forgoes sex and dating entirely during ado
siblings of various degrees of genetic relatedness, and thus lescence may avoid early experiences of relational aggression
remained confounded by the genetic differences between non- or victimization, which would otherwise have deleterious
twin siblings. An even stronger test would be to examine the effects on relationship functioning in adulthood. In addition,
association between timing of first sex and relationship out- individuals who first navigate intimate relationships in young
comes in young adulthood within only monozygotic twin pairs; adulthood, after they have accrued cognitive and emotional

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Timing of First Sex 1333

Table 4. Odds Ratios From Sibling-

Cohabitation

Sibling-comparison
Sibling-comparison Sibling-comparison
Sibling-comparison model
model
Predictor
Predictor model with covariates

Age 1.00 [0.96, 1.05] 1.01 [0.95, 1.06]

Female (compared with male) 0.98 [0.83,1.16] 1.01 [0.85,1.22]
Minority race-ethnicity (compared with White)
Asian American 0.62 [0.40,0.95]* 0.80 [0.52, 1.22]
African American 1.67 [1.33,2.11]* 1.49 [1.22,1.83]*
Hispanic 1.29 [1.00,1.67] 1.16 [0.92,1.48]
Native American 1.44 [0.78,2.65] 1.24 [0.71,2.18]
Other race 0.64 [0.18,2.32] 0.63 [0.24,1.65]
Attractiveness in adolescence 0.97 [
—

BMI in adolescence 0.99

—

Dating involvem 1.36

—

Completed 0.71
high
—

Completed 0.66
colle
—

Household income 0.91

—

Religiousness 0.95
Between- vs. with
66 1.37
[1.2
Between-family e
1.29
1.25
Within-family [0.
ef
0.22
0.31
[0e
Between-family
0.63
0.55
Within-family [0
ef

Note: Values in br
Wave i. Completio
flect differences b
first sex had been
*p < .05.

Table S. Odds R
Romantic Partners

Sibling-comparison Sibling-comparison
Sibling-comparison Sibling-comparison modelmodel
Predictor
Predictor model with model
covariates
with covariates

Age 1.02 [1.00,1.04]*

1.02 [1.00, 1.04]* 1.02
1.02 [1.00,
[1.00,1.05]
1.05]
Female
Female(compared
(compared
with
with
male)
male) 0.82
0.82 [0.75,0.90]*
[0.75,0.90]* 1.24
1.24 [I.I
[I.I1,1,1.38]*
1.38]*
Minority
Minorityrace-ethnicity
race-ethnicity(compared
(compared
with with
White)White)
Asian American 0.86
0.86[0.71,
[0.71,1.04]
1.04] 0.81 [0.67,0.96]*
0.81 [0.67,0.96]*
African American 1.35
1.35[1.19,
[1.19,1.54]*
1.54]* 1.29
1.29 [1.15,
[1.15,1.45]*
1.45]*
Hispanic 1.04
1.04 [0.93,
[0.93, 1.17]
1.17] 1.04 [0.92, 1.18]
Native American 1.00
1.00 [0.81,
[0.81,1.23]
1.23] 0.99
0.99 [0.80,
[0.80,1.22]
1.22]
Other race 0.93
0.93 [0.67,
[0.67, 1.30]
1.30] 0.76
0.76[0.52,
[0.52,
I.I 1]
I.I 1]
Attractiveness in adolescence 1.01
—

BMI in adolescence 1.00

—

Dating involvem 1.14

—

Completed1.02 [0.88,1.19] high

—

Completed college 0.87

—

Household Income —

0.98
0.99
Religiousness
Between- vs. with
1.30 [105,
Between-family .301.61]* 1.29 [1.01,1.65]*
1.29 [1.0 e
Within-family
Within-family
effect, early first sex I.I 1 [0.99,1.25]
I.I 1.13 [0.99, 11.13
1.28] [0.
ef
Between-family
Between-family
effect, late first sex 0.57 [0.49,0.66]*
0.57 0.68 [0.49,0.95]*
0.68 [0.
e
Within-family
Within-family
effect, late first sex 0.61 P. T0.61
O CO ro -* 0.68 [0.49,0.95]*
0.68 [0.
ef

Note: Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals. Attractiveness, body mass index (BMI), and dating involvement were measured at
Wave I. Completion of high school and college, household income, and religiousness were measured at Wave IV. Between-family effects re
flect differences between sibling pairs in which at least one sibling's timing of first sex was early or late and sibling pairs in which both siblings'
first sex had been on time. Within-family effects reflect differences between siblings from sibling pairs discordant for early or late first sex.
*p < .05.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1334 Harden

Table 6. Expo
Sex and Relat

Sibling-comparison Sibling-comparison model

Predictor model with demographics

Age 1.03 [1.00,1.06]* 1.03 [1.00, 1.07]*

Female (compared with male) 1.05 [0.96,1.16] 1.09 [0.98, 1.20]
Minority race-ethnicity (compared with White)
Asian American 0.82 [0.67,1.00]* 0.85 [0.69, 1.04]
African American 1.16 [1.03,1.31]* 1.15 [1.01,1.31]*
Hispanic 1.10 [0.96,1.26] 1.04 [0.91,1.20]
Native American 1.41 [1.08,1.84]* 1.29 [0.99, 1.68]
Other race 0.95 [0.64, 1.42] 0.81 [0.46,1.43]
Relationship type (marriage vs. nonmarital cohabitation) 0.96 [0.87, 1.06] 0.98 [0.89, 1.08]
Attractiveness in adolescence —
—

0.99
0.99
BMI in adolescence —

1.01
Dating 1.01
involvem
—

[
Completed high 0.91 scho
—

Completed 0.78 coll

—

Household income 0.98

—

Religiousness 0.99 [0.98, 1.00]*

Between vs. within-family effects of timing of first sexual intercourse
Between-family effect, early first sex 1.03 [088. 1.21 ] 0.94 [0.80, I.I 1]
Within-family effect, early first sex 1.13 [0.95,1.35] 1.10 [0.92,1.31]
Between-family effect, late first sex 0.79 [0.66,0.95]* 0.87 [0.73,1.05]
Within-family effect, late first sex 0.75 [0.61,0.93]* 0.81 [0.65,1.00]*

Note: Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals. Attractiveness, body mass index (BMI), and dating involvement were measured at
Wave I. Completion of high school and college, household income, and religiousness were measured at Wave IV. Between-family effects
reflect differences between sibling pairs in which at least one sibling's timing of first sex was early or late and sibling pairs in which both
siblings' first sex had been on time. Within-family effects reflect differences between siblings from sibling pairs discordant for early or late
first sex.

*p < .05.

maturity, may learn more effective relationship skills than indi
viduals who first learn scripts for intimate relationships while
they are still teenagers. These possibilities remain speculative
hypotheses to be explored in future research.
Although indicators of financial and social capital are com
monly integrated into models of relationship quality, sexual
experiences during adolescence are rarely considered. Yet in
the current study, late timing of first sex was nearly as predic
tive of relationship dissatisfaction as having a college degree,
and it was more predictive of relationship dissatisfaction than
a $10,000 change in annual income. Overall, these results
underscore the utility of adopting a life-span approach to the
study of romantic relationships, given that sexual or romantic
experiences in an earlier part of the life span—particularly
adolescence—may help explain the quality and stability of
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared that she had no conflicts of interest with respect
to her authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research used data from Add Health, a program project directed
by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter
S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Add Health is funded by Grant PO 1-HD31921
from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other
federal agencies and foundations. K. Paige Harden is a faculty
research associate of the Population Research Center at the University
of Texas at Austin, which is supported by National Institutes of
Health and National Institute of Child Health and Human

people's relationships in adulthood. Development Grant 5-R24-HD042849.

Acknowledgments Notes

Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara 1. Of the original Wave I participants who were eligible for
Entwisle for assisting with the study's original design. Information follow-up (i.e., who were not deceased, out of the country, or on
on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add active military duty), 80.3% were interviewed at Wave IV. Attrition
Health Web site (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). was due to investigators' inability to locate or contact participant

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Timing of First Sex 1335

(7.79%), Collins, W. A., Welsh,inability

participants' D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent
to co
mental or physical
romantic relationships.
incapacity Annual Review of Psychology,
or 60, 631 lang
pants' refusal to 652.
participate (9.09%), o
(0.28%). Conger, R. D., Rueter,
Participants M. A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999).their
reported Couple resil a
at all assessment ience
waves;
to economic pressure. Journal
thus, of Personality and
in Social man
of first sex could
Psychology,
be 76, 54-71.
properly classif
even if they Dick, D. M., Johnson,
failed toJ. K., Viken, R. J., & Rose, R. J. (2000). Test
participate in
adolescent ing between-family
reported at associations
Wave in within-family
I comparisons.
that he
of first sex Psychological
could beScience, 11, 409—413.
classified as ear
viewed at Frisco, M. L. (2008). Adolescents'
subsequent waves. sexual behavior and academic
Consequ
missing data for attainment.
timing of
Sociology of Education, first
81, 284-311. sex
Brownstein et al. (2011)
Halpem, C. T., King, R. B., Oslak, S.used data
G., & Udry, J. R. (2005). Body o
stance use, and antisocial
mass index, dieting, romance,behavior
and sexual activity in adolescent from
to nonresponse. girls: Relationships
Bias was over time. Journal of Research on Adoles
calculated as
of each behavior cence,
between 15, 535-559. responders
by the nonresponse rate.
Halpern, C. T., Waller, In
M. W., Spriggs, A., almost
& Hallfors, D. D. (2006).
1%. That is, Wave IV
Adolescent predictorsrespondents
of emerging adult sexual patterns. Journal an
markedly of Adolescent
different inHealth, 39, 926.el-926.el0. of
terms their h
lescence. Harden, K. P.,
However, & Mendie, J. (2011). Adolescent sexual activity and
nonresponse was
gender, race-ethnicity,
the development of delinquent
and behavior: socioecono
The role of relationship
controlled for in the
context. Journal
analyses
of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 825-838.
reported
results of these Harden,
analysesK. P., Mendie, J., Hill, J. E., Turkheimer, E., & Emery,
were biasedR. E.
created five multiply
(2008). Rethinkingimputed
timing of first sex and delinquency.
dataJournal set
ing values for of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 373-385. outcomes
relationship
plausible values Harris, K. M.,
that Halpem, C. T., Smolen, A., & Haberstick,
captured the B. uncerC.
values. Each of (2006). Theimputed
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
data Health sets
the Method section, and
(Add Health) twin the
data. Twin Research paramet
and Human Genetics, 9,
set were 988-997.
combined using PROC MIA
effect identified Jacobson,
in K. C., & Rowe, D.
this C. (1999). Genetic and (i.e.,
article environmental th
timing of first influences on
sex) the relationships
was between family connectedness,
essentially u
parameter values school connectedness, and adolescent
reported indepressed mood: Sex dif 3
Tables
ues estimated ferences. Developmental
using multiple Psychology, 35, 926-939.
imputat
depending on theKamey, B. R., Beckett, M. K., Collins,
outcome, and R. L., & Shaw, R. (2007).
remain
.05). Complete parameter
Adolescent romantic relationships
estimates
as precursors of healthy adult
for
imputed data sets marriages:
areA review of theory, research, and
available programs. Santa re
upon
2. Analyses of Monica, CA:
union RAND Corp.
formation (i.e., en
ing relationship) Lahey,
as B.a B., & D'Onofrio, B. M. (2010). All in
function ofthe family:
timinCom
all participants. paring siblings to test causalof
Analyses hypotheses regarding environmental
relationsh
of timing of first influences
sex onusedbehavior. Current Directions inonly
data Psychological Sci
fr
intact marriage orence, 19, 319-323.
cohabiting relations
Madsen, S. D., & Collins, W. A. (2011). The salience of adoles
References
cent romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities
in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21,
Belsky, J., Houts, R. M., & Fearon, R. M. P. (2010). Infant attach
789-801.
ment security and the timing of puberty: Testing an evolutionary
hypothesis. Psychological Science, 21, 1195-1201. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B.
(2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research
on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between reli
in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 964-980. gion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15,
Brownstein, N., Kalsbeek, W. D., Tabor, J., Entzel, P., Daza, E., & 559-596.

Harris, K. M. (2011 ). Non-Response in Wave IV ofthe National LonManning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hook
gitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Retrieved from http://www ing up: The relationship context of "nonrelationship" sex. Jour
.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guidesAV4_nonresponse.pdf nal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459—483.
Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2005). Ado
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than a myth: The developmental signifi
cance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of lescents' involvement in non-romantic sexual activity. Social Sci
Research on Adolescence, 13, 1-24. ence Research, 34, 384-407.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1336 Harden

Meier,
Senchak, M., & Leonard,
A., K. E. (1992). Attachment styles and mari
& A
cence tal adjustment
to among newly wed couples.
younJournal of Social and
dinal Personal
Study Relationships, 9, 51-64. o
50, 308-335. Shulman, S. (2003). Conflict and negotiation in romantic relation
Moffrtt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, ships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and
R. J., . . . Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications
predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the (pp. 109-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 2693-2698. Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the
Raley, R. K., Crissey, S., & Muller, C. (2007). Of sex and romance: risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of
Late adolescent relationships and young adult union formation. Marriage and Family, 65, 444-455.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1210-1226. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Teachman, J. (1995). The influence
Schvaneveldt, R L., Miller, B. C., Berry, E. H., & Lee, T. R. of school enrollment and accumulation on cohabitation and mar

(2001). Academic goals, achievement, and age at first sexual riage in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 60,
intercourse: Longitudinal, bidirectional influences. Adolescence, 762-774.

36, 767-787.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development
from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a develop
mental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Develop
ment, 27, 519-531.
Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabi
tation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilcox, W. B., Chaves, M., & Franz, D. (2004). Focused on the fam
ily? Religious traditions, family discourse, and pastoral practice.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 491-504.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 18 May 2019 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms