Adolescence and Adulthood: Completing
the Cycle
Whereas opposite-sex interactions are infrequent
in childhood, they increase during adolescence.
Much of this increase is due to the emergence of ro-
mantic attraction, which is a product of both biology
(i.e., pubertal maturation) and societal standards. Ad-
olescent dating can be both a positive and negative so-
cializing influence—it can be a source of intimacy,
expanded social competency, and heightened self-
esteem and peer status, but it can also be a source of
jealousy, abuse, and damage to self-esteem. Adoles-
cent romantic relationships are based upon many of
the same principles as children’s friendships (such as
mutual liking, positive behavior, and proximity seek-
ing), but physical attractiveness also becomes impor-
tant in the selection of romantic partners. Although
the rule that opposites attract may sometimes apply,
adolescent romantic relationships (like childhood
friendships) are typically characterized by similarity
in race, academic achievement, activities, attitudes,
and physical attractiveness.
In adolescence there is also an increasing desire
for autonomy—of separating from parents and be-
coming an independent adult. This desire may lead
to heightened family conflict (e.g., arguments about
time spent with peers) and defiant behaviors (e.g., af-
filiation with antisocial peers and engagement in de-
linquent activities). These manifestations of
autonomy striving have resulted in the frequent use
of the term ‘‘adolescent storm’’ in referring to this
age. The intensity of this storm, however, is heavily
influenced by parenting styles (e.g., authoritative par-
enting is associated with less problematic autonomy
development), family characteristics (e.g., single-
parent and divorced families may impede autonomy
or intensify conflict), peer relations (e.g., dating and
involvement with peers are frequent sources of con-
flict), cultural values (e.g., the importance placed on
autonomy and deference to parents affect the occur-
rence and expression of conflict), and generational
differences (e.g., differences between parents and
children in beliefs about appropriate behavior may be
a frequent source of conflict). Healthy individuation
involves a gradual shifting of balance between auton-
omy and connectedness with parents—of gaining in-
dependence while maintaining quality relationships
with parents.
The importance of romantic relationships and in-
dividuation during adolescence is congruent with
events common in adulthood—marriage and begin-
ning one’s own family. The characteristics of these re-
lationships are based upon previous social learning.
Adults often interact within their romantic relation-
ships in a manner similar to how their parents inter-
acted with each other, because as children they
observed these interactions. Direct experiences with
parents and peers also affect these relationships. For
example, securely attached children are more likely
to be securely attached with their spouses in adult-
hood, and childhood friendships based on intimacy
and trust are likely to foster these types of relation-
ships with later romantic partners. These past experi-
ences also influence parenting behavior. Thus, the
familial environment in which a child is raised is to
some extent replicated in the environment these
adults provide for their children, though relations
with peers and romantic partners modify this conti-
nuity.Limitations, Controversies, and Future
Directions
Despite all that is known about social develop-
ment in the home and the peer context, there is still
much to be learned about the bidirectional influences
across these two contexts. The works of Ross Parke
and Gary Ladd have illuminated some of the linkages
from the home to the peer group. For instance, it is
known that secure attachment is associated with peer
acceptance and quality friendships, while insecure
(avoidant or resistant) attachment is related to rejec-
tion, having fewer friends, and involvement in ag-
gression (either as the aggressor or victim). Social
development in the home appears to contribute to so-
cial outcomes with peers through the development of
social competence (or incompetence). The impact of
the peer context on social behavior in the home, how-
ever, is less well known. Previous studies have too
often been concurrent (i.e., examining factors in the
home and peer group at the same time), preventing
the elucidation of temporal primacy (i.e., did home
factors precede behavior and status in the peer group,
or vice versa?). Researchers have recognized this limi-
tation, and future longitudinal research will likely
provide answers to this ambiguity.
Judith Harris challenged the notion that parent-
child interactions affect social development outside of
the home context. Based upon the premise that so-
cialization in dyads (e.g., parent-child, child-friend)
does not generalize beyond that dyad, Harris pro-
posed that the primary source of socialization is the
peer group. According to Harris, parents’ influence
is limited to the selection of the child’s peer group
(e.g., attending a particular school, affiliating more or
less with one’s racial or ethnic group). As might be ex-
pected, this proposition has elicited a great deal of
controversy, and has been criticized by some develop-
mental researchers; perhaps it has also prompted re-
searchers to more carefully consider threats to their
assumptions of socializing influences.380 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT